AGENDA This Agenda Is Provided for the Assistance and Information of Members of the Public

PUBLIC AGENDA This Agenda is provided for the assistance and information of members of the public.

AGENDA

NOTICE is hereby given that an Ordinary meeting of the Kingborough Council will be held in the Civic Centre, Kingston on Wednesday, 13 December 2017 at 5.30pm

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

QUALIFIED PERSONS

In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports contained in Council Meeting Agenda No. 26 to be held on Wednesday, 13 December 2017 contain advice, information and recommendations given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendations.

TONY FERRIER ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

7 December 2017

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Open Session Page No.

Apologies 2

Confirmation of Minutes of Council Meeting No. 25 held on 27 November 2017 2

Workshops held Since Council Meeting on 27 November 2017 2

Declarations of Interest 2

Transfer of Agenda Items 3

Guidelines for Public Question Time 3

Questions on Notice from the Public 4

Questions Without Notice from the Public 4

Questions on Notice from Councillors 4

1 New Flight Paths Over Kettering and Bruny Island 4

2 Bees 5

3 Budget and Community Involvement 5

4 Convict Stone Wall Repair, Bonnet Hill 6

5 Snug Beach 6

6 Old Vodafone Site, Huntingfield 7

7 Kingston Beach Pontoon 7

8 Delegated Authority Policy 8

Questions Without Notice from Councillors 8

Motions of Which Notice has been Given 8

Petitions Still Being Actioned 8

Petitions Received in Last Period 8

Officers Reports to Planning Authority 9

Delegated Authority for the Period 15 November 2017 to 28 November 2017. 9 ORDER OF BUSINESS (cont.)

Open Session Page No.

DA-2017-437 - Development Application for Caravan Park, Wastewater Facility and Signage at 927 Cloudy Bay Road, South Bruny for Design Carvalho 12

DAS-2015-6 - Application for Subdivision of Four Lots, Balance Lot and Road Lot and Road Upgrade Works at 26 Corbys Road and Adjoining Crown Reserve Road, Kettering for PDA Surveyors 53

Officers Reports to Council 88

Policy on the Establishment of Bushfire Hazard Management Areas on Council Owned and Managed Land 88

Osborne Esplanade One Way Trial and Carparking 99

Public Interest Disclosures Policy and Procedures 105

Waste Management Strategy 137

Snug Oval Play Space Development 173

Update on Kingston Park Development Proposals 194

Information Reports 205

Financial Report for the Period 1 July 2017 to 30 November, 2017 206

Infrastructure Works Progress Report 228

Current and Previous Minute Resolutions 237

Notices of Motion Moved at the Annual General Meeting Held on 2 December 2017 242

Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 243 AGENDA of an Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held at the Kingborough Civic Centre, Kingston on Wednesday, 13 December 2017 at 5.30pm.

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

AUDIO RECORDING

The Chairperson is to direct commencement of the recording.

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

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

The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website.

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS

The Chairman will acknowledge and pay respect to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community as the traditional and original owners and continuing custodians of the land on which we now meet, and acknowledge elders past and present.

ATTENDEES

Councillors:

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

______

Page 1 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Staff:

TITLE NAME

APOLOGIES

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING NO. 25 HELD ON 27 NOVEMBER 2017

MOVED SECONDED

That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 25 held on 27 November 2017 be confirmed.

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

WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE COUNCIL MEETING ON 27 NOVEMBER 2017

DATE PURPOSE 4 December 2017 Kingston Park & Tassal

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

In accordance with Regulation 8 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 and Council’s adopted Code of Conduct, the Mayor requests Councillors to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have, a pecuniary interest (any pecuniary benefits or pecuniary detriment) or conflict of interest in any item on the Agenda.

______

Page 2 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS

Are there any items, which the meeting believes, should be transferred from this agenda to the closed agenda or from the closed agenda to the open agenda, in accordance with the procedures allowed under Section 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

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

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

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

Questions in Writing :

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

Questions asked at the Meeting :

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

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

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

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

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

______

Page 3 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS

1 New Flight Paths over Kettering and Bruny Island

At the Council meeting on 27 November 2017, Cr Bastone asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

“Due to the ongoing protests of residents from Dunalley regarding the new flight path to Hobart from Southern Australia, Air Services Australia has released alternative flight paths. Has the Kingborough Council been consulted by Air Services Australia given that one of these flight paths will have planes flying over Kettering and Bruny Island at a low level?”

Officer’s Response:

Council was not directly consulted by Airservices Australia about potential changes to the Hobart airport flight paths. A handout was previously provided for public information that described four alternative flight paths. The fourth option was one that passed over Kettering, Oyster Cove, Snug and north Bruny Island. Council was not aware of this proposal and the closure date for feedback was 19 November 2017.

Soon after that date, Airservices produced a Review Report that assessed the four options and the public submissions that had been received. In regard to the fourth option, the report states that “there was little written comment received on Alternative 4 but the prevailing view expressed at the community session was that it was an unrealistic option given the area is not currently overflown”.

The conclusion of the report was that Alternative 2 would be implemented as soon as possible. This involves moving further away from Dunalley, Copping and Kellevie than is currently the case resulting in an improved noise outcome for some existing affected areas. This will be implemented in March 2018. As there was no community consensus for this Alternative 2, Airservices will be undertaking an additional longer public consultation process over the next year 12 to 18 months.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager

______

Page 4 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 2 Bees

At the Council meeting on 27 November 2017, Cr Chatterton asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

“We have had a real problem down at Kettering and I have had numerous completes about 40 beehives being on a residential property in Kettering. The bees, when they leave the nest in the morning come out of the nest and poop and when they got to the hills and feed they poop before they go back into the hives and they are making a huge mess on boats and cars and washing etc. Upon talking to staff here, we have no policy or by- law that affects bees, although some Councils to have them. I spoke to the State Government and there is no State Government by-law affecting bees but there is a code of conduct that is put out by the Australian Bee Keepers Association and what should happen and also a recommendation of the number of hives that should be on a square meter piece of land. Staff have said to me here that it would probably be a very good idea if we had a by-law or incorporated into a by-law control of bees in residential areas. My question is can we have some sort of report from the Environmental staff and see whether or not we can have some controls for beekeeping in residential areas?”

Officer’s Response:

If Council did determine that it was necessary to control beekeeping within the municipality, then the appropriate mechanism would be by way of the existing Health and Environmental Services By-law 2011. Part 4 of this By-law provides for the “control of animals and poultry”. The City of Hobart’s Health and Environmental Services By-law 2008 includes controls on the “keeping of bee hives”. This By-law is being reviewed and the draft replacement retains some beekeeping controls. The Glenorchy City Council also has within its Animal Management By-law 2014 various controls on beekeeping, particularly within residential areas. There are also other mainland council examples of beekeeping provisions contained within local By-laws. Kingborough Council does receive the occasional complaint about beekeeping in suburban areas and has found these difficult to deal with in the absence of any specific controls. Bees themselves are of course extremely important for crop pollination and the natural environment, and there are major concerns about the global decline in bee numbers. However the placement or number of hives may need to be controlled in more built up areas. Council’s environmental staff will review the options in this regard and whether amendments to the existing By-law are necessary now or can wait until the scheduled review during 2020.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager

3 Budget and Community Involvement

At the Council meeting on 27 November 2017, Cr Bury asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

“My question is a follow up on the question I asked about budget and possible community involvement. The response provided by staff provides a number of suggested possibilities for involvement which I think exclusively were based on electronic media. I don’t have a problem with that at all. But the question is, will we receive the report with recommendations concerning that or do I need to take any further action?”

______

Page 5 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Officer’s Response:

Further investigations will be conducted over the next few months. These investigations will be considering what online forum would be most suitable and any other related implications – such as the need for ongoing moderation of expressed views, how it would be used to obtain comments about other Council initiatives or activities, the benefits of obtaining constructive comment from an informed public and the associated additional costs. These investigations will be conducted over the next two to three months and the results will be reported back to Council.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager

4 Convict Stone Wall Repair, Bonnet Hill

At the Council meeting on 27 November 2017, Cr Wass asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

“My question relates to, several months ago, when DSG advised that they would repair the convict stone wall at the end of the straight on Bonnet Hill and I ask if staff could follow up when the repair work is likely to be undertaken and seeking DSG to have the work completed before Christmas.”

Officer’s Response:

The issue with the wall was reported to the Department of State Growth some time ago and they have now included it within the current third and final stage of road upgrades for enhanced bicycle safety. The contractor undertaking these works is to repair the wall and this should be completed by the end of the 2017 calendar year.

Tony Ferrier- Acting General Manager

5 Snug Beach

At the Council meeting on 27 November 2017, Cr Grace asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

“A question was raised here by one of the Councillors regarding the condition of Snug Beach. It’s appalling. Half the time you can’t get along the beach, most of the beach on the western end of the beach, because of the growth. As I understand from listening to the tape it was said, by Council staff again, that this is being maintained by the environmental group down at Snug. Mr Mayor, I haven’t seen and a lot of other people who have lived there all their lives, haven’t seen any activity for a long, long time down there on that beach. We are wondering, and there are snakes there, there have been reports of snakes, and those infested with blue bottles, those big blue bottle stingers. And we again would like some clarification. Again, in 1967, that was the haven people had to go to that beach to escape the bushfires. Well, I tell you what, I wouldn’t like to be standing on the beach when a bushfire come through, you would get burnt to death in the water with the amount of growth that is there.”

Officer’s Response:

The vegetation along Snug Beach is the result of deliberate action by the Snug Land and Coast Care Group and Council to help stabilise the dunes, slow the rate of coastal erosion ______

Page 6 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 and provide habitat and provide shade trees for the future. There is no infestation of environmental weeds and the area is well covered by native shrubs and ground covers. It is acknowledged that there are a number of wattles growing out over the sand, impeding access at high tide, and it is proposed to trim and prune these in the near future. They were previously trimmed in 2011 because of similar concerns.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager

6 Old Vodafone Site, Huntingfield

Cr Winter has submitted the following question on notice:

What impact has Vodafone leaving Huntingfield had on Council revenue?

Officer’s Response:

Council’s rate revenue from the ex-Vodafone property has declined because the Capital Value was reduced, on appeal, by the Valuer General. The reduction in the Capital Value caused the total annual revenue from the property to decrease by $42,152.50.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager

7 Kingston Beach Pontoon

Cr Winter has submitted the following question on notice:

 Is the Kingston Beach pontoon salvageable?

 Will Council now review the location of the Kingston Beach pontoon?

 Will a pontoon be available at Kingston Beach for use during summer 2017-18?

Officer’s Response:

At the date of writing this response (5 December 2017) the following had been undertaken:

 The pontoon had been removed from the beach and barricaded off in an adjacent car parking area.

 A preliminary assessment had been undertaken by an independent consultant. From this it appears the damage sustained is minor, with no obvious structural issues. It should therefore be salvageable.

 Contact had been made with the supplier/designer of the pontoon seeking answers as to the likely cause of the pontoon being separated from its mooring with a view to providing an improved solution.

The location of the pontoon was carefully chosen based on a number of factors including:

 The protection afforded from the headland and the adjacent seawall against waves

 The required depth of water to ensure that the pontoon can be used safely

 The distance of the pontoon from land to ensure it is accessible by swimmers. ______

Page 7 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 In the recent event, all sections of Kingston Beach were subject to significant swells and there may not have been any better location, however this will be further assessed. It is worthwhile noting that the seawall adjacent to the pontoon was overtopped by the waves and also suffered some damage in the recent event.

It is a priority to re-establish the pontoon this summer period but this will be dependent on the advice received from the supplier/designer as to options available to provide an improved anchoring system for the pontoon.

David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services

8 Delegated Authority Policy

Cr Winter has submitted the following question on notice:

Was Council's 4 December media statement regarding the Kingston Beach pontoon consistent with its recently updated Delegated Authority Policy?

Officer’s Response:

Council’s media statement was prepared and submitted in accordance with Delegated Authority Policy 1.1 which delegates to the General Manager the functions relating to Sec.27(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1993. This section authorises staff to speak to the media in relation to specific program areas where the focus of the story is on the delivery of a particular service or project.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

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

PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED

There are no petitions still being actioned.

PETITIONS RECEIVED IN LAST PERIOD

At the time the Agenda was compiled, no petitions had been received.

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

______

Page 8 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION

Planning Authority Meeting commenced at

OFFICERS REPORTS TO PLANNING AUTHORITY

FILE NO 17.170 DATE 29 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 15 NOVEMBER 2017 TO 28 NOVEMBER 2017.

The following are matters that have received delegated approval from the Manager – Development Services for the period 15 November 2017 to 28 November 2017.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT/USE

DA-2015-87 Mr A Dales 4 Units on proposed lot 2 and 6 units 86 Burwood Drive on proposed lot 5 BLACKMANS BAY DA-2017-116 Mr C Wills Dwelling and change of use of 135 Wolfes Road existing dwelling to ancillary dwelling NEIKA DA-2017-323 G Hills & Partners Architects Dwelling 35a Blowhole Road BLACKMANS BAY DA-2017-329 Mr R Woolley & Mrs B Woolley Change of use from dwelling to 2160 Bruny Island Main Road holiday accommodation GREAT BAY DA-2017-365 DW+A Pty Ltd Extension of living area, carport to 9 Jerrim Place existing dwelling and driveway access KINGSTON BEACH DA-2017-366 Rainbow Building Solutions Garage and two carports 34 Leslie Road KINGSTON DA-2017-374 G Hills & Partners Architects Dwelling 203 Old Station Road LOWER SNUG DA-2017-393 Mr M J Latham Deck extension and conversion of 29 Delta Avenue garage to studio TAROONA DA-2017-406 Another Perspective Dwelling 2 Admiral Court BLACKMANS BAY

______

Page 9 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 DA-2017-413 Miss A Kitto and Mr J Cowen Change of use from shed to cellar 675 Sandfly Road door sales SANDFLY DA-2017-431 Wilson Homes Dwelling 21 Eldridge Drive KINGSTON DA-2017-436 G Hills & Partners Architects Shed 131 Beach Road MARGATE DA-2017-438 Mr D McInnes and Mrs K McInnes Extension to verandah on existing 336 Summerleas Road dwelling KINGSTON DA-2017-439 Mr M R Nichols Shed 62 Mount Pleasant Road KINGSTON DA-2017-440 Ms H Altmann Roof extension over exiting deck 890 Adventure Bay Road ADVENTURE BAY DA-2017-462 Mr R Took Shed 35 Harts Road SNUG DA-2017-481 Michael Cooper & Associates Deck and carport extension and 140 Old Bernies Road alterations to existing dwelling MARGATE

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR LOT SUBDIVISION / BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT / STRATA / STAGED DEVELOPMENT SCHEME/ADHESION ORDER/SEALED PLAN AMENDMENT

DAS-2017-27 Rogerson and Birch Surveyors Boundary adjustment 29 and 31 Taroona Crescent TAROONA STR-2017-27 Mr W Overeem and Stage 2 – Units 4, 5 and 6 Mrs H Overeem 30 Caladium Place BLACKMANS BAY

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT

DAS-2002-23 PDA Surveyors Subdivision of 13 lots and balance – 21 Pothana Road amendment to delete conditions 4 ELECTRONA and 5 relating to contributions for water and sewerage infrastructure. DA-2007-257 Mr W Coad 7 Units (2 existing) – amendment to 5 Parish Lane permit condition 1 alterations to units MARGATE 4 and 5. DA-S-2013-25 Mr A Hamilton Subdivision 1 lot and balance – 35 Blyth Parade amendment to condition 4 retain 6 GREAT BAY trees rather than 7. DA-2017-77 Smeekes Drafting Pty ltd Alterations and additions to existing 120 Snug Tiers Road dwelling – amendment to reduce the SNUG size of the proposed extension.

______

Page 10 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR NO PERMIT REQUIRED

DA-2017-386 Mr J Pashev Change of use from carport to 4 Olivia Court ancillary unit KINGSTON DA-2017-442 DW+A Pty Ltd Extension and renovation 249A Roslyn Avenue BLACKMANS BAY DA-2017-506 Mr A J Will Alterations and additions to living 12 Kingston Heights areas to existing dwelling KINGSTON BEACHs DA-2017-533 G Hills & Partners Architects Dwelling 15 Eldridge Drive KINGSTON DA-2017-528 Mr P Gilby and Mrs M Gilby Additions to existing dwelling 39A Powell Road BLACKMANS BAY DA-2017-544 G Hills & Partners Architects Courtyard and retaining wall 6 Tower Court TAROONA DA-2017-493 Mr D Birch Extensions and alterations to existing 109 Coningham Road dwelling CONINGHAM DA-2017-523 Mr B Gogarty Driveway extension 245 Channel Highway TAROONA

RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That the report be noted.

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

______

Page 11 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 FILE NO DA-2017-437 DATE 15 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER MIA POTTER - PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DA-2017-437 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR CARAVAN PARK, WASTEWATER FACILITY AND SIGNAGE AT 927 CLOUDY BAY ROAD, SOUTH BRUNY FOR DESIGN CARVALHO

Application Number: DA-2017-437 Applicant: Design Carvalho Owner: WSTI Properties Cbbh Pty Ltd

Zoning: Rural Resource

Discretions: Clause 26.2 – Use Table Clause 26.3.1 P1 – Sensitive Use Clause 26.3.2 P1 – Visitor Accommodation Clause 26.3.3 P1 - Discretionary Use Clause 26.4.2 P2 – Setback to side and rear boundaries Clause 26.4.3 P2 – Design – Exterior building surfaces E7.7.1 P1 – Stormwater Drainage and Disposal E17.6.1 P1 – Use of Signs E17.7.1 P1 – Standards for Signs E17.7.1 P2 – Standards for Signs Existing Land Use: Single dwelling No. of Representations: Ten (10) Planning Issues: Visual impact of development on road and adjoining properties, proposed use of site for visitor accommodation, relaxation of side boundary setbacks, onsite wastewater treatment. Recommendation: Approval with conditions

1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

1.1 The Proposal

An application was received for 927 Cloudy Bay Road for a caravan park, wastewater facility and signage. The caravan park includes three caravan spaces, an access driveway, and a caravan wastewater dump point.

The applicant has stated that ‘‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’’ has 3 Airstream®’ caravans that are to be discretely spaced on the site, with parking adjacent in 3 ‘T’ formed spaces along a shared driveway. These parking/camping spaces will be modified cul de sac turning heads as per LGAT standard drawing TSD-R07-v1. The configuration will allow for turning space and parking for up to 2 cars per caravan. The caravans will usually be placed on site but may be moved to other locations owned by ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ as required.

______

Page 12 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The accommodation on site is self-contained and caters for up to 4 guests per caravan, or a total of 12 guests on site. No staff will live on the premises and bookings will be available all year with flexible check in and check out times. Waste management will be undertaken by service staff who will clear and clean the vans between short term rentals. Waste is proposed to be taken to the transfer station at North Bruny by the operator.

The three caravan spaces are each 32m in length, 6.5m wide and will be accessed via a gravel access driveway to each site that will be a minimum of 4m wide. The caravan park has a proposed minimum setback from the wetlands on the property of 50m.

The wastewater facility proposed on site is a Dump Ezy dump point. This will be connected to a dual purpose 5000 litre septic tank, 2 way splitter box and two absorption trenches that are 20m in length and 2.5m in width. The proposed absorption trenches will be positioned a minimum distance of 100m from the wetlands. It is proposed that the wastewater dump site will dispose of the wastewater from the caravans on site, and has been designed to have capacity additional overflow waste water from other Bruny Island Coastal retreat properties should they require relief.

The signage proposed for the development will be located on the gate along Cloudy Bay Road, and will include two signs, one that is 400mm wide and 300mm deep and states ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ and one that is 800mm wide and 200mm deep and states ‘Cloudy Bay Vans’. The proposed signs are white with green graphics and will be located on the gates at the entrance to the property.

The access to the site will also be upgraded as part of the proposal, with a new gate to be installed and a vehicle standing area built to comply with Truck Access to a Rural Property type ‘A’ standards under LGAT Standard Drawing TSD- R05-V1.

1.2 The Site

The site is an existing 33.16 hectare lot with a single dwelling which lies adjacent to the South Bruny National Park coastal reserve in Cloudy Bay. The reserve is Crown Land and managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service. The subject property is vegetated and partially cleared. A wetland runs through the middle of the property. The existing dwelling on the lot is positioned close to the southern boundary. The area of proposed development is an existing cleared area in the site’s northern extent, close to the site frontage along Cloudy Bay Road.

______

Page 13 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

1.3 Background

The application was submitted on 25th September 2017. Council requested further information in regards to bushfire hazard management, the wastewater disposal system and the potential impacts on native vegetation subject to E10.0 Biodiversity Code. Information was provided by the applicant that addressed these matters and demonstrated that the proposed design was able to meet the relevant criteria within the Scheme.

The proposed design did not meet the acceptable solutions under the Rural Resource zone. Therefore, the proposal went through a period of public notification. During this public notification period, ten representations were made regarding the application, with representors expressing a number of concerns and asking for clarification regarding the details of the development application.

Council discussed the matters raised during the advertising period with the applicant and the applicant provided further detail in regard to a number of these matters. This information has been included in responses to representations under Section 3.3 Representations.

2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

2.1 Statutory Implications

The land is zoned Rural Resource under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Visitor Accommodation Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.

The relevant parts of the Scheme are:

 Part 26.0 – Rural Resource Zone

 E5.0 Road and Railway Assets Code

______

Page 14 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  E6.0 Parking and Access Code

 E7.0 Stormwater Management Code

 E10.0 Biodiversity Code

 E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code

 E17.0 Signage Code

 E25.0 Local Development Code

The following discretions apply to the development:

(a) Clause 26.2 – Use Table

(b) Clause 26.3.1 P1 – Sensitive Use

(d) Clause 26.3.3 P1 - Discretionary Use

(e) Clause 26.4.2 P2 – Setback to side and rear boundaries

(f) Clause 26.4.3 P2 – Design – Exterior building surfaces

(g) E7.7.1 P1 – Stormwater Drainage and Disposal

(h) E17.6.1 P1 – Use of Signs

(i) E17.71 P1 – Standards for Signs

(j) E17.7.1 P2 – Standards for Signs

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

2.2 Public Consultation

The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 4/11/2017 to 17/11 /2017). Ten (10) representations were received during the public exhibition period.

The following issues were raised by the representors:

(a) Inappropriate use / development in this location;

(b) Future development on site;

(d) Visual impact of development on road and adjoining properties;

(e) Impacts on natural values from wastewater treatment facility on site;

______

Page 15 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 (f) Impact on natural values on site and in wider area from proposed use of the site;

(g) Details of the wastewater treatment system maintenance;

(h) Domestic animals on site;

(i) Fire risk and bushfire management;

(j) Drainage impacts;

(k) Amenity impacts including traffic, noise and light;

(l) Staff on premises;

(m) Petrol and boat fuels impacting lagoon and associated wildlife;

(n) Increased illegal activity;

(o) Dangerous swimming area;

(p) Aboriginal heritage and consultation with local Aboriginal groups;

(q) Closure of Parks and Wildlife camping ground; and

(r) Compliance;

2.3 Strategic Planning

The relevant strategies associated with the Scheme are as follows:

Zone Purpose Statements of the Rural Resource zone

The relevant zone purpose statements of the Rural Resource zone are to:

26.1.1.2 To provide for other use or development that does not constrain or conflict with resource development uses.

26.1.1.3 To provide for non-agricultural use or development, such as recreation, conservation, tourism and retailing, where it supports existing agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries

26.1.1.4 To allow for residential and other uses not necessary to support agriculture, aquaculture and other primary industries provided that such uses do not:

(a) fetter existing or potential rural resource use and development on other land;

(b) add to the need to provide services or infrastructure or to upgrade existing infrastructure;

26.1.1.5 To provide for protection of rural land so future resource development opportunities are not lost.

______

Page 16 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 26.1.1.3 To ensure development respects and protects the natural and landscape values on the land.

Clause 26.1.2 – Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements

The Scheme details separate Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements for the main towns in the municipal area. There are no Local Area Objectives or Desired Future Character Statements relevant to the assessment of this application.

The application is considered to meet the zone purpose statement of the Rural Resource zone, providing for a tourism use that does not fetter existing or potential agricultural use and development on other land and does not add to the need to upgrade existing infrastructure. It is not anticipated that the proposed use would constrain or conflict with existing or future resource development uses in the area.

The proposal is minor in nature and does not include any permanent structures other than parking bays and those structures associated with a small waste water facility. The proposal does not require vegetation removal and is setback from the wetland on site, which ensures that the development respects and protects the natural landscape values on the land. The lack of permanent structures on site also protects the rural land so that future resource development opportunities are not lost.

As detailed below, the proposal demonstrates compliance with the acceptable solutions within the Rural Resource zone in regards to building height, frontage setbacks, design, setbacks for a sensitive use, setbacks from land zoned Environmental Management and fill and excavation. Where the acceptable solutions cannot be met, the proposal meets the relevant performance criteria or approval conditions have been included in the permit to ensure that the relevant performance criteria are met.

2.4 Zone Standards

The site is zoned Rural Resource under the Scheme. This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:

Clause 26.2 – Use Table

The use class for this development is ‘visitor accommodation’. This use class is discretionary within the Rural Resource zone, with the qualification that the use is for a backpackers hostel, bed and breakfast establishment, camping and caravan park, holiday cabin, overnight camping area or seasonal workers accommodation. As the proposed use for the site is as a caravan park, the proposal is for a discretionary use.

Clause 26.3 – Use standards

Clause 26.3.1 - Sensitive use

Clause A1 of 26.3.1 sets the requirement for a sensitive use (including residential use) being an extension to an existing dwelling, a home-based business or being home-based childcare. The application is for visitor accommodation, which is a sensitive use, but does not meet the qualifications of the relevant acceptable ______

Page 17 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 solutions. Therefore, assessment against the relevant performance criteria (P1) is required.

The performance criteria state that:

A sensitive use must not unreasonably convert agricultural land or conflict with or fetter non-sensitive use on adjoining land having regard to all of the following:

(a) the characteristics of the proposed sensitive use;

(b) the characteristics of the existing or likely non-sensitive use on adjoining land;

(c) setback to site boundaries and separation distance between the proposed sensitive use and existing or likely non-sensitive use on adjoining land;

(d) any characteristics of the site and adjoining land that would buffer the proposed sensitive use from the adverse impacts on residential amenity from existing or likely non-sensitive use.

The proposal will not unreasonably convert agricultural land, having a minor footprint. The proposal will also allow the land to easily be converted back to an agricultural use with minimal alterations to land and on site infrastructure. The proposal will not conflict or fetter non-sensitive uses on adjoining land, with the proposed sensitive use being minor in nature. The land immediately to the north of the subject site is likely to be used for residential purposes, with a subdivision having recently been approved (July 2017) with block sizes that indicate likely residential use (DA-2014-45). The setbacks to site boundaries are considered suitable between the proposed use and any existing or likely non-sensitive uses on adjoining land. The proposal is for visitor accommodation and therefore surrounding uses will not impact on the ‘residential amenity’ of the proposal. However, the uses surrounding the subject site are decreasingly agricultural and instead are being used for residential uses, visitor accommodation or environmental management.

Compliance with clause 26.3.1 (P1) is therefore achieved.

Clause 26.3.2 – Visitor Accommodation

Clause A1 of 26.3.2 sets the requirements for visitor accommodation. The proposal is unable to meet the acceptable solutions as the proposed accommodation is not in existing buildings on site. Therefore, assessment against the relevant performance criteria (P1) is required.

The performance criteria state that:

Visitor accommodation must satisfy all of the following:

(a) not adversely impact residential amenity and privacy of adjoining properties;

(b) provide for any parking and manoeuvring spaces required pursuant to the Parking and Access Code on-site;

______

Page 18 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 (c) be of an intensity that respects the character of use of the area;

(d) not adversely impact the safety and efficiency of the local road network or disadvantage owners and users of private rights of way;

(e) be located on the property’s poorer quality agricultural land or within the farm homestead buildings precinct;

(f) not fetter the rural resource use of the property or adjoining land.

The proposal meets the relevant performance criteria as it will not adversely impact the residential amenity and privacy of adjoining properties. A condition of the permit requires that visual screening through the planting of native vegetation be provided along the boundary with 835 Cloudy Bay Road for the proposed site depth of the development, as well as along the frontage of the property. Furthermore, the proposed caravan parking bays on site are set back over 100m from the side boundary. To reduce impacts on the neighbouring property to the north, a condition has also been included in the permit stating that the proposed wastewater treatment system is to be placed a minimum of 30m from the side boundary with 835 Cloudy Bay Road.

Compliance with clause 26.3.2 (P1) is therefore achieved.

26.3.3 – Discretionary Use

The proposal sets the requirements for discretionary uses. There is no acceptable solution under Clause 26.3.3 A1. Therefore, assessment is required against the performance criteria (P1).

The performance criteria state that:

A discretionary non-agricultural use must not conflict with or fetter agricultural use on the site or adjoining land having regard to all of the following:

(a) the characteristics of the proposed non-agricultural use;

(b) the characteristics of the existing or likely agricultural use;

(c) setback to site boundaries and separation distance between the proposed non-agricultural use and existing or likely agricultural use;

(d) any characteristics of the site and adjoining land that would buffer the proposed non-agricultural use from the adverse impacts on amenity from existing or likely agricultural use.

The proposal meets the relevant performance criteria for the reasons discussed in the response to clause 26.3.1 P1.

Compliance with the clause 26.3.3 P1 is therefore achieved.

______

Page 19 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Clause 26.4 – Development Standards for Building and Works

Clause 26.4.1 – Height

Clause A1 of 26.4.2 sets the requirement of building height to be no more than 8.5m. The proposal has is for caravan pads, an access driveway and a waste water treatment system only. These are minor structures and the development does not include any built form with a height of over 8.5m.

Compliance with Clause 26.4.1 (A1) is therefore achieved.

26.4.2 – Setback

Clause A1 of 26.4.2 sets the requirement for the setback of a building to frontage as no less than 20m. No works within the development, other than the access driveway, will have a setback of less than 20m from the frontage.

Compliance with clause 26.4.2 (A1) is therefore achieved.

Clause A2 of 26.4.2 sets the requirement for the setback of a building from the side or rear boundaries as no less than 50m. The proposal does not include any buildings.

Compliance with clause 26.4.2 (A2) is therefore achieved.

Clause A3 of 26.4.2

Clause A3 of 26.4.2 sets the requirements for building setbacks for buildings for a sensitive use. The proposal is setback greater than 100m from a plantation forest, Private Timber Reserve or State Forest and is setback greater than 200m from land zoned Significant Agriculture.

Compliance with 26.4.2 (A3) is therefore achieved.

Clause A4 of 26.4.2 sets the requirement for a sensitive use to be setback 100m from land zoned Environmental Management. The proposal is setback greater than 100m from land zoned Environmental Management

Compliance with 26.4.2 (A4) is therefore achieved.

Clause 26.4.3- Design

Clause A1 of 26.4.3 sets the requirement for the location of buildings and works to be either within a building area on the title, and addition to an existing building, or

______

Page 20 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 not impact upon native vegetation. The proposal will not impact upon native vegetation.

Compliance with Clause 26.4.3 (A1) is therefore achieved.

Clause A2 of 26.4.3 sets the requirements for external finishes to have a light reflectance value of less than 40 percent. The proposal includes caravan pads, and access driveway and wastewater treatment system only. Therefore, it would generally be considered that this this clause is not considered relevant. However, as it is understood that the applicant will be placing Airstream caravans on the site on a semi-permanent basis, the external colours and finishes of the caravans have been considered.

Airstream caravans are silver in colour and have a metallic finish. The caravans have a light reflectance value of greater than 40 percent. Therefore, if these structures are considered in the visual impacts associated with the application, the acceptable solutions would not be met. It is considered appropriate in this instance to assess the proposal against the relevant performance criteria.

The performance criteria state that:

Exterior building surfaces must avoid adverse impacts on the visual amenity of neighbouring land and detracting from the contribution the site makes to the landscape, views and vistas.

Whilst the proposal is minor in nature, low in the landscape, requires no vegetation removal and will not result in a significant change in the landscape, the colour of the caravans on site may have negative impacts on the visual amenity on neighbouring land. In order to achieve compliance with the relevant performance criteria, a condition has been included in the permit requiring visual screening through the planting of native vegetation on site, both along the site frontage and along the side boundary with 835 Cloudy Bay Road in the vicinity of the of proposal.

Compliance with Clause 26.4.3 (P2) is therefore achieved.

Clause A3 of 26.4.3 sets the requirements for the depth of cut and fill. There is no cut and fill associated with this development. As such this clause is not relevant.

Clause 26.4.4 – Plantation forestry

Clause A1 of 26.4.4 sets the requirements for plantation forestry practices. The application is not associated with planation forestry. As such this clause is not relevant.

______

Page 21 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 2.5 Code Matters

E5.0 Road and Railway Assets Code

The relevant provisions of Code E5.0 –Road and Railway Assets Code have been assessed by Council’s development engineering section and the proposal is consistent with the requirements of all relevant Acceptable Solutions within the Code. Conditions have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued regarding relevant matters.

E6.0 Parking and Access Code

The relevant provisions of Code E6.0 – Parking and Access Code have been assessed by Council’s development engineering section and parking and access provided is considered adequate.

The proposal is consistent with the requirements of all relevant Acceptable Solutions within the Code. Conditions have been provided for inclusion in any permit issued regarding relevant matters.

E7.0 Stormwater Management Code

The relevant provisions of Code E7.0 – Stormwater Management Code have been considered by Council’s development engineering unit. The proposal met all acceptable solutions under all relevant standards other than Clause E7.7.1. Details of this assessment are included below:

Clause E7.7.1 Stormwater Drainage and Disposal

The proposal cannot comply with the Acceptable Solutions (A1) as there is no public stormwater infrastructure for the disposal of stormwater from new impervious surfaces. The proposal was able to meet the relevant Performance Criteria (P1) as the stormwater will be contained on site. Due to the proximity of the proposed development to a nearby wetland on site, a condition has been included in the permit requiring water sensitive urban design in the construction of the driveway, access road and caravan parking bays on site.

Compliance with E7.7.1 (P1) is therefore achieved

E10.0 Biodiversity Code

While the proposal is within the Biodiversity Protection Area, no vegetation removal is proposed as part of the development other than minor clearing of vegetation in a previously cleared and converted area, which is exempt from assessment under the code. The works proposed are located outside the tree root protection zone of any high conservation values trees on the subject land. Therefore this Code is not triggered.

E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code

While the Waterway and Coastal Protection Code overlay is on the subject property, no works are proposed within 100m of the code overlay area. Therefore, assessment under this Code is not triggered.

______

Page 22 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 E17.0 Signage Code

The proposal includes two signs at the front gate of the property that is attached to the front gate. One sign has the wording ‘Cloudy Bay Vans’ and is 800mm wide and 200mm deep. The other sign says ‘‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’’ and is 400mm wide and 4000m deep. Both signs are white with graphics. The proposed signs have been assessed against the code below.

E17.6 Use Standards

E17.6.1 Use of Signs

Clause A1 of E17.6.1 sets the requirements for sign types.

The proposed signs are both ‘wall signs’, which are discretionary within the Rural Resource zone.

Compliance with E17.6.1 (P1) is therefore achieved.

Clause A2 of E17.6.1 sets the requirements for signs being associated to the site to which they are affixed.

The proposed signs relate directly to services provided on site. Compliance with A2 of E17.6.1 is therefore achieved.

A3.

Clause A3 of E17.6.1 sets the requirements for signs with lights, moving parts or changing graphics.

The proposed signs do not include lights, moving parts or changing graphics. Compliance with A3 of E17.6.1 is therefore achieved.

Clause A4 sets the requirements for illuminated signs.

The proposed signs are not illuminated. Compliance with A4 of E17.6.1 is therefore not applicable.

E17.7. Development Standards

E17.7.1 Standards for Signs

Clause A1 of E17.7.1 sets the requirements for permitted signage in a location and compliance with sign standards in relation to sign types.

The proposed signs are discretionary within the Rural Resource zone. Therefore, assessment against the performance criteria (P1) is required.

______

Page 23 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The performance criteria state that:

A sign not complying with the standards in Table E17.2 or has discretionary status in Table E17.3 must satisfy all of the following:

(a) be integrated into the design of the premises and streetscape so as to be attractive and informative without dominating the building or streetscape;

(b) be of appropriate dimensions so as not to dominate the streetscape or premises on which it is located;

(d) not result in loss of amenity to neighbouring properties;

(e) not involve the repetition of messages or information on the same street frontage;

(f) not contribute to or exacerbate visual clutter;

(g) not cause a safety hazard.

The proposed signs are minor in nature and are considered to meet all the relevant performance criteria. They are small signs that will not dominate the streetscape, are constructed of appropriate materials and will not exacerbate visual clutter, cause a safety hazard or result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

Compliance with P1 of E17.7.1 is therefore achieved.

A2.

Clause A2 of E17.7.1 sets the requirements for the number of signs along a street frontage.

The proposal includes two signs of the same sign type along the street frontage and is therefore unable to meet the acceptable solutions. Therefore, assessment against the performance criteria (P2) is required.

The performance criteria state that:

The number of signs per business per street frontage must:

(a) minimise any increase in the existing level of visual clutter in the streetscape; and where possible, shall reduce any existing visual clutter in the streetscape by replacing existing signs with fewer, more effective signs;

(b) reduce the existing level of visual clutter in the streetscape by replacing, where practical, existing signs with fewer, more effective signs;

______

Page 24 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The proposal meets the performance criteria as it minimises any increase in existing level of visual clutter in the streetscape and does not involve the repetition of messages or information.

Compliance with P2 of E17.7.1 is therefore achieved.

Clause A3 of E17.7.1 sets the requirements for signs obscuring or delaying a driver from seeing other signage.

The proposal will not obscure, prevent or delay a driver from seeing a Statutory Sign or a Tourist Information Sign.

Compliance with A3 of E17.7.1 is therefore achieved.

Clause A4 of E17.7.1 sets the requirements for signs that resemble Statutory Signs.

The proposed signs do resemble Statutory Signs. Compliance with A4 of E17.7.1 is therefore achieved.

E25.0 Local Development Code

As the subject property lies adjacent to a coastal reserve, the local development code applies to the proposal. The proposal meets the acceptable solutions under the relevant standard, E25.7.1 Building height in the coastal proximity, as no works or development is proposed with a height over 5m.

3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Internal Referrals

Health

The proposal was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officers for assessment and was found to be exempt from assessment under E23.0 Onsite Wastewater Management Code. However, an assessment under the Onsite Wastewater Management Code was provided by a wastewater consultant as part of the planning submission.

Conditions have been included in the permit regarding the users of the proposed wastewater treatment and the level of use. The wastewater treatment system is to be used strictly by ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ and is not approved for commercial (fee payable) or public use by any other party.

Whilst the wastewater treatment system is not assessable under setback requirements of the Rural Resource zone, as the proposal does not include buildings on site, it is understood that if buildings were included in the proposal, setback requirements would apply to service installations and may apply to this facility. Therefore, in order to protect the amenity of the adjoining property, a condition has been placed on the permit requiring a setback of 30m for the wastewater treatment facility.

The following report has been provided by Council’s Environmental Health Officers regarding this development: ______

Page 25 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The provision of a caravan dump point is required to adequately deal with waste water generated by the holiday accommodation for the development. This system will treat the waste water and dispose of it via a land application area located on the property.

The maximum occupancy for this development will be 12 persons per day.

Domestic wastewater design loadings are calculated at 120 litres per day per person. The expected volume of wastewater for each person in a caravan will be much lower than the 120 litres per day allotted for a residential dwelling. However using this conservative 120 litres per day, the minimum design loading is 12 persons at 120L = 1440L/day, and based on the soil category the minimum absorption area for trenches is 45.6m2

The proposed system has a design loading of 2400 litres per day and an absorption area of 100m2. The proposed system is over engineered in both its daily design loading and the amount of land application area. This will result in a system that will operate effectively and ensure both positive Public Health and Environmental outcomes are achieved.

The system being sized in such a manner will make the event of a spillage or over flow very unlikely as the system will be operating at half of its capacity even if the caravan park remains at peak occupancy 365 days a year.

The land application area is over 100m from any water courses and complies with all setbacks. In the unlikely event of the absorption area failing there is more than enough room on the 33.16ha property for the provision of a secondary disposal area.

Any future increase in caravans on the site could be catered for by additional absorption trenches being added to the system.

The proposed on-site wastewater management system complies with all of the acceptable solutions of E.23.0 within the Kingborough interim planning scheme and all the requirements of the Building act 2016 for on-site waste water.

Engineering

The proposal was referred to Council’s development engineers for assessment against Code E5.0 Road and Railway Assets Code, E6.0 Parking and Access Code and E7.0 Stormwater Management Code. Details of this assessment are described under 2.5 Code Matters in this report.

Environmental Planning

The proposal was referred to Council’s environmental planning team for assessment against Code E10.0 Biodiversity Code and Code E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code. Details of this assessment are described under 2.5 Code Matters.

3.2 External Referrals

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

3.3 Representations

A total of ten (10) representations were received in relation to the application and the issues raised are addressed in detail below. ______

Page 26 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Concerns / Queries Raised Planners Response

Inappropriate use / development in this The use of the site as a ‘caravan park’ is location discretionary within the Rural Resource zone. This proposal has been assessed The majority of representations against the relevant performance criteria expressed concerns regarding the regarding discretionary use and visitor proposed use in this location. Matters accommodation and found to meet all raised included the increased number of relevant standards, as detailed under tourists to the area, the commercial use Section 2.4 Zone Standards. in a rural setting, the proposed use on Rural Resource zoned land and that the The proposal is considered minor in proposal is out of character with the area. nature and to have a lower impact than One representation suggested smaller many other permitted and discretionary scale eco-tourism would be more suitable uses allowed under the Rural Resource for the property. zone. Queries were raised regarding the The proposal is for three caravan sites, number of caravan sites provided, the which are not for public use and will be number of of people that will be on site at used only for parking three (3) any time and whether tent sites will be on Airstream® Caravans that are owned by site. ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’. Each caravan site also has two parking spaces Queries were also raised regarding provided. The caravan park has a total associated infrastructure and the capacity of twelve (12) persons at any provision of electricity and drinking water time. No tent sites are included in the to the site. proposal. The proposal does not include an application for power to the site, water tanks or other infrastructure. Any further development of the site would be subject to planning approval in accordance with the Scheme.

Future development on site Any changes to, or substantial intensification of, the use or development One (1) representation queried whether on site would require further planning this was stage one of a larger approval. development proposed for the site.

Relaxation of side boundary setbacks The proposal does not include any buildings within 50m of a side boundary One (1) representation was raised and therefore the relevant acceptable requesting that the proposed solutions have been met. development meet the acceptable solutions in regards to side boundary Council does not usually take into setbacks of 50m, as a building area for a consideration matters that are yet to be proposed subdivision has been approved built. However, in this instance, in order to the north of the proposed caravan park to reduce impacts from the proposed site. development on the proposed building area on the neighbouring property, a condition has been placed on the permit requiring that the wastewater treatment facility be placed a minimum 30m from the side boundary. As a further condition has been placed on the permit regarding a visual screen using vegetation along this boundary, ______

Page 27 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property are considered to be minimal.

Visual impact of development on road In order to meet Clause 26.4.3 P2 of the and adjoining properties Scheme, a condition has been included in the permit stating that visual screening Two (2) representations requested that must be provided on site. This screen is the Council require the proposed to consist of native vegetation species development to be screened from the from the local area. road and adjoining properties with suitable native vegetation. It was As the proposal does not require any suggested that this screening may also vegetation removal, there is no trigger provide a habitat corridor for threatened under the Planning Scheme that requires species (Recommendation for use of the applicant to provide vegetation for the Eucalyptus viminalis to provide habitat for purpose of providing habitat or vegetation forty spotted pardalotes). corridors on site. However, the condition regarding landscaping in the permit has required that Eucalyptus viminalis be included in the landscaping plan.

Impacts on natural values from The proposed on-site wastewater wastewater treatment facility on site treatment facility does not require assessment under the On-site The majority of representations Wastewater Management Code, expressed concerns regarding the Waterway and Coastal Protection Code potential impacts from wastewater on the or Biodiversity Code due to the size of the wetlands on site and local ecosystems, site, the distance of the proposed including Cloudy Bay lagoon. treatment system from the wetlands on Matters raised included the site and the lack of vegetation appropriateness of the wastewater removal required (other than minor system proposed, the distance between clearance on previously cleared and the system and the wetlands, the impacts converted land). that the wastewater may have on the As the On-site Wastewater Management wetlands and local ecosystems whether it Code, Waterway and Coastal Protection is appropriate that the wastewater system code and the Biodiversity code have not on site could be used to provide relief been triggered, there has been no from offsite locations owned by ‘Bruny provision for Council to require a natural Island Coastal Retreats’ and whether any values assessment or environmental monitoring would be undertaken to impact assessment for this proposal and ensure the surrounding environment is the proposal is considered to have a low not impacted by the facility. impact on the site. Whilst not required, the applicant provided a report addressing all clauses within the On-site Wastewater Management Code which demonstrated that all acceptable solutions have been met. The proposal was been referred to Council’s Environmental Health officers and it was confirmed that the proposal meets all the code standards. Details regarding this assessment are provided under Section 3.1 Internal Referrals. The wastewater facility on site is considered ancillary to the use of the site as a caravan park and the system may ______

Page 28 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 only be used by ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’. The concerns raised by representors were raised with the applicant, who stated that the excess capacity of the proposed wastewater system are partially in response to the proximity of the wetlands and the intention of ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ not to endanger or compromise the integrity of the more environmentally sensitive areas of the site. The applicant stated that the Onsite Wastewater Management Report provided is based on 24 persons / 100L per day, whilst the maximum capacity of the caravans would be 12 persons. The applicant has stated that the design has been created at double the capacity required for responsible management of the system. A condition has been included on the permit regarding the use of this dumping point and that it may only be used within its’ capacity and in accordance with the provided On-site Wastewater Management report and may not be used by the public or as a fee-payable dumping point.

Impact on natural values on site and The proposal is minor in nature and does in wider area from proposed use of the not trigger assessment under the site Biodiversity code, as no vegetation removal is required for the proposal, The majority of representations raised other than the minor clearance of general concerns about the impacts of previously cleared and converted land, the proposal on the natural values on site which is exempt from the code. and in the wider area. Some representations stated that an Changes in the standard requirements for environmental assessment of the site and planning approvals are not considered a wider area should be provided by the matter relevant to this development applicant or undertaken by Council prior application. to approval. The applicant has confirmed that there is Two (2) representors raised that the no access to the National Park from the Biodiversity code overlay applies to the proposed location on site, other than via subject property. the road access along Cloudy Bay Road. The applicant has also stated that the One (1) representor stated that every proposal is not within the catchment for development on Bruny Island should be Cloudy Bay Lagoon. assessed independently by relevant exerts prior to Council approval. Impacts associated with driving on the beach are not considered a planning Concerns were raised regarding impacts matter relevant to this development on Cloudy Bay lagoon and impacts application. associated with users of the site exploring the wetland, accessing the beach or National Park through the wetland and driving onto the beach.

______

Page 29 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Details of the wastewater treatment The matter was raised with the applicant system maintenance who stated that ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ will invest in a small waste The majority of representations raised water pumping vehicle or trailer to questions about the wastewater transport waste water from the caravans, treatment system. Queries included a which may be located on site at the time request for further detail on the cleaning or on other properties that ‘Bruny Island and maintenance process and the source Coastal Retreats’ is operating and may of water for this process, as well as risk have to be serviced whilst not at 927 associated with spills and chemicals Cloudy Bay Road. One (1) representation expressed The pump vehicle will carry its own water concerns that the potential use of the site supply and this water will be used for the for treating off-site waste associated with washing down of the dump point. This other properties owned by ‘Bruny Island will be replenished from other tanks or Coastal Retreats’ was not accurately water sources on properties owned by advertised in development application ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’. The and that the proposal for a transfer / washdown is designed to flow into the sewage treatment facility should be a system and not beyond and the area separate development application. downslope of the Dump Ezy could be bunded to contain splash over as required. The Onsite Wastewater Management Report for the site, as well as the manufacturers’ details, were included in the advertised set of plans. Additional information regarding the proposal was available for viewing at Council offices and information regarding the proposal provided to customers’ on request. The use of the wastewater system on site to provide additional relief to other properties owned by ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ is considered ancillary to the use of the site as a caravan park. A condition has been included on the permit stating that the wastewater facility may only be used to its intended capacity and may only be used by ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ and not as a public or fee-payable dumping point.

Domestic animals on site The proposal does not trigger any zone or code standards under the Scheme that Five (5) representations queried whether would warrant Council placing a condition domestic animals would be allowed on on the permit regarding restrictions for site and expressed concerns regarding domestic pets. this matter, due to potential impacts on local wildlife and livestock on However, the matter has been raised with neighbouring properties. the applicant, who has provided written confirmation that ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ has a ‘no pets’ policy, which is shown on their website. The applicant has stated that ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ refuses to allow guests to bring pets to any of their properties on Bruny Island.

______

Page 30 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Fire risk and bushfire management As the proposal does not include a ‘vulnerable’ use, as defined in the Two (2) representations stated that a fire Scheme, the proposal does not trigger / bushfire management plan should be assessment under the bushfire provided for the site. Matters raised management code. Therefore a bushfire included the increased risk of fires management plan is not required for associated with the proposal and the planning approval. need for a bushfire management plan. As the proposal does not include any permanent habitable buildings, the development does not require a bushfire management plan under the Building code. Due to the isolated location of the site and level of vegetation in the wider area, an advice clause has been included in the permit recommending the development of a bushfire evacuation plan.

Drainage Impacts The matter was raised with the applicant, who stated that the Dump Ezy is to be One (1) representation was received located so that no waste could flow back regarding the drainage impacts of the onto the property to the north. A proposed development on the condition has been placed on the permit neighbouring property to the north. which states that the Dump Ezy must be Representor was concerned that waste placed 30m from the site boundary. As may contaminate run off or ground water this is downslope of the neighbouring that would flow into site to the north and property, this will negate any potential that the driveway and access may have impacts of drainage flow from the Dump drainage impacts on the neighbouring lot. Ezy location. The proposed driveway and access design has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineering team and found to meet all the acceptable solutions of the Parking and Access code and Road and Railway assets code and all relevant criteria of the Stormwater Management Code.

Amenity impacts including traffic, noise The proposal was referred to Council’s and light development engineers for assessment against the Parking and Access code and Five (5) representations expressed Road and Railway assets code. The concerns about increased traffic proposal was found to meet all relevant associated with the proposal. Matters acceptable solutions. raised included the negative amenity associated with increased traffic, road Existing issues associated with road safety, increased injuries to roadkill, safety on the wider network, driving under driving while under the influence of the influence and the degradation of alcohol, increased dust levels and Cloudy Bay Road and dust on Cloudy degradation of the unsealed road. Bay Road are not considered a planning matter relevant to this application. One (1) representation asked what provisions will manage noise impacts It is not anticipated that noise associated associated with the proposal. with the development would create an unreasonable impact on neighbouring properties. A condition has been placed ______

Page 31 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 One (1) representation asked what on the permit regarding noise and other provisions will manage light impacts emissions. associated with the proposal. No lighting is proposed on site. A condition has been placed on the permit stating that no external lighting is approved as part of this development application. Any external lighting on site would require the approval of Council.

Staff on premises Council raised this matter with the applicant who stated that the property will One (1) representation stated that the be managed by a site manager for ‘Bruny wastewater report states that staff will be Island Coastal Retreats’ who is based in on duty 24 hours, 365 days a year Lunawanna. Several other staff are although no premises are provided for a employed on the island to service their site manager. properties. The manager is responsible for organising cleaning, opening up, maintenance of services and grounds in accordance with bushfire management plans and is one of the fire wardens on call in the Bruny Island Coastal Retreat bushfire emergency plans. The position includes ensuring gas bottles are full, ample potable water is on site and that waste water treatment systems at all properties are in good order.

Petrol and boat fuels impacting lagoon The activities that users of the caravan and associated wildlife. park may choose to undertake off-site are not considered relevant to this One (1) representation expressed development application. concerns that petrol and boat fuels likely to be used by guests will have on the lagoon and associated wildlife.

Increased illegal activity The matters raised are not considered relevant to this development application. One (1) representation expressed concerns that the campground may increase illegal firearm use, and other unpredictable and dangerous behaviours on nearby roads and near the beach. The representation stated that this will put pressure on the police and will be unsafe for police officers.

Dangerous swimming area The activities that users of the caravan park may choose to undertake off-site are One (1) representation expressed not considered relevant to this concerns that the proposal will result in development application. additional visitors to Cloudy Bay Beach, which has dangerous waters, no signage or safe swimming zones and is not monitored by lifeguards.

______

Page 32 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Aboriginal heritage and consultation with Matters concerning Aboriginal heritage local Aboriginal groups and consultation are not covered within the Scheme and therefore cannot be Three (3) representations asked about considered in the assessment of the Aboriginal values on site, and expressed proposal. concerns including aboriginal heritage on site, whether research had been An advice clause has been included in undertaken into values or artefacts on the permit advising development on site site, and whether Aboriginal be undertaken in accordance with the organisations had been contacted for Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. advice or input.

Closure of Parks and Wildlife camping The proposed caravan park is not to be ground operated as a public caravan park and is solely for use related to ‘Bruny Island Two (2) representations asked whether Coastal Retreats’. the Park and Wildlife campground nearby is likely to be closed in favour of the The applicant has stated that there is no caravan park and one stated that this intention on behalf of ‘Bruny Island would be inequitable. Coastal Retreats’ to ask the Parks and Wildlife service to close the public camping ground nearby.

Compliance The matters raised are not considered relevant to this development application. One (1) representation expressed concerns that permit conditions are fallible and likely to be breached and enforcement of permit conditions is inconsistent. The representor also stated that once conditions have been breached, remediation rarely seems to occur despite Council requests.

4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES

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

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

5 CONCLUSION

The proposal for a caravan park, wastewater facility and signage is considered consistent with the objectives of the Rural Resource zone in accordance with the Zone Purpose statement. The application is minor in nature and meets the relevant acceptable solutions in regards to frontage setbacks, building height, fill and excavation, setbacks from land zoned Environmental Management and setbacks from other uses including State Forests and Significant Agriculture.

The application is discretionary in regards to the proposed use, visitor accommodation standards, sensitive and discretionary use standards, side boundary setbacks and external colours and finishes. However, information provided by the applicant demonstrates that compliance with the relevant performance criteria has been achieved. The proposal will not detract from the landscape and natural values of the area. No vegetation removal is proposed, planting of native vegetation is a condition of the permit

______

Page 33 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 to assist in visual screening and the permit is conditioned to plan in accoradance with the principals of water sensitive urban design in order to add further protection to the wetland nearby.

The design is discretionary under the Signage code and Stormwater Management code. However, the relevant performance criteria have been achieved.

Recommendation is approval with conditions as listed below.

6 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for caravan park, wastewater facility and signage at 927 Cloudy Bay Road, South Bruny for Design Carvalho be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. DA-2017-437 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 4 November 2017. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.

2. The developer must obtain a Plumbing Permit for an onsite wastewater management system in accordance with the site and soil evaluation and system design by Geo-Environmental Solutions dated May 2017. This application must be to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health Officer and should accompany any application for a Building Permit for the development.

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

A Landscaping plan must be submitted for endorsement by Council and is to include Eucalyptus viminalis trees and a variety of native understorey species local to the area. No weeds listed under the Weed Management Act 1999 or and identified as non-declared priority weeds in the Kingborough Weed Management Strategy are to be planted on the property. The landscaping plan must consider sight lines for road users along the frontage of the property.

The landscaping is to be installed:

(i) along the western boundary of the property in the vicinity of the proposal caravan park a minimum length of 200m in those locations where existing native vegetation does not provide a visual screen of 2m in height and;

(ii) (ii) along the side boundary of the site that separates the proposed caravan park from 835 Cloudy Bay Road for a minimum length of 100m within 10m of the property boundary with Cloudy Bay Road.

The landscaping under (i) and (ii) is to provide a visual screen of the development and the plants included must have a minimum mature height of 2m and a maximum mature transparency of 30% for the length of the landscaping area. ______

Page 34 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The landscaping must be:

Installed in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan prior to use; and

Maintained as part of the visitor accommodation to the satisfaction of the Manager of Development Services. It must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Council.

4. Engineering design drawings must be submitted to Council for approval. Plans must be to satisfaction of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services and comply with the following:

(a) be in accordance with the Tasmanian Standard construction drawings;

(b) include, but not be limited to, adequately detailed internal vehicular access, carparking, manoeuvring areas and drainage services;

• long and cross sections of the driveway/access road;

• contours, finish levels and gradients of the driveway/access road;

• drainage and pavement construction.

(d) water sensitive urban design principles must be incorporated to achieve the acceptable stormwater quality and quantity targets required in Table E7.1 of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

The engineering plans must be prepared and certified by a professional Civil Engineer approved by the Executive Manager - Engineering Services. The engineer must supervise the construction works. Approval of the plans is required prior to the commencement of construction on-site.

5. The vehicular access must be constructed in accordance with the Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-RO5, TSD-RO4 and TSD-E01). A permit to carry out works within a Council road reservation must be obtained prior to any works commencing within the Council road reservation.

6. Prior to the commencement of site works a soil and water management plan must be submitted to Council for approval. The plan must be in accordance with NRM South Soil and Water Management of Construction Sites – Guidelines and Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD-SW28). A site inspection of the implemented plan by the Council’s Development Inspector must be satisfactorily undertaken with the principal contractor prior to the commencement of any work on site.

7. The proposed visitor accommodation is approved for short term use only. At no time is any person, other than the owner, to reside in the caravan park for any period exceeding three months within any 12 month period.

8. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally impacted through any of the following:

a. Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

b. Appearance of any building, works or materials;

c. Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smells, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water or waste products (rubbish).

______

Page 35 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 9. In order to limit impacts on natural values on site and the amenity of neighbouring properties, the proposed wastewater treatment system is to be installed at a minimum distance of 100m from the edge of the wetlands on site and at a minimum distance of 30m from any side boundary of the site. The proposed wastewater treatment system is to be installed and used in accordance with the recommendations of the Dump-Ezy™ Specifiers Document and the On-site Wastewater Assessment for the site provided by GES Geo Environmental Solutions (May 2017).

The proposed wastewater system is approved for a waste water loading of up to 2400L/day in accordance with the On-site Wastewater Assessment (GES Geo Environmental Solutions May 2017). Use above this level is not approved.

The wastewater treatment system on site is to be used by ‘Bruny Island Coastal Retreats’ only and is strictly not to be used as a commercial (fee payable) or public wastewater dump site. Monitoring and regulation by the property owner is required to ensure compliance.

10. No external lighting is approved as part of this development application. Prior to the placement of any external lighting on site, please seek advice from Council as to whether approval is required.

11. A maximum of twelve (12) guests are permitted on site at any time.

ADVICE

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

B. The encountering of any Aboriginal Cultural Material during the course of development or activity upon the land associated with or arising from this approval shall be strictly dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.

C. Whilst the proposal is not a vulnerable use and therefore does not require a bushfire management plan to be provided for planning approval, due to the nature of the use and the isolation of the subject property, is it recommended that an emergency evacuation plan is prepared for the site and details of evacuation procedures made available to all accommodated guests.

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

Attachments:

1. Location Plan (1) 2. Proposal Plans (37)

______

Page 36 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Location Plan

______

Page 37 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Proposal Plans

______

Page 38 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 39 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 40 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 41 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 42 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 43 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 44 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 45 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 46 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 47 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 48 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 49 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 50 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 51 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 52 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 FILE NO DAS-2015-6 DATE 27 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER DANIELLE GRAY - SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DAS-2015-6 - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF FOUR LOTS, BALANCE LOT AND ROAD LOT AND ROAD UPGRADE WORKS AT 26 CORBYS ROAD AND ADJOINING CROWN RESERVE ROAD, KETTERING FOR PDA SURVEYORS

Application Number: DAS-2015-6 Applicant: PDA Surveyors Owner: Mr B G Fyfe and Mrs A P Fyfe

Zoning: Primary Industries under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000

Discretions: Subdivision in the Primary Industries zone Existing Land Use: Residential (single residence) No. of Representations: Four (4) Planning Issues: Impact upon the character and density of the surrounding area, likelihood for vegetation removal and construction of new access. Recommendation: Approval with conditions

1 THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

1.1 The Proposal

The proposal seeks approval to subdivide the existing property into four (4) new lots and a balance lot.

The balance lot contains the existing residence and outbuildings and measures 7490sqm. The balance lot is an ‘axe handle’ configuration and is accessed via an 8.6m wide access onto Corbys Road and contains the existing driveway.

Lot 2 measures 2690sqm in size, lot 3 measures 2607sqm, lot 4 measures 2557sqm and lot 1 measures 2518sqm.

The proposed new lots 1-4 inclusive all have frontage and access onto a new road and cul de sac which is an extension of the existing Corbys Road.

No demolition is proposed or required as part of the application.

The physical works proposed or required as part of the application include roadworks required to create new road frontages for the proposed lots and works required for services including stormwater. Some tree removal will be required for the construction of the road, including at least one high conservation value tree.

______

Page 53 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Indicative building envelopes have been specified for each of the proposed new lots 1-4 inclusive. These building envelopes measure 15mx10m and are positioned to avoid impacts on native trees.

The applicant has stated that the development is likely to be staged with full construction of the Corbys Road taking place initially and then lots 1-4 sealed progressively as market conditions dictate.

1.2 The Site

The subject land 26 Corbys Road, Kettering is contained within title CT147058/1 and measures 1.906ha.

The site contains an existing single storey residence constructed in 2008 and a shed constructed in 2011, and is predominantly cleared pasture.

The site has a gradient falling towards the south. The site has a level difference of 40m across the site resulting in an average gradient of 1 in 6.

Plate 1 – The subject site shown outlined in red. This photo shows the extent of smaller lots to the immediate east of the subject land.

The site is predominantly cleared pasture but contains some remnant native vegetation in the form of individual Eucalyptus ovata (black gum) and Eucalyptus pulchella (white peppermint) trees.

There are also two small waterholes within the subject land – these are located within the proposed lots 2 and 3. The applicant has stated that it is not proposed to remove either vegetation or the waterholes to facilitate the location of proposed building envelopes. It is unclear whether vegetation removal will be required for installation of on-site wastewater or stormwater.

______

Page 54 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Access to the proposed lots will be via a road extension from Corbys Road that is currently not constructed. This in turn will be accessed from a new road constructed from Rada Road. This follows the existing vehicular access available to the dwelling on the subject land.

The proposed roadworks are within a Crown owned road reservation. Crown Lands have granted their approval for the application to be submitted.

In the event the application is approved, the applicant will be required to gain further approvals from the Crown for the required construction works.

1.3 Background

The application was submitted on 27 February 2015 and is therefore required to be assessed under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 which was the Planning Scheme in force at the time.

Despite the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 coming into effect on 1 July 2015, the application must be assessed under the Planning Scheme which was valid as the time of the application being submitted to Council.

DAS-2015-6 originally expired on 22 November 2017. However an extension of time was granted to the applicant resulting in a new expiry date of 18 December 2017.

This application for subdivision wholly relies upon the decision reached in the rezoning application PSA-2014-2 whereby the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Planning Scheme resulting in a number of Primary Industry zoned properties in Kettering having a minimum lot size of 2500sqm.

The amendment formally came into effect on 6 February 2015.

On 11 March 2015, the Minister issued a directive that any amendments approved to Planning Schemes are required to be translated into new Draft Interim Planning Schemes. This has resulted in the previous proposed zoning of the subject land being amended from Rural Living zone to Low Density Residential under the Draft Interim Planning Scheme for Kingborough.

The proposed subdivision is therefore capable of being approved under both Planning Schemes.

The amendment resulted in a new sub-clause (f) being included under the alternative solution of clause 8.4.2.1 contained within Part 8 – Primary Industries Zone of the Scheme Ordinance. The area to which the amendment applies is also defined by a new Figure 8.0 which was inserted immediately following clause 8.4.2.1 of the Ordinance. The amendment did not result in any change to the zone maps.

The amendment relates to the provisions for subdivision and essentially results in a smaller minimum lot size for these properties currently zoned Primary Industries. The existing minimum lot size for the Primary Industries Zone is 40 hectares and in some cases 12 hectares, however under the Scheme the approved minimum lot size for the subject land is in fact 2500sqm.

______

Page 55 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The change approved to clause 8.4.2.1 of the Ordinance is shown below in bold text as clause 8.4.2.1(f) and results in the following clause Alternative Solution 8.4.2.1(f):

ISSUE 2: PRINCIPLE: Subdivision and Utility Provision To ensure the subdivision of land is appropriate to the needs of the intended use and protects agricultural land from fragmentation or from use or development that would fetter the operation of an existing or future resource development. Lots are also to meet minimum infrastructure requirements. Acceptable Solution Alternative Solution (Deemed to Comply) (Requires Justification) 8.4.2.1 Subdivision: Council must approve a subdivision for lot(s) in the 8.4.2.1: Council may approve a subdivision not meeting the Acceptable following circumstances: Solution where: (a) the lot(s) has an area of not less than 40 ha and is (a) the lot(s) to be created have an area of not less than 40ha and: classified as Class 6 or 7 under the LCCS; or (i) there is a farm management plan justifying the proposed (b) the lot(s) facilitate shore-based marine farming where: subdivision; and (i) evidence is provided of a current marine farming (ii) the size, shape and configuration of the lot(s) have regard licence issued pursuant to the Living Marine to environmental constraints, landscape features and Resources Management Act 1995 or a licence issued hazards; and pursuant to the Inland Fisheries Act 1995; and (iii) frontage to a road of a width no less than 4m is provided; (ii) a concurrent application is submitted for the use or and development of the land; and (iv) all other relevant provisions of the Scheme are met; or, (iii) it is demonstrated that the configuration of the lot(s) is (b) for shore based marine farming there is no Alternative Solution; necessary to meet the requirements of the use or or development; and (c) the lot(s) has an area of not less than 12 ha and: (iv) complies with all relevant Acceptable Solutions within (i) the application identifies all lot(s) to be created; and the Scheme. (ii) a farm management plan is prepared by a suitably

qualified person confirming that a range of agricultural uses can occur on all proposed lot(s) and that the subdivision facilitates this approach; and (iii) a building envelope is identified for each lot to ensure as far as practicable all arable land is available for agricultural uses; and (iv) each lot has frontage to a road of not less than 6m width; or

______

Page 56 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 (d) in the case of subdivision of land located at Englefield Drive, Margate, an application is made for the further staged subdivision of land based on the outline plan of subdivision shown on approval SD 1944, 26/10/1992. (e) In the case of subdivision of land (CT 113411/1) known as 3035 Channel Highway, Kettering, subdivision must be substantially in accordance with the modified Plan of Subdivision shown for DAS-2006-30 dated 28 July 2014.* (f) In the case of subdivision of land within the area of Kettering shown in Figure 8.0, the lot(s) to be created has an area of not less than 2,500m2 and; (i) Frontage to a road of a width no less than 4m is provided; and (ii) The portion of CT 105924/1 located above the 60m contour and including the existing residence, is retained within a single balance lot; and (i) Where there is an impact upon environmental values arising from the subdivision of the land: (a) Suitable strategies are identified to minimise those impacts; and (b) No practical alternative with respect to alternative building locations on the site exist.** (*PSA-2006-4 g.11/9/14) (**PSA-2014-2 g. 6/2/15) (**PSA-2014-2 g. 6/2/15)

______

Page 57 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Figure 1 - Area to which Alternative Solution 8.4.2.1(f) applies.

The amendment PSA-2014-2 involved nine separate Certificates of Title which are to be contained within the area identified as Figure 1 (above).

The following properties were approved for a minimum lot size of 2500sqm:

Address Title Reference Size of lot 15 Saddle Road, Kettering CT 32737/4 1.010 ha 17 Saddle Road, Kettering CT 32737/3 1.015 ha 22 Selby Road, Kettering CT 105639/1 & 3376 sqm CT 42085/1 8180 sqm 25 Selby Road CT 141484/2 2.37 ha 30 Selby Road CT 32737/6 1.138 ha 26 Corbys Road CT 147058/1 1.888 ha 50 Rada Road CT 102793/2 & 5.063 ha CT 105924/1 4749 sqm Total area involved for the 14.115 ha amendment approximately

______

Page 58 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Figure 2 – Zoning map of properties approved for a minimum lot size of 2500sqm as a result of the approval of PSA-2014-2.

The proposed minimum lot size of 2500sqm was considered consistent with the existing lot sizes to the east between the subject sites and Channel Highway, Kettering.

It was also considered that the expansion spatially of these lot sizes in a westerly direction is consistent with the pattern of existing lot sizes and is being contained to within the foothills of Kettering and therefore avoiding encroachment into the vegetation and onto higher slopes.

Kingborough Land Use Strategy

As raised in PSA-2014-2, Kettering has been identified in the Kingborough Land Use Strategy (Dec. 2013) as having limited potential for future residential development. The strategy outlines a particular constraint for future development within Kettering which relates to the “hilly vegetated landscape that provides Kettering with much of its character and also constitutes a visual development constraint”.

The proposed subdivision DAS-2015-6 is not contained within or adjacent to the hilly vegetated landscape that forms the general forested backdrop to Kettering and therefore it was determined in the assessment of the Amendment that further subdivision in Saddle Road would be unlikely to impact upon Kettering’s scenic qualities and character.

______

Page 59 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Figure 3 – Possible additional lots envisaged in the assessment of PSA-2014-2. It should be noted that this subdivision application proposes an additional two lots on what was considered likely and acceptable in the approval of PSA-2014-2. All lots proposed however comply with the minimum lot size of 2500sqm.

2 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

2.1 Statutory Implications

The land is zoned Primary Industries under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 (the Scheme). The proposal has been assessed under the Primary Industries Use Class provisions of the Scheme. The proposal is discretionary.The relevant parts of the Scheme are:

(a) Part 8 – Primary Industries Zone, specifically clause 8.4.2.1(f).

The following discretions apply to the development:

Alternative Solution of Clause 8.4.2.1 – All subdivision in the Primary Industries zone, with clause 8.4.2.1(f) being the clause under which the application requires consideration under.

2.2 Public Consultation

The application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of s.57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (from 4/11/2017 to 17/11/2017). Four representations were received during the public exhibition period, all of which objected to the proposal.

______

Page 60 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The following issues were raised by the representors:

(a) The development will have a negative impact upon the character and density of Kettering.

(b) The proposal will have a negative impact on the peaceful and quiet nature of the surrounding area due to an increase in traffic.

(c) The proposal has uncommitted protection of the large black gum trees dotted throughout the site and surrounding access ways.

(d) We would prefer a compromise of no more than 2 new lots.

(e) The piece of land for the proposed subdivision is relatively steep with the restriction of a Landslide Hazard, between Lot 1 and Lot 4, and Lot 2 and Lot 3. Therefore, any excavation for house sites and drive ways would require extreme works.

(f) The land is a Biodiversity Protection area and this must be adhered to. There are stands of black gums (a protected species) and provide habitat for Wedge Tail Eagles, Grey Heron, Swift Parrot etc., which I frequently observe. They are also a beautiful tree and they stand on their own enhancing beauty to the environment. The roots of the trees also help water control and holding the steep slope together thus reducing erosion.

(g) Drainage is obviously a major issue, which has been shown on the plan. It is vital that the dams be retained (especially Lot 3) as they provide a vital solution in controlling water run off down the steep slope of land, particularly after heavy continuous rains. The dams also provide habitat for the native hens, wild ducks and frogs.

(h) Waste water from future development needs to be considered, which will add to the drainage problems.

(i) With the above considerations I have given and the restrictions that PDA Surveyors have shown (including drainage easements/drive ways/protected black gums/waste water) the lot sizes are too small for future houses. The land should be considered for low impact standards.

The ambience and beauty of Kettering is to be retained. ‘The environment and the vegetated visual backdrop’ (ref. Tas Planning Commission dated October 6th 2014) should be respected, and with 4 houses squeezed onto these proposed 4 lots will take away from this concept.

(j) Some 12 trees are marked (blue ribbon) on both sides of Corby Road to the current entrance of the driveway to the proposed lots. It is unnecessary to cut these black gums down for the 5.5m upgrade, as there is ample space of several meters on the eastern side to accommodate the road.

(k) The proposed cul de sac of 18m diameter is a huge area in this development. A large apron has been allowed for on the southern sides of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so why sacrifice the large black gums and Pulchellas for the cul de sac? There must be a low impact standard for this area.

(l) I am very concerned for safety in regard to the increased traffic, (most households have 2 cars), meaning 10 vehicles (plus courier services and visitors) will be continually turning from the Channel Highway into Corby Road. ______

Page 61 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Traffic to the Bruny Island Ferry is heavy, especially during summer through to autumn. With vehicles turning into Corby Road, from the north, the following traffic is stopped as there is no slip lane. During peak ferry times there is usually a bank up of cars to the oval, so how will these extra vehicles access Corby Road? An accident waiting to happen. This needs to be seriously considered by Kingborough Council and referred to Tas State Roads.

(m) The advertised application documentation online and also available at council offices did not include approval from Council or the minister on behalf of the Crown.

(n) The application does not provide legal frontage to a road as per the definitions contained under the Planning Scheme.

Representations have been dealt with in more detail under section 3.3 of this report.

2.3 Strategic Planning

The relevant strategies associated with the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 (KPS2000) are as follows:

The objectives of the Primary Industries zone are to:

(a) Protect and allow for the sustainable use or development of the natural and non-natural resources on which agriculture, aquaculture, forestry and mining depend;

It is considered that the subject land has limited agricultural potential and is surrounded by predominantly low density residential land uses and patterns of development. The subject land is incapable of being used for aquaculture, forestry and mining. In particular, the subject lot and its locality within close proximity to the centre of Kettering is not considered to be suitable for intensive or significant agricultural use.

(b) Prevent urban sprawl by not allowing ribbon residential development between townships;

The application will not result in ribbon development between townships and is located within an area previously identified as being acceptable for future residential expansion.

(c) Facilitate marine farming and fishing related activities generally as important local industries both for the planning scheme area and the region;

This clause is irrelevant as the subject land is not a coastal property and does not involve or affect any marine farming or fishing activity.

(d) Allow for other use or development that is compatible with these values.

The development will result in additional residential activity in an area that is predominantly rural residential in nature with minimal agricultural activity. The vast majority of properties in the surrounding area contain a single residence and outbuildings and have little if any current agricultural activity except for small scale domestic level rural activities including small domestic orchards, vegetable gardens and grazing of several animals for domestic use.

______

Page 62 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The established landuse pattern and character of the subject site 26 Corbys Road and surrounding residential properties is low density residential and the proposed subdivision seeks to result in the expansion of Kettering in a manner consistent with the Kingborough Land Use Strategy. Furthermore, the subject site was identified as one of the most appropriate locations within Kettering for future residential development.

Clause 8.2.2 – Desired Future Character Statements and Strategies

Under the Desired Future Character Statements and Strategies for Kettering, agricultural tourism, organic agriculture and intensive horticulture are recognised as being important and to be promoted. The proposal will not result in any such uses being detrimentally impact upon as the site is not adjacent to any intensive large scale agriculture or horticultural activities.

Desired Future Character Statement 5 (DFCS5) for the Primary Industries zone states that avoidance of conflict between a range of land uses is desirable and that attenuation distances should be appropriately applied to reduce the likelihood of conflict. There are no attenuation distances mapped on either the site or surrounding areas.

The proposed subdivision will result in a very limited intensification of residential use within the rural residential locality immediately west of central Kettering. As previously discussed, there are no significant agricultural or other activities that would result in land use conflict as a result of the subdivision.

2.4 Zone

The site is zoned Primary Industries under the Scheme. This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions as follows:The site is zoned wholly Primary Industries under the Scheme. The site is located approximately 300m away from the nearest Residential zoned properties to the north that constitute the township of Kettering.

Figure 4 – The subject site 26 Corbys Road is shown outlined in red and is zoned wholly Primary Industries. The property is surrounded by other predominantly rural residential properties also zoned Primary Industries under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000. These properties are now currently zoned Low Density Residential under the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

______

Page 63 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 This zone provides a range of Use and Development Standards and the proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions for subdivision in the Primary Industries zone with the applicable clause being Clause 8.4.2.1(f).

Clause 8.4.2.1(f) states:

(g) In the case of subdivision of land within the area of Kettering shown in Figure 8.0, the lot(s) to be created has an area of not less than 2,500m2 and;

(i) Frontage to a road of a width no less than 4m is provided; and

(ii) The portion of CT 105924/1 located above the 60m contour and including the existing residence, is retained within a single balance lot; and

(ii) Where there is an impact upon environmental values arising from the subdivision of the land:

(d) No practical alternative with respect to alternative building locations on the site exist.

The subject land 26 Corbys Road is included as one of the properties affected by the approval of PSA-2014-2 on 6 February 2015.

The proposal complies with sub-clause (i) where no less than 4m of frontage is to be provided.

Sub-clause (ii) is irrelevant as it relates to 50 Rada Road (CT105924/1).

Sub-clause (viii) is met providing the recommended conditions are included to ensure there will be minimal impact upon black gum (Eucalyptus ovata) and mature eucalypt trees within the subject land and adjacent roadway. This issue has been dealt with in further detail under the NRM evaluation contained within this report.

The applicant has identified indicative building envelopes that demonstrate impacts upon the existing black gum trees can be avoided within proposed lot boundaries. However it is not proposed that these envelopes are included in the final plan. Rather, to ensure future development of the lots maximises the potential retention of these high conservation value trees it is recommended that a covenant be included on the title requiring future development of the lots be designed and located to avoid removal of remnant eucalypt trees unless it can be demonstrated that there are no practical alternative designs or locations for the particular needs of the use or development.

In the absence of further applicable clauses for subdivision applying to the subject land, it is considered that the proposal meets Clause 8.4.2.1(f).

Clause 8.4.2.3 Provision of Utilities

Under this clause, all applications for use or development must meet the Acceptable Solutions contained in issue 5 of schedule 1 of the Scheme with respect to:

(a) Effluent disposal;

(b) Stormwater discharge; and

Page 64 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The development site does not have access to water reticulation or sewerage. Therefore the application must be assessed below under Schedule 1 of the Planning Scheme with respect to water and sewerage.

The property is able to connect to stormwater discharge and has been conditioned accordingly in the Engineering Evaluation in this report.

2.5 Schedule Matters

Schedule 1 – Environmental Management Schedule

The development site has no mapped hazards, does not have a site gradient exceeding 1 in 5, contains no mobile landforms or any land deemed “high risk”.

The proposal is discretionary under clause 1.2.5.1 of schedule 1 with respect to effluent disposal. The proposal meets the Alternative Solution as the property is to be serviced by an AWTS and has been conditioned accordingly by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

In regard to water reticulation, the proposal meets the Acceptable Solution of clause 1.2.5.3 as there will be private water supplies available for the proposed lots.

Schedule 2 – Heritage Schedule

The site is not heritage listed and is not contained within a Heritage Area.

Schedule 3 – Road Asset and Access Schedule

The relevant issue in Schedule 3 is that of sight distances in the proposed new access for the lots 1-4 inclusive. This has been discussed in the Engineering Evaluation.

Schedule 4 – Carparking and Bicycle Schedule

The development does not involve the construction of any dwellings or commercial development where the provision of car parking and bicycle spaces is required to be considered.

Schedule 5 – Waterways, Wetlands and the Coastal Area Schedule

The site does not contain any wetlands, waterways, water courses and is not within a coastal area. However the construction of the road will involve works within a waterway. Therefore the proposal triggers Clause 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.3.1 of Schedule 5. These discretions are discussed in detail in the NRM assessment contained within this report.

Schedule 6 – Attenuation Distances Schedule

The site is not contained within an Attenuation Area.

Schedule 7 – Bushfire Prone Areas Schedule

The proposed lots are not classed or mapped as bushfire prone. However the site of the proposed lot containing the existing house is classed as bushfire prone. This lot has already been developed in the form of a single dwelling and associated outbuilding and complied with bushfire regulations at the time of its approval in 2008. ______

Page 65 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Schedule 8 – Signs Schedule

The development does not involve any signage.

Schedule 9 – Environmental Weeds Schedule

The site does not contain any weeds classed as being an environmental hazard.

Schedule 10 – Protected Vegetation Schedule

While Council’s mapping indicates the site contains protected vegetation mapped including priority vegetation communities, field verification confirms this vegetation does not constitute a vegetation community. Rather this vegetation consists of a few remnant trees over pasture. Therefore Schedule 10 does not apply.

Schedule 11 – Potentially Contaminated Lands Schedule

The site does not contain any mapped or recognised contamination. Additionally, the site has no record as having an activity which would potentially contaminate the land as defined under this Schedule.

Schedule 12 – Telecommunications Infrastructure Schedule

The development does not propose any telecommunications infrastructure.

Schedule 13 – Area Desired Future Character Statement Schedule

The site is not mapped as being an isolated Settlement.

Schedule 14 – Area Desired Future Character Statement Schedule

The purpose of Schedule 14 is to set out the character statements that will guide the future use and development that will occur in the larger and smaller settlements as well as the coastal and rural areas of the Kingborough Municipality. The relevant Desired Future Character Statements for this development within the Kettering area are as follows:

1. The essential attractions of Kettering need to be protected – these being the water views of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, the access to the water, the convenient access provided by the Channel Highway, the natural environment and the vegetated visual backdrop.

The proposed subdivision will not impact on water views or any access to the water or coastal areas. The application will not impact upon convenient access to the Channel Highway. The application will not impact upon the natural environment as it does not impact upon any Environmental Management zoned land, and is unlikely to affect any threatened species as none have been recorded within or adjacent to the subject site. The impact on the Eucalpytus ovata has been discussed in more detail under the NRM evaluation contained within this report.

2. Future development should protect Kettering’s past and present use as a fishing and water based recreational village. Access to the waterways of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel should be enhanced.

______

Page 66 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The proposed subdivision will not impact upon access to waterways and will not detrimentally affect Kettering’s past and present use as a fishing and water based recreational village.

3. Sensitive tourism development opportunities should be encouraged within Kettering due to its inherent natural attractions and as the gateway to Bruny Island.

The development does not involve any tourism uses or development and will not detrimentally affect any existing tourism uses or development.

4. The development of a commercial core area within Kettering is to be encouraged. This is to occur in the vicinity of Selby Street or opposite Kettering Oval in a manner which will rationalise the existing fragmented commercial facilities.

The development does not involve any commercial development and will not impact upon any existing commercial development.

5. Future development within Kettering should be consistent with a style that suits its coastal rural location.

The development of an additional four rural residential subdivision lots does not detrimentally impact upon the character of Kettering as a coastal township. As outlined in the rezoning application, the location of the subdivision will not alter the character of the township and will have no impact on the prevailing character of Kettering.

6. Future subdivision and development within Kettering should by typical of other non-serviced hamlets that are limited by the absence of sewer and water reticulation. Suburban style subdivisions and development are to be avoided.

The proposed subdivision is not classed as “suburban residential” which would typically expect to incorporate 600sqm lot sizes. Lots in unserviced areas are required to be at least 1500sqm to allow for adequate servicing by a septic system. The proposed lots are a minimum of 2500sqm and are suitable and able to be serviced by a septic system.

7. A more coherent and longer term strategy for the provision of open space linkages, walking trails and passive open space within Kettering and the surrounding areas is to be encouraged.

The development does not impact on walking and recreational trails.

Schedule 15 – Multi-Unit Housing Schedule

The application does not include any unit development.

3 REFERRALS AND REPRESENTATIONS

3.1 Internal Referrals

Health

The following report was prepared by Council’s Environmental Health Officer:

______

Page 67 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The development application has been assessed and the following comments are provided for inclusion in the planning assessment report:

“The proposed development includes the creation of four new lots. In accordance with clauses 8.4.2.3 (Primary Industries Zone) and 1.2.5.1 (Environmental Management Schedule) of the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 the lots must be:

 Capable of accommodating future use or development with treatment and disposal of wastewater contained within the property boundaries; and

 Capable of utilising wastewater systems installed and operated in accordance with AS/NZS 1547; and

 No less than 1500m2 in area, where wastewater is treated by an aerated wastewater treatment system.

A condition of approval will require that any future dwelling on the new lots must be serviced by a wastewater treatment system capable of treating effluent to a secondary standard. For a typical 3 bedroom dwelling, depending on the land application method chosen to best suit the site at the time of building, the area required (even for the poorest quality soils) would be in the range of 75 – 300m2. It is likely that a land application area of this size could be designed in accordance with AS/NZS 1547 to fit within the boundaries on each of the proposed new lots. Furthermore each lot has an area greater than 1500m2. Therefore the proposed development complies with the alternative solutions in clauses 8.4.2.3 (Primary Industries Zone) and 1.2.5.1 (Environmental Management Schedule).

The proposed development includes creation of a new boundary adjacent to the existing dwelling at 26 Corbys Road. The existing aerated wastewater treatment system servicing the dwelling has a land application area which is currently located on the proposed new lot 3. A condition of approval will require relocation of the existing land application area onto the balance lot with suitable setbacks so as to comply with the Building Act 2016, prior to Council sealing the final plan.

It is recommended that any approval be issued with appropriate conditions.

Engineering

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

Roads and Traffic

The current submitted subdivision proposal plan P4 for the property at 26 Corby Road is to provide 4 additional residential lots to be accessed from a road extension from the end of Rada Road, a rural sealed standard Council Category 6 “Other Road”. The road extension through the Crown reserved road will be constructed to Councils rural sealed road standard to a Council standard offset kerbed cul de sac which will serve as the access point for the existing house lot 1 and a sealed shared access point for lots 1 to 4. A new sealed road junction at the Rada Road intersection to Ausroad standards will also be constructed. All works associated with the Rada Road extension will be undertaken to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager Engineering Services prior to take-over by Council.

______

Page 68 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The Development Engineering Unit has assessed the total additional traffic generated by the additional 4 residential lots will be approximately 32 vehicle movements/ day and 4 vehicles/ hour in peak periods. This additional traffic will have no adverse impacts on Rada Road, Corby Road or the road network beyond.

The subdivision works are proposed to be staged:

 Stage 1 proposes a single additional lot 6.

 Stage 1 construction will require upgrade of the existing formed access to the house to a 4m wide Council standard gravel access to the existing reserved road reservation boundary of lot 1 and lot 6. A temporary gravel turning area will be provided at this location to Council standards to accommodate service vehicles. Existing drainage culverts will be upgraded in size in accordance with the requirements of the submitted hydraulic catchment assessment requirements to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager Engineering Services.

 Stages 2 to 4 proposed ultimate 4 lot subdivision.

 Stage 2 will require the sealed road, cul de sac and Rada Road sealed junction works and associated drainage requirements in total as detailed in paragraph 1 above. Road lots will be transferred to Council and included on the Final Plan of Survey.

Drainage

The proposed subdivision will have an approved piped stormwater system connected to the existing council system in Selby Road as detailed on the submitted application proposal plans “P4” to the approval and satisfaction of the Executive Manager Engineering Services. All lots will be provided with Council standard 150mm dia standard stormwater connection points to the low point of each lot. Drainage easements will be provided for all pipelines and associated watercourses through the lots.

Vehicle Access

Rural sealed vehicle access to lots 1 and 4 (Stage 2) will be constructed in accordance with Council’s standard drawing KSD1-07A and to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager Engineering Services. A 5m wide asphalt sealed, kerbed and drained shared access will be constructed from the cul de sac sealed pavement to the lot3/lot 4 proper within a 6m wide Right of Way.

Sight distances from proposed accesses and junctions will comply with the requirements of the KPS 2000.

Hydraulic Services

Sewer and water services are not available to the subdivision.

Other Services

Power and telecommunications services provisions are to be made available to all lots and provided to the services providers requirements. Any network extensions required are to be provided at the applicants cost.

______

Page 69 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Engineering Recommendation

The proposed staged subdivision be approved subject to the permit’s engineering conditions

Natural Resource Management

The following report was prepared by Council’s Environmental Planner.

“Clause 8.4.2.1 (f)(iii): subdivision impacting on environmental values

This Clause specifies that, where there is an impact upon environmental values arising from subdivision of the subject land:

(a) Suitable strategies are identified to minimise those impacts; and

(b) No practical alternative with respect to alternative building locations on the site exist.

While the subject land is predominantly cleared, there are a number of individual eucalypt trees within the lots and along the access road. Information submitted with the application confirms these trees do not constitute a vegetation community per se. However many of these trees are of environmental value.

A site plan submitted with the application identifies the location of trees on the subject land and where these trees are Eucalyptus ovata (black gums), the plan also indicates the diameter of the trees. These black gum trees are accepted by the applicant and Council staff as being of environmental value as potential foraging habitat for the endangered swift parrot.

The applicant acknowledges that the presence of small hollows in any of the eucalypt trees may also provide potential nesting habitat for the swift parrot and if large hollows are present it could also be argued the trees provide potential nesting habitat for the endangered masked owl.

However, the applicant contends that it is not necessary to provide further details on trees other than black gum trees, as no suitable hollows were detected in these trees and therefore they are not of high conservation value. The lack of visible hollows is not contested.

However, hollows do not need to be visible for a tree to be considered to provide potential nesting hollows, where specified diameter thresholds are met. The relevant diameter threshold adopted by Council for trees in a paddock or cleared setting is 70cm diameter at breast height (dbh). This threshold is derived from the Forest Practices Authority and is consistent with their use of DBH as a surrogate for trees with potential hollows. The use of this DBH threshold rather than reliance on visual observation of hollows is also supported by research, which shows that ground-based surveys cannot be relied upon to detect the presence or absence of hollows. For this reason, DBH is used as a surrogate for presence of hollows rather than visual observation.

On the basis of DBH it is possible that there are additional trees on the site which are considered to be of high conservation value and therefore constitute environmental values of relevance to this clause.

______

Page 70 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 However, it is unclear what the extent of these values may be as no information was provided on the size of trees other than black gums on the basis of the applicant’s view that hollows had to be visible to warrant consideration of such trees.

Notwithstanding, the applicant has indicated that all trees on site with a dbh >25cm will be retained during works associated with the subdivision process, with the exception of a single black gum (Tree #53) as indicated on the plan. According to information submitted with the application, this tree will need to be removed during road construction. Council requested further clarification around impacts of the subdivision works on other trees in the vicinity of the road, including details on the DBH of all trees (not just black gums) and an arborist assessment of the impact of the works on these trees.

The applicant was of the view that a report from a qualified arborist was not warranted at the application stage as the potential for damage to the root systems of trees as a result of works cannot be accurately gauged until excavation begins and any specialist advice at this point would be of little value in assessing the risk.

The applicant therefore proposes an alternative approach for dealing with the risk of losing trees as a result of root damage during works in the form of an agreement between the developer and Council to provide offsets for the loss of any high conservation trees as a result of road construction and other works associated with the subdivision.

The applicant further proposes that all high conservation value trees within 10m of works be monitored for two (2) years following the works (or another period as nominated by Council). If any of these trees die within the prescribed period it will be assumed that it was a result of root damage during works and the owner will be liable to provide a suitable offset.

This alternative approach has merit given the impacts at the stage of the subdivision are restricted to the construction of the access and stormwater infrastructure. Therefore there is limited benefit in seeking the arborist advice prior to the detailed engineering drawings being developed. On this basis, the application was advertised without first requiring the arborist assessment.

However, the position that there is no need or benefit for an arborist assessment as part of finalising the engineering drawings is not supported. Suitably qualified arborists are experts whose job it is to assess and provide advice on the likely level of impact of a development on trees in accordance with AS 4970-2009 and such advice is routinely sought to ensure such works are conducted in a manner that minimises impacts.

Requiring such advice is considered to be the most suitable strategy to minimise the impacts of the subdivision works on environmental values and therefore of satisfying the requirements of the Scheme. Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition be included in the permit requiring that the detailed engineering drawings are developed in consultation with a suitably qualified arborist and include a tree plan identifying all trees >25cm, specifying which trees are to be removed and which can be retained and demonstrating that the road and stormwater infrastructure are designed and constructed to minimise impacts on high conservation value trees, including E. ovata trees >25cm and eucalypts >70cm. This condition should also restrict vegetation removal to that specified within the endorsed tree plan, require the implementation of adequate tree protection measures during construction and offsetting the loss of those high conservation value trees which are not capable of being retained as part of the approved engineering drawings.

______

Page 71 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 In addition to the construction of the road and stormwater infrastructure, there is also the potential for the future development of the lots to result in further tree removal and therefore impacts on environmental values.

The applicant considers that the building envelopes shown on the plans demonstrate that house sites could be developed without the need for removing or damaging any trees.

The applicant further argues that covenants are not required to protect the high conservation value trees on site on the basis that these trees are already afforded protection under the Scheme.

However, the impacts of access construction or stormwater infrastructure within lots as well as the location and design of on-site wastewater management systems or bushfire hazard requirements under current building requirements do not appear to have been taken into account in concluding that the development of the lots will not result in tree removal.

Furthermore, given the proposed staging of the development and the uncertainty around when the lots will be developed, it is not appropriate to rely upon current planning scheme provisions to achieve an outcome being assured at the subdivision stage. Therefore, to ensure future development of the lots maximises the potential retention of high conservation value trees it is recommended that a covenant be included on the title requiring future development of the lots be designed and located to avoid removal of remnant eucalypt trees unless it can be demonstrated that there are no practical alternative designs or locations for the particular needs of the use or development. Such a covenant is routine for the subdivision of lots containing high conservation value trees and ensures future owners are clear on the expectations and restrictions regarding future development of the lots at the time of purchase.

Providing such a covenant is included in the title, it is considered that the proposal implements suitable strategies to minimise impacts on environmental values; and ensure impacts on environmental values from future development of the lots are limited to where there is no practical alternative.

The only alternative condition would be to require building envelopes on the titles which would restrict future owners to constructing within these envelopes. Requiring building envelopes is not the preferred approach as it potentially precludes alternative building designs and locations which achieve the same environmental outcome.

Given the presence of swift parrot habitat in the vicinity, it is also recommended that the title be endorsed to require buildings be designed to minimise the risk of collision. This is a standard requirement of developments in areas with swift parrot habitat. To minimise the risk of weeds and pathogens a condition should also be included requiring appropriate vehicle hygiene during construction and appropriately sourced materials for subdivi8sion works.

The only other environmental value requiring consideration is the Class 4 watercourse, which starts in the upper slopes above 50 Rada Road then moves through 50 Rada Rd and along the reserve road to Corby’s Road. This watercourse is also protected under Schedule 5 of the Scheme.

Accordingly, the impacts of the proposal are most appropriately assessed below in relation to Schedule 5.

______

Page 72 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Schedule 5: Waterways, Wetlands and the Coastal Area Schedule

As the works to upgrade Corby’s Road will involve works within a waterway, the proposal triggers Clause 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.3.1 of Schedule 5. These clauses are addressed as follows.

The works in and adjacent to the watercourse are limited to road construction, including upgrading the existing culvert and limited vegetation removal. The arborist advice and tree plan accompanying the engineering drawings will ensure vegetation impacts are the minimum necessary and biological diversity is maintained.

Engineering requirements will ensure the culvert will be appropriately sized and soil and water management measures implemented during construction, which will ensure in-stream hydrology is maintained, erosion is minimised and sediment and nutrient flows are prevented from entering the watercourse. Therefore the proposed works are consistent with the State Policy on Water Quality Management and Clauses 5.2.1.1, 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.3.1 of Schedule 5.”

3.2 External Referrals

TasWater

The application was referred to TasWater in accordance with the requirements of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. TasWater has provided its response to the Council Notice of Planning Application Referral noting that they did not object to the proposal and did not have any conditions of approval to submit. A copy of the response from TasWater has been included in the attachments to this report.

3.3 Representations Responses to the issues raised in representations are as follows:

The development will have a negative It is considered that the development is a impact upon the character and density of logical extension of the existing Low Kettering. Density Residential zoned area to the immediate east of the subject site. The proposal additionally complies with the minimum lot size of 2500sqm allowable under the Planning Scheme as a result of Planning scheme amendment PSA-2014-2. The proposal will have a negative impact Traffic issues have been discussed in more on the peaceful and quiet nature of the detail in the engineering Evaluation surrounding area due to an increase in contained within this report. traffic. The proposal has uncommitted protection At least one black gum tree will require of the large Black Gum trees dotted removal to accommodate the upgrade of throughout the site and surrounding access the road. To ensure further impacts on ways. black gums arising from the road construction are limited to the minimum necessary, a condition has been included in the permit requiring arborist input into the detailed engineering drawings. To ensure future development of the lots minimises the impacts on black gums, a further condition is included on the permit requiring a covenant on the title to the effect that future development of the lots must be designed and located to avoid ______

Page 73 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 removal of remnant eucalypt trees unless it can be demonstrated that there are no practical alternative designs or locations for the particular needs of the use or development. We would prefer a compromise of no more The proposal complies with the minimum than 2 new lots. lot size of 2500sqm and Council has no ability to require the applicant to increase the size of the lots proposal by way of a reduction in the overall lots proposed. The piece of land for the proposed Future development works are not able to subdivision is relatively steep with the be assessed at the subdivision stage. restriction of a Landslide Hazard, between Lot 1 and Lot 4, and Lot 2 and Lot 3. Therefore, any excavation for house sites and drive ways would require extreme works. The land is a Biodiversity Protection area The Biodiversity Protection Area does not and this must be adhered to. There are apply as this proposal is being considered stands of Black Ovate Gums (a protected under the Kingborough Planning Scheme species) and provide habitat for Wedge Tail 2000. However this scheme does enable Eagles, Grey Heron, Swift Parrot etc., consideration of environmental values and which I frequently observe. They are also a it is recognised that the site does contain beautiful tree and they stand on their own important stands of black gum trees. enhancing beauty to the environment. The Providing the recommended conditions are roots of the trees also help water control included in the permit, these black gum and holding the steep slope together thus trees are being retained to the extent reducing erosion. practicable given the zoning of the subject land. Drainage is obviously a major issue, which This issue has been discussed in more has been shown on the plan. It is vital that detail in the Engineering Evaluation the dams be retained (especially Lot 3) as contained within this report. they provide a vital solution in controlling water run off down the steep slope of land, particularly after heavy continuous rains. The dams also provide habitat for the native hens, wild ducks and frogs. Waste water from future development This issue has been discussed in more needs to be considered, which will add to detail in the Environmental Health the drainage problems. Evaluation contained within this report. As noted above, any future dwelling on the site will be required to have a wastewater treatment system capable of treating to secondary standard with disinfection. The proposed lot sizes are adequate to install such a wastewater system on each lot without long term environmental or health impacts. With the above considerations I have given The proposed lots comply with both and the restrictions that PDA Surveyors minimum lot sizes, dimensions and also have shown (including drainage building envelope standards contained in easements/drive ways/protected Black the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000. Ovates/waste water) the lot sizes are too The proposed lots are above the minimum small for future houses. The land should be 2500sqm size and are considered to be of considered for low impact standards. a size and configuration that will be able to accommodate the future development of a residence and associated outbuildings as well as onsite waste water treatment and

______

Page 74 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 retention of trees, providing the recommended conditions are included in the permit. The ambience and beauty of Kettering is to The lots comply with minimum lot sizes be retained. ‘The environment and the approved by the Tasmanian Planning vegetated visual backdrop’ (ref. Tas Commission in 2015 and also the approved Planning Commission dated October 6th rezoning application DAS-2014-2. 2014) should be respected, and with 4 houses squeezed onto these proposed 4 lots will take away from this concept. Some 12 trees are marked (blue ribbon) on Only those trees requiring removal to both sides of Corby Road to the current accommodate the upgrade of the road will entrance of the driveway to the proposed be approved for removal in accordance lots. It is unnecessary to cut these Black with the advice of a suitably qualified Ovate down for the 5.5m upgrade, as there arborist. is ample space of several meters on the eastern side to accommodate the road. The proposed cul de sac of 18m diameter Traffic issues have been discussed in more is a huge area in this development. A large detail in the Engineering Evaluation apron has been allowed for on the southern contained within this report. sides of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so why sacrifice the large Black Ovates and Pulchellas for the cul de sac? There must be a low impact standard for this area. I am very concerned for safety in regard to Traffic issues have been discussed in more the increased traffic, (most households detail in the engineering Evaluation have 2 cars), meaning 10 vehicles (plus contained within this report. courier services and visitors) will be continually turning from the Channel Highway into Corby Road. Traffic to the Bruny Island Ferry is heavy, especially during summer through to autumn. With vehicles turning into Corby Road, from the north, the following traffic is stopped as there is no slip lane. During peak ferry times there is usually a bank up of cars to the oval, so how will these extra vehicles access Corby Road? An accident waiting to happen. This needs to be seriously considered by Kingborough Council and referred to Tas State Roads. The advertised application documentation The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act online and also available at Council offices 1993 requires that the application has both did not include approval from Council or the the consent of the General Manager and minister on behalf of the Crown. the Crown. The Act does not specifically state that consents are required to be part of advertised documentation, just that they must be received in order for the application to be valid. The application received consent from Council’s General Manager on 25 June 2015 whilst Crown consent was received from the applicant on 28 August 2017. The application does not provide legal The proposal seeks approval for lots which frontage to a road as per the definitions will have frontage to a new road that will be contained under the Planning Scheme. constructed to Council standards and be taken over by Council as a Council owned and maintained road.

______

Page 75 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The proposal therefore meets the Planning scheme so far as lots having frontage to a ‘road’ as per the legal definition contained within the Planning Scheme.

4 STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES

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

5 CONCLUSION

The proposed subdivision provides for rural residential expansion in a westerly direction away from the village centre of Kettering. Lot sizes of adjoining land to the east are of a similar size and the proposal results in an orderly pattern of development that does not result in leapfrogging or create ribbon development.

The minimum lot size of 2500sqm provides for low density residential development with sufficient area to manage for the construction of a dwelling and associated wastewater and stormwater impacts.

The existing road infrastructure, together with the proposed new roadworks to be constructed as part of the application, is sufficient to facilitate future expansion in this location. The subject site is also located within a reasonable walking distance to public services and facilities.

Approval is accordingly recommended subject to conditions.

6 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for subdivision of four lots, balance lot and road lot and road upgrade works at 26 Corbys Road and adjoining Crown reserve road, Kettering for PDA Surveyors be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. DAS-2015-6 and Council Plan Reference No. P1 submitted on 26 February 2015, P2 submitted 25 June 2015, P3 submitted 15 June 2017, P4 submitted 28 August 2017, P5 submitted 30 August 2017 and P6 submitted 17 October 2017. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.

2. As no provision has been made for recreation space or improvements thereto, and having formed the opinion that such a provision should be made, Council invokes the provisions of Section 117 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and requires security equivalent of 5% of the unimproved value of the gross area of the subdivision. This should be in the form of a direct payment made before the sealing of the Final Plan, or alternatively, in the form of security ______

Page 76 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 provided under Section 117 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993.

The subdivider is to obtain a valuation from a registered Valuer for the purposes of determining the unimproved value of the gross area of the subdivision.

3. The titles for the new lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 must be endorsed to state: “Onsite wastewater disposal must be via an AWTS (Aerobic Wastewater Treatment System), or an alternative treatment system with disinfection, capable of treating effluent to a secondary standard prior to discharge to the land application area.”

4. Detailed engineering drawings submitted to Council for endorsement for each stage must be developed in consultation with a suitably qualified arborist (Cert IV Arboriculture and qualified in QTR Assessment) and include a tree plan that:

a) identifies all native trees >25cm and associated trees protection zones within the subject land;

b) specifies which trees are to be removed and which can be retained;

c) demonstrates the subdivision works, including road, stormwater infrastructure, services and other utilities are designed, located and constructed to minimise impacts on high conservation value trees, including any E. ovata trees >25cm and any eucalypts >70cm;

d) identifies reasonable mitigation and/or protection measures to be implemented to minimise the impacts of the development on the health of trees to be retained and avoid their loss within the scope of the approved development;

e) is in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 for the protection of trees on development sites; and

f) is to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services.

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

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

6. All trees identified for retention in endorsed tree plan are to be appropriately protected during and after construction in accordance with all the recommendations of the arborist to ensure that no damage is inflicted that may impact upon the health of the trees or cause them to die. This includes, but is not limited to establishing and maintaining a Tree Root Protection zone between any works and adjacent native vegetation prior to commencement of construction in accordance with AS 4970-2009 to exclude:

(a) Storing of building materials;

(b) Vehicular traffic;

(d) Excavation works.

______

Page 77 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Evidence of satisfactory installation of this fencing is to be provided to Council prior to the commencement of any on-site works.

7. Only those trees identified for removal in the endorsed tree plan may be removed as part of the proposed development unless the consent of Council has been obtained and it can be demonstrated by a qualified arborist that:

a) the health and viability of the trees is such that they represent a danger; and/or,

b) there are no reasonable mitigation and/or protection measures able to be implemented to minimise the impacts of the development on the health of these trees and avoid their loss within the scope of the approved development.

Should further tree removal be approved by Council following arborist advice, the cost of removal of these trees and any offset required for the loss of these trees must be borne by the applicant.

8. To offset the loss of high conservation value trees approved for removal in the endorsed tree plan for each stage, an offset of $500/tree for the removal of any Eucalyptus ovata (black gum) >40cm or other eucalypt >70cm must be paid into Council’s Environmental Fund, to be used to manage and conserve habitat in the vicinity of Kettering.

Trees must not be removed prior to endorsement of the tree plan by the Manager Development Services, issue of start of works for each stage and payment of the offset.

9. To ensure future development of lots retains and protects tree of high conservation value and minimises collision risk to swift parrots, prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey the titles of all lots (excluding the balance) must be endorsed via a covenant on the title to the effect that:

a. all proposed dwellings and outbuildings are to be designed to limit the likelihood of bird strike as far as possible and development is to be designed in accordance with the Bird Collision Code prepared by the Threatened Species Network.

b. no felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of eucalypt trees can take place without the prior written consent of Council;

c. future development must be designed and located to avoid and mitigate impacts on Eucalyptus ovata trees >25cm and other eucalypts >70cm to the extent feasible, including buildings, access, stormwater, bushfire hazard and on-site wastewater;

d. Council will only approve impacts on these trees where it can be demonstrated that, based on the advice of a suitably qualified and independent arborist, the trees are unable to be retained because either:

i) the health and viability of the trees is such that they represent a danger; and/or,

ii) there is no feasible alternative location and design which avoids or mitigate the impacts of the development on the health of these trees while also allowing the lot to be developed for its intended purpose. ______

Page 78 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 e. Any loss of these trees is offset to the satisfaction of Council.

10. All extensions or relocations of infrastructure that are externally required to serve the development must be constructed to the approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services at the applicant’s cost.

Power and telecommunications networks must be available to service all lots to the services providers’ requirements. Any network extensions required must be undertaken at the applicant’s cost.

11. An application for a Council permit to undertake works in Councils road must be lodged by the applicants’ supervising engineer, the associated fee paid and permit issued prior to works commencement within Rada Road and the Crown road reservation. Similarly a permit to undertake works within the Crown Reserved Road must be obtained from the Department of State Growth (copy to Council).

The applicant must provide a bond and bank guarantee or cash security for the works required to be undertaken within the unformed Crown road reserve prior to the issue of a permit to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Engineering Services.

12. All the downpipes from the existing dwelling and sheds must be connected to the proposed new stormwater connection by a licensed plumbing contractor and inspected by a Council Plumbing Surveyor prior to backfilling.

This work must be carried out prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey.

13. The developer must obtain from Council a Plumbing Permit for relocation of the existing AWTS irrigation area. This application must be to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health Officer and must be certified by the designer prior to sealing of the final plan of survey.

14. The waste water irrigation area from the existing dwelling must be relocated so that it lies within the proposed new property boundary and complies with the setback requirements in the Building Act 2016. A plumbing permit must be obtained from Council granting approval of the work prior to works commencing. The work must be carried out and a certificate of completion issued by Council prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey.

15. A Council engineering plan approval and inspection fee of 2% of the estimated value of the construction works (including GST, provisional items and contingencies) for the development or the current minimum fee must be paid at the time of submission of the design plans for approval.

Return inspections for non-compliance and/or additional audit inspections requested by the supervising engineer will incur additional hourly rate charges based on the rates adopted by Council and prevailing at the time of payment.

Any additional fees must be paid prior to issue of a Certificate of Practical Completion, or deducted from any securities held by Council for the works.

16. Prior to the commencement of site works, a soil and water management plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to Council for approval by the Manager - Development Services. The plan must be in accordance with NRM South Soil and Water Management Code of Practice 2009.

______

Page 79 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 A site inspection by a Kingborough Council Development Engineering Inspector must be undertaken prior to the commencement of any work on site to ensure all soil and water control measures are in place.

Prior to completion, all disturbed surfaces on the land except for those areas set aside for roadways and footpaths, must be top-dressed to a minimum depth of 50mm with approved local stockpiled topsoil or weed free imported topsoil. The top- dressed areas must be stabilised and revegetated with local plants, grasses, all to the satisfaction of the Manager - Development Services.

17. The staged subdivision engineering design and construction works must be carried out generally in accordance with the submitted application proposal plans and supporting documentation P4 to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services and comply with the following:

 Austroads Standards

 Councils LGAT Tasmanian Standard Drawings (TSD)

 Australian Rainfall and Runoff Guidelines

The engineering plans must include, but not be limited to the following;

a) Provide a piped reticulated stormwater system to service all lots and a pipe discharge to Councils Selby Road stormwater drainage system;

b) Provide a kerbed and sealed (concrete or asphalt) 5m wide shared access driveway to service lots 2 and 3 within a minimum 6m wide Reciprocal Rights of Way. 3.6 m wide rural standard asphalt sealed accesses must be provided to service lots 1 and 2 and the existing house lot. Concentrated drainage from the shared driveway must be collected by grated pits and/ or grated trenches and piped to the reticulated stormwater system;

c) Rada road must be extended from the existing junction with the Reserved Road to the proposed cul de sac servicing proposed lots 1 to 4 and existing house lot. The new road construction must be in accordance with Councils’ rural sealed (asphalt) standard. The new road must be drained to the existing Corby Road stormwater system. Existing pipe culverts must be upgraded in accordance with the submitted PDA hydraulic plans and subdivision catchment assessment requirements;

d) Provide a minimum 150 mm diameter standard piped house stormwater connections to service the low points of all lots in conformance with councils’ standard drawing TSD-SW25-v1;

e) Provide an urban standard kerbed, asphalt sealed and drained turning area in conformance with council’s standard drawing TSD-R07-v1 - Offset Circular Type;

f) Provide 2.5m wide drainage easements as required; and

g) Demonstrate they have been developed in consultation with a suitably qualified arborist and include the endorsed tree plan required in Condition 4.

The engineering plan approval will be valid for a maximum period of two years from the date of Council endorsement. If practical completion has not been achieved within the time limit, the engineering plans will be subject to re-assessment. ______

Page 80 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The engineering plans and specifications must be prepared and certified by a qualified engineer to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services.

The subdivision works must be supervised by a qualified civil engineer.

18. No works are to commence on site, or within a Council roadway, without a ‘Start of Works notice’ being lodged with, and accepted by the Executive Manager - Engineering Services.

At least 5 working days notice of intention must be given to commence works or resume works after works on site have ceased for a period of six (6) working days or more.

19. At practical completion and the satisfactory completion of all mandatory audit inspections the supervising engineer must:

a) Request a joint on site practical completion inspection with the Council’s authorised representative (within 5 working days of Council’s receipt of the request);

b) Provide written confirmation that the works have been substantially completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the appropriate levels of quality and workmanship have been achieved;

c) Provide engineer’s certification that site filling exceeding 300mm has been placed in accordance with AS 3798 (guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments) as amended from time to time; and

d) Provide a signed checklist for ‘As Constructed’ drawings.

Council will issue a ‘Certificate of Practical Completion’ including a minor defects list, upon the successful completion of:

 All mandatory audit inspections; and

 Provision of Bond and Bank guarantees (as applicable).

The effective date of the ‘Certificate of Practical Completion’ shall be the latest on site inspection date.

20. A re-peg survey must be undertaken by a Registered Surveyor upon completion of the subdivision construction works. A copy of the re-peg survey notes must be lodged with Council, together with evidence that they have been registered at the Land Titles Office. In cases where a bond and bank guarantee is lodged, the cost of the re-peg survey must be included in the bond and bank guarantee.

21. The supervising engineer must lodge a maintenance bond and bank guarantee of 10% of the total subdivision construction costs bond figure, including GST, to cover the satisfactory rectification of minor defects and defective works during the statutory 26 weeks maintenance period prior to the issue of a Certificate of Practical Completion.

The supervising engineer must request a Final Inspection of the subdivision works with Councils Development engineer just prior to the end of the maintenance period. Any outstanding works must be completed and reinspected prior to council take- over of their infrastructure. ______

Page 81 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 22. Council will provide unique KC road numbers for all the proposed roads within the development, these numbers must then be referenced on design and ‘As- Constructed’ drawings. The proposal will also be assessed as to the suitability of street numbering for each road segment.

The applicant must submit to Council within one month of the permit being issued a list of preferred names for new roads or alternately select names from Council’s preferred road name listing.

Should the applicant not submit or select a road name(s) Council will allocate a name from the preferred road name listing.

All new road signs related to this development must be installed by Council at the applicant’s cost. The actual amounts must be paid prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey and will be based on the rates adopted by Council and prevailing at the time of payment.

ADVICE

A. The Developer should not allocate any property address numbers for the proposed lots.

New property addresses have been allocated as follows:

Lot No. Allocated Property Address 1 18 Corbys Road, Kettering 2 20 Corbys Road, Kettering 3 22 Corbys Road, Kettering 4 24 Corbys Road, Kettering Balance 26 Corbys Road, Kettering

B. A Final Plan of Survey must be submitted to Council for sealing, together with a Schedule of Easements, a copy of the survey notes, and a copy of the balance plan (where applicable). Payment of Council’s fee for sealing the Final Plan of Survey and Schedule of Easements must be made upon submission of plans.

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

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

Attachments: 1. TasWater Advice (1) 2. Location Plan (1) 3. Proposal Plans (4) ______

Page 82 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 83 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 84 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 85 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 86 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 87 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

Open session of Council resumed at

OFFICERS REPORTS TO COUNCIL

FILE NO 19.139 DATE 29 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER MEG LORANG – BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT OFFICER ENDORSED BY JON DOOLE – MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE

POLICY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSHFIRE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AREAS ON COUNCIL OWNED AND MANAGED LAND

1 PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 3.0 A Healthy Natural Environment Strategic Outcome 3.1 The values of the natural environment are protected and enhanced through strategic and coordinated natural resource management Strategy 3.1.2 Protect and enhance important biodiversity and coastal values of Council owned and managed properties

1.1 The purpose of this report is to introduce a new policy (policy number 4.13) which aims to provide Council with a framework for assessing and processing requests to establish bushfire Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land for the benefit of adjoining developments.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Hazard Management Areas are defined as: ‘the area between a habitable building or building area and bushfire prone vegetation, which provides access to a fire front for firefighting, which is maintained in a minimal fuel condition in which there are no other hazards present which will significantly contribute to the spread of a bushfire’. (Planning Directive No. 5.1 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code).

2.2 The incorporation of the Australian Standard for Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas (AS3959:2009) into the National Construction Code and State Planning Directive No. 5.1 (Bushfire-Prone Areas Code), has resulted in a statutory obligation to provide and maintain managed areas (bushfire Hazard Management Areas) around new homes in bushfire prone areas. ______

Page 88 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 2.3 In a few cases, the dimensions of the required Hazard Management Area mean that some pre-existing lots are too small to contain the necessary bushfire Hazard Management Area wholly within the subject lot. These lots will rely on the establishment of bushfire Hazard Management Areas on adjoining properties, including Council reserves.

2.4 Titles created for lots after 1 July 2015 must contain Hazard Management Areas wholly within the subject lot. As numerous lots adjoining Kingborough’s bushland reserves network pre-exist this date there is a need for a formal policy on how requests to establish bushfire Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land for the benefit of adjoining developments are assessed and managed.

3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 The creation of Hazard Management Areas for new buildings in bushfire Prone Areas is currently regulated across Tasmania under the Tasmanian State Planning Provisions of the Building Act 2016 and Building Regulations 2016.

3.2 Other relevant legislation includes:

 Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015

 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

 Fire Service Act 1979

 Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993

3.3 The Bushfire Prone Areas Code (Planning Directive No 5.1) which applies to interim planning schemes, requires a hazard management area to be established and maintained between the bushfire prone vegetation and the building at a distance equal to, or greater than the separation distance specified for the Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL) in Australian Standard 3959-2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 The policy attempts to minimise the use of Council land (specifically natural area reserves) for private use as a Hazard Management Area. The new policy has been developed with technical input from Council staff.

4.2 The approach that the policy takes is similar to that taken by other councils and state government agencies which have policy-driven standards that are mandatorily imposed on the developers of new buildings in fire prone areas.

4.3 Where the use of Council owned or managed land cannot be avoided, a set of assessment criteria are proposed to determine the maximum extent to which any Hazard Management Area will be permitted on Council owned or managed land. These criteria form Appendix B of this report.

4.4 Where the use of Council owned or managed land cannot be avoided, the maximum extent to which any Hazard Management Area will be permitted on Council land will be the minimum necessary to provide a buffer appropriate for protection of a building constructed to BAL 29 under AS3959:2009 unless exceptional circumstances can be established.

______

Page 89 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 4.5 The mechanism for applying the policy requirements to property developments will be a Part 5 Agreement on the title of properties that receive approval to include any Kingborough Council land in their Hazard Management Area.

4.6 An overview of the proposed new policy was presented to Council at a workshop on 2 October 2017 and a copy of the presentation was made available to all Councillors.

5 FINANCE

5.1 In the absence of a policy direction, the initial cost to clear vegetation and then annually maintain the cleared area within Council’s reserves in order to establish and maintain bushfire Hazard Management Areas for private property owners is currently being borne by Council.

5.2 As more development occurs in bushfire prone areas it is foreseeable that Council will receive an increasing number of requests to establish and maintain Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land for the benefit of private developments.

5.3 There is considerable cost associated with clearing vegetation for the establishment and maintenance of Hazard Management Areas for the purposes of providing bushfire protection to properties adjoining fire prone vegetation. Benchmarking with other Councils indicates the cost is between $3000 and $5000 per hectare for initial clearance or thinning (depending on terrain, access etc). Follow up maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $200 per 400m² (house) block but no accurate costs have been determined.

5.4 Where approval is given by Council for Hazard Management Areas to be established on Council land, costs associated with the process will be managed using a Part 5 Agreement attached to the property title, stating that the property owner is responsible for all costs associated with establishment and maintenance of the Hazard Management Area. Council will be required to complete the work or manage contractors.

6 ENVIRONMENT

6.1 The establishment and maintenance of Hazard Management Areas on Council land requires vegetation thinning and removal and annual maintenance to ensure the vegetation fuel is kept in a minimum condition. This activity has the potential to negatively impact upon the natural values of Council’s bushland reserve network.

6.2 The proposed Policy aims to reduce the negative impact on the natural and recreational values of Council owned and managed land by ensuring adverse impacts associated with the clearance of vegetation for the creation of Hazard Management Areas for private development are avoided where possible. Where the creation of Hazard Management Areas on Council owned land cannot be avoided, adverse impacts will be minimised.

7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 The proposed policy has implications for development applications for new developments and extensions to existing buildings in bushfire prone areas. In particular, the policy will need to be communicated to accredited bushfire hazard practitioners responsible for writing bushfire Hazard Management Plans for proposed developments as well as other practitioners who provide advice on

______

Page 90 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 matters relating to planning and building in bushfire-prone areas in Tasmania. Stakeholders will be notified of the new Policy.

7.2 Public communication about the new Policy on the establishment of Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land will be provided through local media, placement on the Council’s website and availability at the Civic Centre.

8 RISK

8.1 Development in bushfire prone areas is increasing and is creating new risks for Council as more people live in bushfire prone areas.

8.2 Vegetation clearing associated with the establishment and maintenance of Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land have the potential to negatively impact on the natural and recreation values of Council’s reserves as well as the cost of managing reserves. This can conflict with Council’s management responsibility for preserving natural & recreational values of its reserves network.

8.3 There is a risk that in the absence of policy direction, Council may have to resource the cost of removing vegetation from Council owned or managed land for the creation of Hazard Management Areas for private developments.

8.4 Allowing Hazard Management Areas to be established or maintained on Council owned or managed land by private property owners has the potential to expose Council to liability if non-Council employees are injured whilst working on Council land. For this reason it is proposed that Council employees or contractors engaged by Council undertake the associated works and the cost of these works is borne by the private property owner (conditioned via a Part 5 Agreement).

8.5 Council has an obligation to manage fire risk on its own land. Allowing Hazard Management Areas to be established on Council owned or managed land for the benefit of private property has the potential to expose Council to liability if the Hazard Management Areas are not maintained to the standard and frequency prescribed in the Part 5 Agreement and a bushfire impacts on the subject private property.

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 Council currently has no guidelines or processes to manage ad hoc requests to establish and maintain Hazard Management Areas for private development on Council owned or managed land in a consistent and transparent manner. The proposed policy aims to provide a consistent approach to the management of requests to establish Hazard Management Areas on Council owned and managed land.

9.2 Council has an obligation to manage bushfire risk from its own land but it also has a commitment to maintain a balance between managing bushfire risk and protecting the natural and recreation values of its bushland reserves from the impact of new Hazard Management Areas.

9.3 The new policy for the establishment of bushfire Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land outlines the measures that Council will take to reduce the impact of development requirements for private property on Council’s bushland reserves whilst at the same time accommodating reasonable requirements for developments in bushfire prone areas.

______

Page 91 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 10 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council:

a) adopt the policy on the establishment of bushfire Hazard Management Areas on Council owned or managed land (and associated criteria for processing HMA requests) with immediate effect. b) communicates the introduction of the new policy with accredited bushfire hazard practitioners. c) reviews the policy annually to ensure it remains consistent with statutory requirements and best practice for building in bushfire prone areas.

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

______

Page 92 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Policy on the Establishment (Policy No. 4.13) of Bushfire Hazard

LAST NEXT Management Areas on REVIEW REVIEW MINUTE REF Council land DEC 2017 NOV 2018

POLICY 1.1 The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework for managing requests STATEMENT: to incorporate Council owned or managed land into new bushfire Hazard Management Areas (HMAs) for private property. 1.2 Kingborough Council recognises that HMAs are an important mechanism for mitigating the risk and providing a degree of protection for people and property from the life threatening consequences of bushfires. Council also has a commitment to maintain a balance between managing bushfire threat and protecting the natural values of its bushland reserves from the impact of new HMAs.

DEFINITIONS: AS 3959:2009 Australian Standard for Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas. Bushfire Hazard Management Area (HMA) is defined in the Bushfire Prone Areas Code Tasmania under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. Hazard Management Area means the area between a habitable building or building area and bushfire-prone vegetation, which provides access to a fire front for firefighting, which is maintained in a minimal fuel condition and in which there are no other hazards present which will significantly contribute to the spread of a bushfire. HMAs will provide a degree of protection for people from the life threatening consequences of radiant heat by providing separation from unmanaged vegetation. HMAs whilst designed to enhance the ability of buildings to withstand bushfire attack in no way form a guarantee against the loss of life or property as a result of bushfire. The Bushfire–Prone Areas Code requires HMAs to be established and maintained between the bushfire prone vegetation and the building at a distance equal to, or greater than the separation distance specified for the Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL) in AS 3959 – 2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas. Separation distances for HMAs are defined in Table 2.4.4 AS 3959 – 2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas. Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) is a numerical value which relates to heat exposure levels (the severity of radiant heat) that a site may experience during a bushfire. BAL are derived from Australian Standards 3959-2009 and are measured in increments of radiant heat expressed in kilowatts per metre squared. The Australian Standard for Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas AS3959:2009 divides bushfire prone areas into six bushfire attack levels (BAL), based on the severity of the building’s potential exposure to ember attack, radiant heat and direct flame contact:  BAL-LOW - very low risk  BAL-12.5 - low risk  BAL-19 -moderate risk  BAL-29 -high risk  BAL-40 -very high risk  BAL-FZ -extreme risk (Flame Zone)

______

Page 93 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

The subdivision of land in bushfire prone areas requires a BAL assessment to ensure that each lot within the subdivision is able to provide a safe and compliant site for building. Once a Bushfire Attack Level has been determined for a site (by a qualified practitioner following the method outlined in Australian Standard for Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas AS3959:2009), appropriate building construction and design requirements can be determined. Developments that are closer to bushfire-prone vegetation will be assessed as having a higher Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) and as a result, more rigorous building construction standards will be required. Bushfire Prone Area is defined in the Building Regulations 2014 (as amended) as: a) Land other than land that is within the boundary of an area shown as being not bushfire-prone on a planning scheme map or on an overlay on a planning scheme map; and b) Where there is no area shown as being not bushfire-prone on a planning scheme map or on an overlay on a planning scheme map, land that is within 100m of an area of bushfire-prone vegetation equal to or greater than one hectare. Bushfire Hazard Management Plan A plan drawn up using AS3959:2009 that describes the architectural and land management requirements for a development to achieve an acceptable level of bushfire risk management. Bushfire Hazard Management Plans are drawn up by practitioners accredited by Tasmania Fire Service in the use of AS3959:2009.

OBJECTIVE: 2.1 To avoid the use of public land in Council’s care and control for private use as a HMA. 2.2 Where the creation of HMAs on Council land cannot be avoided, to minimise the extent to which Council owned land shall be used or relied upon for asset protection purposes to accommodate HMAs. 2.3 Provide a clear and transparent process and criteria that enable a consistent approach to the assessment of requests to establish HMAs on Council owned and managed land for the benefit of adjoining dwellings.

SCOPE: 3.1 This policy applies to all requests for HMAs on Council owned or managed land associated with new and existing uses and developments and includes: a) Development and Use applications assessed under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000, Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 or any subsequent planning scheme declared under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and applicable to the Kingborough Municipal area. b) New building work on land classified as being bushfire prone under the provisions of the Building Act 2016 and/or the Director of Building Control determination.

GUIDELINES 4.1 Where possible, all HMAs should be contained within the property being developed, irrespective of the presence of an existing Council maintained HMA within a reserve adjoining the subject property, unless in accordance with an existing Bushfire Management Plan for the reserve. 4.2 Where HMA requirements cannot be met within the private land being developed, private property owners must use an alternate bushfire protection design as a Deemed-to-Satisfy solution that meets the requirements of the National Construction Code to achieve an acceptable ______

Page 94 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 level of bushfire risk management for construction of a building to BAL 29 standard before Council will consider establishing a HMA on Council owned or managed land. 4.3 Council consent will be required to implement a Hazard Management Area on Council owned or managed land. A development proposing works on Council owned or managed land should not be prepared, or submitted without first achieving the consent of Council. 4.4 Council will give consideration to the need to balance the management of the threat of bushfires to human life and assets with the need to protect the ecological, cultural and recreational values of its bushland reserves. 4.5 Consent to create a HMA on council land will not be provided (other than in exceptional circumstances) for developments other than a new single habitable building on an undeveloped title created prior to 2015. 4.6 Before Council will give consideration to requests to clear vegetation on Council owned or managed land for incorporation into a Hazard Management Area for private property, property owners are required to demonstrate that they have: a) explored all other options (design and construction solutions, creation of escape routes, etc.). b) established and maintained a Hazard Management Area within the lot that is the subject of the request. c) used an alternate bushfire protection design as a Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution that meets the requirements of the National Construction Code to achieve an acceptable level of bushfire risk management for construction of a building to BAL 29 standard. 4.7 Where the creation of a HMA on Council land cannot be avoided (such as where the topography of a site is a limiting factor), each request will be considered on its own merits with regard to: a) the natural and cultural values (including recreational and visual amenity values) of the land, b) the relevant reserve management plans and/or strategy documents, and c) resources required to establish and maintain the HMA. Note: increased or unanticipated costs associated with building in a bushfire prone area or the size of a block limiting the area available for creation of a HMA are not considered valid reasons to require creation of HMA on Council land. 4.8 Costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of Hazard Management Areas on Council land are to be borne by the private property owner.

PROCEDURE: 5.1 Applications for new HMAs will be assessed against a set (POLICY DETAIL) of criteria contained in the related Council document: ‘Criteria for processing requests to establish Hazard Management Areas on Council land’. 5.2 From time to time Council may vary the criteria that apply to requests to establish Hazard Management Areas on Council land as the need arises (in response to changes in legislation etc.).

COMMUNICATION: 6.1 This policy will be made available to the general public on the Council website and at the Customer Services counter. 6.2 The following stakeholders have a direct interest in this policy and should be notified of any amendments through direct communications:  Council staff

______

Page 95 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  Development applicants  Bushfire Hazard Practitioners, building surveyors, development advisors and Consultants

LEGISLATION: 7.1 HMAs are required to ensure that potential bushfire fuel surrounding a building in a bushfire prone area is minimised. The creation of HMAs for new buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas is regulated across Tasmania under the Tasmanian State Planning Provisions and the Building Act 2016 and Building Regulations 2014 (until the implementation of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme at which time the requirements of the Building Regulations 2016 take effect). Other relevant legislation:  Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015  Building Regulation 2014 (Amended)  Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993  Fire Service Act 1979  Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993

RELATED  National Construction Code of Australia DOCUMENTS:  AS3959:2009 Australian Standard for Construction of Buildings in Bushfire- Prone Areas.  Bushfire- prone Areas Code, Tasmanian Planning Commission, Department of Justice, Tasmania  Planning Directive No. 5.1 Bushfire – Prone Areas Code  Guidelines for Development in Bushfire Prone Areas of Tasmania. Tasmania Fire Service. 2005  Kingborough Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas By-Law 2011  Kingborough Council Biodiversity Offset Policy  Tasmanian Vegetation Fire Management Policy (State Fire Management Council)

AUDIENCE: Kingborough Council Councillors Kingborough Council staff Development applicants Consultants Tasmanian Planning Commission Community Tasmania Fire Service Bushfire Planning and Policy Unit

______

Page 96 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Criteria for processing requests to establish Hazard Management Areas on Council land:

To be used in conjunction with the Policy on the Establishment of Bushfire Hazard Management Areas on Council land (Kingborough Council Policy No. 4.13).

The following details outline how Council will manage requests to establish HMAs on Council owned or managed land: 1. A development proposing works on Council owned or managed land should not be prepared, or submitted without first achieving the consent of Council. 2. Council will ensure that the Bushfire Attack Level and the HMA proposed are in proportion with the natural constraints of the land (such as topography). 3. Where the creation of HMAs on Council land cannot physically be avoided the inclusion of any Council land in a HMA is conditional upon: a) the HMA being required for the development of a new building, or an extension to an existing building, for a lot existing prior to 1 July 2015. Bushfire HMAs required for new subdivisions or for alterations or additions to an existing building lodged after this date will not be provided on Council land. Developments for titles created after 1 July 2015 must rely upon Performance Solutions alone to provide bushfire protection to a building. b) the siting and building design of the proposed building shall be such that all practical attempts will be made to minimise the extent of any vegetation clearing on Council land. c) the maximum extent of the HMA on Council land will be the minimum necessary to provide a buffer appropriate for protection of a building constructed to BAL 29 under AS3959:2009 unless exceptional circumstances (as described in point 8 below) can be established. 4. The initial establishment of a HMA on Council land will be implemented by Council as per an agreed plan, with all costs to be borne by the private property owner. Authority to establish and maintain HMA’s on Council land will be detailed in a Part 5 Agreement which will be attached to the title of the private property. 5. HMAs on Council land will only be established following the issue of a building permit and the commencement of building works but prior to the issue of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Payment of the cost associated with the establishment and ongoing maintenance of HMAs on Council owned land will be the responsibility of the private property owner. 7. Ongoing vegetation management work associated with the maintenance of HMAs on Council land will be supervised and/or carried out by Council employees in accordance with a formal agreement with Council, with all costs to be borne by the private property owner. 8. Only where an applicant can demonstrate there are exceptional circumstances will Council consider a request that does not meet all of the requirements (1 to 4 above). Exceptional circumstances may apply to developments with an existing title, in a location which is zoned residential and where the natural constraints of the land mean that it is not possible to build anywhere else on the subject lot. In such cases it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide supporting evidence to substantiate their request which must then be reported to and approved by the Council.

______

Page 97 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Additional notes for property owners seeking permission to establish a Hazard Management Area on Council Land: a) Applicants for new developments are advised to seek advice on the requirements for Hazard Management Areas through the Bushfire Hazard Management Plan process prior to having concept plans drawn up for new buildings. If the Bushfire Management Plan process indicates that it may be necessary to incorporate Council owned or managed land in the creation of a Hazard Management Area it is important to discuss this with Council before a final concept plan is written for the development site. b) Permission to establish a HMA on Council land requires a lease/licence agreement between Council and the property owner. c) The applicant is responsible for gaining all necessary statutory approvals, including all required documentation and associated costs (i.e. planning, legal, environmental and building).

Standard for vegetation management for establishment of HMAs a) Where approval is granted for a HMA to be established on Council owned or managed land, vegetation management for the HMA must be conducted in accordance with a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan endorsed by a TFS accredited person (in the case of a new development) or otherwise follow recommendations to maintain fuel in a ‘low condition’ – as per TFS Guidelines (Building for Bushfire – Hazard Management Areas, 2016). b) The extent of vegetation clearance/disturbance for a HMA is to be not more than the minimum necessary for adequate protection from bushfire.

______

Page 98 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 FILE NO 23.124, 28.90 DATE 28 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER RENAI CLARK - ROADS & STORMWATER ENGINEER ENDORSED BY DAVID REEVE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

OSBORNE ESPLANADE ONE WAY TRIAL AND CARPARKING

1 PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference:

Key Priority Area 2.0 Sustainable land use and infrastructure management Strategic Outcome 2.2 Community infrastructure is enhanced, replaced and maintained. 2.3 Development is of a high quality, with due consideration given to public amenity, heritage, landscape, easy access, sustainable design and efficient approval processes. Strategy 2.2.1 Maintain a safe and efficient road transport network so that it provides easy access for the whole community. 2.2.4 Ensure there is appropriate public parking facilities within each of the municipality’s commercial centres. 2.3.2 Provide visitor-friendly commercial centres with attractive streetscapes, parking and pedestrian connectivity

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to Council an assessment on the feasibility of trialling one way vehicle traffic on Osborne Esplanade (north of Beach Road only) and a suggested approach to future car parking on Osborne Esplanade.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 One of the many suggestions to improve Kingston Beach has been to limit the flow of traffic on Osborne Esplanade to one way only. This would create a greater emphasis on pedestrians by limiting traffic. By undertaking a trial, Council could test the concept, gather the community reaction and proceed as appropriate.

2.2 The Kingston Beach Community Association has already expressed support for a trial.

2.3 In addition it has been suggested that removal of carparking on Osborne Esplanade would improve the amenity of the area.

3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Road improvements are subject to the provisions of Section 30 the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982.

______

Page 99 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 4 DISCUSSION

One way traffic –Osborne Esplanade

4.1 For many years Council had been receiving complaints from the Kingston Beach community regarding antisocial behaviour such as hooning and revellers from the old Kingston Beach Hotel, usually on a Friday and Saturday evening after closure.

4.2 Following a number of weekend trials in 2005 Council resolved to implement a trial road closure for a two month period between February and April 2006. Barriers were installed in two locations on Osborne Esplanade either side of Victoria Street.

4.3 While the road closure had a positive effect in reducing hooning it created issues for vehicles u-turning at the barriers, particularly heavy vehicles such as garbage trucks.

4.4 Community feedback on the trial was mostly positive, however Council resolved to develop and implement an alternative traffic management solution. This was due to the Kingston Beach Liaison Group preferring a more friendly, safe and useable space that maximised the open space while reducing the speed and impact of cars along Osborne Esplanade.

4.5 Since the trial closure there have been a number of positive changes in the Kingston Beach precinct. The speed limit has been reduced to 40 km/h. Four speed humps have been installed on Osborne Esplanade. The hotel has changed in use and patronage and the cafes have generated a relatively high level of pedestrian activity. The dog beach is highly popular for families. These changes have seen a change in the character of people enjoying the Kingston Beach area. Hooning is no longer considered a major issue in Kingston Beach.

4.6 Council undertook traffic counts within the main Kingston Beach area between 16 April 2016 and 3 May 2016. The traffic counters collected traffic data for nine days during the school holiday period and eight days outside the school holiday period and included ANZAC Day.

4.7 Table 1 presents a summary of the daily traffic volumes:

School School Non-School Non-School Holiday Holiday Holiday Holiday Road Name Location Period Period Period Period Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Daily Traffic Daily Traffic Traffic Daily Traffic West of Beach Road 5,455 5,164 5,361 5,469 Balmoral Road Between Balmoral Road Beach Road & 832 1,011 771 858 Victoria Street Between Windsor Street Victoria Street 302 311 299 319 & Osborne Esplanade Between Osborne Beach Road & 1,225 1,397 1,043 1,576 Esplanade Victoria Street Between Osborne Victoria Street 998 1,150 857 1,338 Esplanade & Balmoral Road Table 1: Traffic Count Summary Daily Traffic Volumes ______

Page 100 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 4.8 Following the collection of traffic data Council engaged Pitt & Sherry to undertake a traffic study on the Kingston Beach precinct to investigate the traffic and parking impacts that could be expected as a result of implementing one way traffic on Osborne Esplanade between Beach Road and Victoria Street. The study encompassed Beach Road, Osborne Esplanade, Windsor Street, Balmoral Road, Victoria Street, Rollins Avenue and Albert Street.

4.9 The findings were that implementing a one way section (northbound) on Osborne Esplanade between Beach Road and Victoria Street may reduce traffic volumes by about 500 vehicles per day. However traffic would potentially increase on Victoria Street from around 300 vehicles per day to nearly 1,000 vehicles per day. The resultant increase in traffic volumes on Victoria Street relative to existing traffic volumes could result in concerns regarding a reduction in safety and amenity for the residents of Victoria Street.

4.10 Victoria Street is narrow (6.5 metres between kerbs). If the predicted increase in traffic volumes is realised it would likely result in the need for parking restrictions along Victoria Street.

4.11 It is also likely that traffic will increase on Windsor Street and the section of Balmoral Road between Osborne Esplanade and Windsor Street as motorists would be forced to circulate the road network seeking available car parking.

4.12 An alternative option of implementing a one way section (northbound) on Osborne Esplanade and Balmoral Road between Beach Road and Windsor Street may have a similar benefit in reducing traffic volumes by about 500 vehicles per day. However it may also minimise the potential for increased traffic on Victoria Street. It would likely result in an increase in traffic volumes on Windsor Street but Windsor Street is much wider than Victoria Street.

4.13 The majority of Balmoral Road is suitable to take additional traffic loads with the exception of a narrow section between Beach Road and the Rotary Centennial Park. Widening should be considered at this location if it is determined to proceed with this alternative option. Also junction safety improvements would be warranted at the 90 degree bend on Balmoral Road near the Red Cross Units.

4.14 Car parking demand is high along Osborne Esplanade at all times of the year but more particularly during the summer season. An occupancy survey was undertaken in late autumn during the peak traffic period (1pm Saturday 1 May 2016). 83% of the car parks between Beach Road and Victoria Street were occupied. 56% of the car parks between Victoria Street and Balmoral Road were occupied.

4.15 The Kingston Beach Community Association recently reported that on occasions both Osborne Esplanade and Victoria Street were restricted to single lane traffic movement and even blocked requiring vehicles to reverse and manoeuvre to facilitate passing. Albert Street was similarly congested by parked vehicles which required residents to reverse back to Victoria Street.

4.16 The majority of car parking along Osborne Esplanade is 90 degree angle parking. In implementing one way traffic the car parking would need to be modified to 30, 45 or 60 degree angle car parking to minimise the risk of motorists exiting the car park and travelling Osborne Esplanade in the wrong direction.

4.17 While 45 degree angle parking is usually easier for motorists to align with, it would result in the loss of 40% of the parking spaces on Osborne Esplanade. 30 degree angle parking would result in the loss of 22% of the parking spaces on Osborne Esplanade.

______

Page 101 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 4.18 There have been few crashes on Osborne Esplanade in the past 5 years and most have been caused by reversing without care. There was one incident involving a pedestrian child. The police report identified that the child was without parental supervision and attempted to run across the road to the toilet block and failed to check for traffic. The child only required first aid and this demonstrates that the motorist was travelling at a slow speed.

4.19 From observations and via the traffic count information the traffic travels slowly along Osborne Avenue and Balmoral Road. The high levels of pedestrians in the area acts as a visual cue for motorists.

4.20 There is no overriding advantage to implementing a one way system in Osborne Avenue, although there may be benefits to undertaking traffic calming to maintain the low speeds in the area and provide more pedestrian friendly crossing points. This may include kerb blisters and raised thresholds.

Car parking

4.21 A large majority of traffic on Osborne Esplanade is generated by motorists seeking car parking. If car parking was removed motorists will seek alternative parking that is still within convenient walking distance to the beach and restaurants.

4.22 The Beach Road car park is usually fully utilised on weekdays. However from previous inspections it has shown that the demand is not as heavy on weekends. The car park area along Balmoral Road adjacent to the Rotary Centennial Park has much less demand than Osborne Esplanade. There are limited parallel parking spaces along the Browns River section of Balmoral Road but this section has a high turn around as it is in close proximity to the dog beach area.

4.23 The car park at the Christopher Johnson Memorial Park often is only around 50% capacity. However Tyndall Road is unsealed and has a number of geometric and topographic constraints so would not be preferred by many motorists.

4.24 The most likely effect of removing carparking on Osborne Esplanade will be for the motorists to utilise Windsor Street, Balmoral Road and any spare capacity in the Beach Road carpark. It will also increase traffic movements to and from these areas.

4.25 Motorists would also seek to use Victoria Street, Albert Street and Rollins Avenue to park. The narrowness of these roads make them less suitable for parking and it is likely that parking restrictions would need to be applied to these roads. This will reduce the option for on street or visitor parking for residents of these streets.

4.26 Further carparking surveys are planned for the area to provide better information on parking demand at different times and dates.

5 FINANCE

5.1 Implementing one way traffic flow on Osborne Esplanade requires the realignment of car parking from 90 degree angle to 30 degree angle parking (recommended). A number of signs would need to be installed and precast concrete kerbing and bollards at the Beach Road and Victoria Street junctions to act as a barrier to prevent motorists travelling in the wrong direction. It is estimated that implementing a trial one way on Osborne Esplanade between Beach Road and Victoria Street would be in the vicinity of $20,000.

5.2 Implementing a trial one way on Osborne Esplanade and Balmoral Road between Beach Road and Windsor Street also requires precast concrete kerbing and bollards

______

Page 102 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 at the Windsor Street junction, junction safety improvements at the 90 degree bend on Balmoral Road and localised road widening between Beach Road and the Rotary Centennial Park. The cost estimate to implement this alternative option is in the vicinity of $65,000.

5.3 Removing carparking on Osborne Esplanade will involve reinstatement of the area from parking to landscaping to suit the planned upgrades in the adjacent foreshore areas. There would be an additional costs associated with this that would need to be accommodated in future upgrades to the Osborne Esplanade foreshore. There is also expected to be a cost associated with signage and marked parking bays in adjacent streets to suit the changed arrangements.

6 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

6.1 It will be necessary for Council to consult with the Kingston Beach Community Association and the community on any proposed trial. If Council resolves not to undertake a trial at this stage this will need to be communicated to the Kingston Beach Community Association.

6.2 Consideration of removal of car parking on Osborne Esplanade would need input from both residents and visitors to the area. This may be via surveys, letter drops to residents, discussion with community groups and sporting groups associated with the Kingston Beach and through Council’s social media.

7 RISK

7.1 There is a risk that increasing traffic movements on the surrounding local road network may adversely affect those residents, particularly with competing demands for on-street parking.

7.2 There is a risk that traffic speeds could increase on Osborne Esplanade as a result of implementing one way traffic flow due to traffic having greater road width. Introducing parallel parking on the residential side of Osborne Esplanade may be necessary to keep the road narrower.

8 CONCLUSION

8.1 The Pitt&Sherry study concluded that the existing traffic network within the Kingston Beach precinct operates efficiently with considerable spare capacity at the intersection to service additional growth. Adoption of one way traffic on Osborne Esplanade would reduce traffic volumes on Osborne Esplanade but may adversely affect the surroundings streets.

8.2 The previous issues of speeding traffic in the area that prompted road closures are not an issue now.

8.3 It is considered that implementing a trial one way traffic flow on Osborne Esplanade will provide only a small benefit to residents on Osborne Esplanade and pedestrians but will have an adverse impact on the surrounding road network and at high cost.

8.4 Introduction of raised thresholds and kerb blisters both midblock and at intersections to create multiple crossing points for pedestrians would continue to keep traffic speeds low and allow Osborne Esplanade to operate better as a shared zone.

8.5 Prior to considering any changes to carparking on Osborne Esplanade, additional carparking surveys and consultation with the community is required.

______

Page 103 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 9 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council:

a) Does not proceed with a trial one way system on Osborne Esplanade.

b) Develop an alternative traffic management plan which considers multiple pedestrian crossing points as part of the next stage of the Osborne Esplanade upgrade works.

c) A car parking survey is undertaken on the Kingston Beach area to better understand the parking demand at various peak times of the year.

d) Community consultation is undertaken on options for altering carparking on Osborne Esplanade to inform a final position for Council.

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

______

Page 104 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 FILE NO 12.127 DATE 29 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER FRED MOULT - EXECUTIVE MANAGER INFORMATION SERVICES ENDORSED BY TONY FERRIER – ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES POLICY AND PROCEDURES

1 PURPOSE Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 6.0 A well administered organisation Strategic Outcome 6.3 Legislative obligations are met Strategy 6.3.1 Ensure that Council’s statutory and regulatory obligations are met and that this assists in related activities occurring in a safe and orderly manner.

1.1 The purpose of this report is to recommend amendments to Council’s Policy 1.4 – Public Interest Disclosures Policy and Procedures, in line with procedures recently approved by the Ombudsman.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 (Act), commonly referred to as ‘Whistleblower Legislation’, facilitates disclosures of improper conduct from within public authorities (Council in this case) by employees and contractors.

2.2 The Act is based upon the principle that it is in the public interest for ‘whistle- blowing’ to occur and will be encouraged by ensuring that due protection is given to the discloser, and that their disclosures are properly dealt with. Council is required to submit its Public Interest Disclosure Procedures to the Ombudsman for approval every three years.

3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Council is required to comply with the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 and with the Ombudsman’s Guidelines.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 It is suggested by the Ombudsman, that public bodies adopt the Public Interest Disclosure Model Procedures (modified to suit their own circumstances) in order to promote a consistency of approach across the State, have confidence that the procedures are fit for purpose, and reduce the time and cost of developing their own procedures.

4.2 Councils Public Interest Disclosure Procedures are based on the model procedures published by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman recently reviewed the model procedures and made three main changes:

4.2.1 Clarified that a disclosure does not need to expressly refer to the Act. The onus lies on the public body to assess whether or not the Act applies to any complaint it receives from a public officer. This clarification was made as a result of “….complaints to this Office indicate that public bodies are failing to identify when a complaint about the conduct of a public officer made by another public officer could be a disclosure.” ______

Page 105 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 4.2.2 Clarified that a public body cannot receive a disclosure about itself, only its public officers. All disclosures about public bodies need to be referred to the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission.

4.2.3 Amended to the flow chart summarising the process under the Act for public bodies.

4.3 As a result of 4.2.1, Council’s procedures now include the Deputy General Manager and Executive Manager Organisational Development as delegated PID Officers to ensure the Act is actively considered when assessing complaints made about public officers.

4.4 Council’s staff and contractor induction processes will also include information about the PIS Act and how a disclosure can be made.

4.5 In accordance with the requirement of the Act, Council submitted a draft version of the new procedures to the Ombudsman which were subsequently approved in October 2017. These procedures have been included in the amended Public Interest Disclosures Policy (attached to this report) and are submitted to Council for adoption.

5 FINANCE

5.1 There are no financial implications associated with the adoption of this policy

6 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

6.1 Information relating to the Public Interest Disclosures Act and how Officers and Contractors can make disclosures has been included in Council’s induction manuals.

7 RISK

7.1 There are no risks associated with the adoption of this policy.

8 CONCLUSION

8.1 Council’s Public Interest Disclosure Policy and Procedures require revision as a result of amendments to the Model Public Interest Disclosure Procedures made by the Ombudsman.

8.2 The Ombudsman has approved Council’s modified Public Interest Disclosure Procedures and they are submitted to Council for adoption.

9 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That Council adopt the Public Interest Disclosure Policy and Procedures (Policy 1.4).

Name For Against Name For Against Cr Atkinson Cr Grace Cr Bastone Cr Percey Cr Dr Bury Cr Wass Cr Chatterton Cr Winter Cr Fox Cr Wriedt ______

Page 106 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 EXISTING POLICY

Public Interest Policy Number 1.4 Disclosures Policy LAST NEXT MINUTE REVIEWED REVIEWED REF December December

& Procedures 2017 2020

POLICY 1.1 Council is committed to the aims and objectives of the Public Interest STATEMENT: Disclosures Act 2002 (the Act). It does not tolerate improper conduct by its employees, officers or members, or the taking of detrimental action against those who come forward to disclose such conduct. 1.2 Council recognises the value of transparency and accountability in its administrative and management practices, and supports the making of disclosures that reveal the type of conduct to which the Act is directed. 1.3 Council will take all reasonable steps to protect people who make such a disclosure from any detrimental action in reprisal for making the disclosure, and to protect their welfare. It will also afford natural justice to all parties involved in the investigation of a disclosure.

OBJECTIVE: 2.1 These procedures establish a system for reporting disclosures of improper conduct or detrimental action by members, officers or employees of Council or its employees. The system enables such disclosures to be made to specifically nominated officers. Disclosures may be made by employees, or by contractors or former contractors who have or had a contract with Council for the supply of goods or services. 2.1 These procedures establish a system for reporting disclosures of improper conduct or detrimental action by Council or members, officers or employees of the public body. The procedures are also intended to assist its members, officers and employees to understand the way in which the Act operates and needs to be administered. 2.1 The system created by these procedures provides for such disclosures to be made to the General Manager (the Principal Officer) or to a delegated Public Interest Disclosure Officer. Disclosures may be made by people who are “public officers” with the Council, or by people who are or have been “contractors” with Council for the supply of goods or services.

SCOPE: 3.3 These procedures are designed to complement normal communication channels between supervisors and employees. Employees are encouraged to continue to raise appropriate matters at any time with their supervisors, and to use existing grievance procedures within the organisation where appropriate. Council policies that should be referred to regarding grievance procedures include: Policy 9.14 – Code of Conduct for Employees Council Policy 9.15 – Employee GrievanceIssue Resolution Council Policy 9.12 - Counselling and Disciplinary Administrative Policy Council Policy 1.8 - Councillor Code of Conduct Council Policy 9.184 - Code of Conduct for Employees 3.3 The procedures have been prepared in accordance with Guidelines and Standards published by the Ombudsman under s 38(1)(c) of the Act. These Guidelines and Standards can be seen on the

______

Page 107 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Ombudsman’s website at www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au.

PROCEDURE & 1. Appendix 1 DEFINITIONS:

COMMUNICATION: Members of the public. Kingborough Councillors Kingborough Council Staff Contractors engaged by Kingborough Council

LEGISLATION: Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002

______

Page 108 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 UPDATED POLICY FOR APPROVAL

PUBLIC INTEREST Policy Number 1.4

DISCLOSURES POLICY LAST NEXT MINUTE REVIEWED REVIEWED REF & PROCEDURES Dec 2017 Dec 2020

PROCEDURE & Appendix 1 DEFINITIONS:

OBJECTIVE: 2.1 These procedures establish a system for reporting disclosures of improper conduct or detrimental action by members, officers or employees of Council. The system enables such disclosures to be made to specifically nominated officers. Disclosures may be made by employees, or by contractors or former contractors who have or had a contract with Council for the supply of goods or services. 2.1 The procedures are also intended to assist its members, officers and employees to understand the way in which the Act operates and needs to be administered. 2.1 The system created by these procedures provides for such disclosures to be made to the General Manager (the Principal Officer) or to a delegated Public Interest Disclosure Officer. Disclosures may be made by people who are “public officers” with the Council, or by people who are or have been “contractors” with Council for the supply of goods or services.

SCOPE: 3.3 These procedures are designed to complement normal communication channels between supervisors and employees. Employees are encouraged to continue to raise appropriate matters at any time with their supervisors, and to use existing grievance procedures within the organisation where appropriate. Council policies that should be referred to regarding grievance procedures include: Policy 9.14 – Code of Conduct for Employees Policy 9.15 – Issue Resolution Policy 9.12 - Disciplinary Administrative Policy Policy 1.8 - Councillor Code of Conduct Policy 9.14 - Code of Conduct for Employees

______

Page 109 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

3.3 The procedures have been prepared in accordance with Guidelines and Standards published by the Ombudsman under s 38(1)(c) of the Act. These Guidelines and Standards can be seen on the Ombudsman’s website at www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au.

COMMUNICATION: Members of the public. Kingborough Councillors Kingborough Council Staff Contractors engaged by Kingborough Council

LEGISLATION: Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002

______

Page 110 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Kingborough Council

Procedures

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES ACT 2002

Revised: October 2017

______

Page 111 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Contents 1 Statement of Support 2 2 Purpose of these procedures 2 3 The purpose of the Act 3 4 How the Act works 3 5 Comparison with the Integrity Commission Act 4 6 Key terms 5 6.1 The right to make a disclosure 5 6.2 “Public officer” and “public body” 6 6.3 “Contractor” 8 6.4 “Improper conduct” and “corrupt conduct” 9 6.5 Detrimental action 10 7 The reporting system 12 7.1 To whom a disclosure may be made – general principles 12 7.2 Disclosure to persons within the Kingborough Council 13 7.3 Disclosure to the Ombudsman 13 7.4 Disclosure to the Integrity Commission 14 7.5 To which entity should a disclosure be made? 14 8 Roles and responsibilities 15 8.1 Members, officers and employees 15 8.2 Principal Officer 15 8.3 Public Interest Disclosure Officer 16 8.4 Investigator 16 8.5 Welfare manager 17 9 Confidentiality 17 10 Publishing statistics 18 11 Preliminary issues 19 11.1 What should the recipient of the disclosure do upon receipt of the disclosure? 19 11.2 Assessing the disclosure – is it a protected disclosure? 20 11.3 Should the disclosure be referred to another body? 21 11.3.1 Referral to the Ombudsman 21 11.3.2 Referral to the Integrity Commission 21 11.3.3 Referral of criminal conduct to the Police 21 11.4 Further assessment - Is the disclosure a public interest disclosure? 22 12 Protection 23 12.1 When does protection commence? 23 12.2 What protection does the Act provide? 23 13 Investigations 24 13.1 Introduction 24 13.2 Matters that do not have to be investigated 25

______

Page 112 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 13.3 Appointment of investigator and framing of terms of reference 26 13.4 Investigation plan 26 13.5 Natural justice 26 13.6 Conduct of the investigation 28 13.7 Referral of an investigation to the Ombudsman 28 13.8 Provision of information about the investigation 28 14 Action taken after an investigation 29 14.1 Investigator’s final report 29 14.2 Action to be taken 30 15 Managing the welfare of the discloser 30 15.1 Commitment to protecting disclosers 30 15.2 Keeping the discloser informed 31 15.3 Occurrence of detrimental action 31 15.4 Discloser implicated in improper conduct 32 16 Management of the person against whom a disclosure has been made 32 17 Offences 33 18 Approval and review of these procedures 34 20 Attachment 1: Flowchart 35

______

Page 113 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 1 Statement of Support The Kingborough Council is committed to the aims and objectives of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 (the Act). It does not tolerate improper conduct by its employees, officers or members, or the taking of detrimental action against those who come forward to disclose such conduct. The Kingborough Council recognises the value of transparency and accountability in its administrative and management practices, and supports the making of disclosures that reveal the type of conduct to which the Act is directed. The Kingborough Council will take all reasonable steps to protect people who make such a disclosure from any detrimental action in reprisal for making the disclosure, and to protect their welfare. It will also afford natural justice to all parties involved in the investigation of a disclosure.

2 Purpose of these procedures These procedures establish a system for reporting disclosures of improper conduct or detrimental action by members, officers or employees of the Kingborough Council. The procedures are also intended to assist its members, officers and employees to understand the way in which the Act operates and needs to be administered. The system created by these procedures provides for such disclosures to be made to the General Manager (the Principal Officer) or to a delegated Public Interest Disclosure Officer. Disclosures may be made by people who are “public officers” with the Kingborough Council. People who are or have been “contractors” with Kingborough Council for the supply of goods or services can make disclosures to the Ombudsman or Integrity Commission. The meaning of public officers and contractors is explained later in this document. These procedures are designed to complement normal communication channels between supervisors and employees. Employees are encouraged to continue to raise appropriate matters at any time with their supervisors, and to use existing grievance procedures where appropriate. The following policies and procedures are relevant in this regard: Policy 9.15 – Issue Resolution Policy 9.14 – Code of Conduct for Employees Policy 1.8 – Code of Conduct for Councillors Policy 9.12 - Disciplinary Administrative Policy The procedures have been prepared in accordance with Guidelines and Standards published by the Ombudsman under s 38(1)(c) of the Act. These Guidelines and Standards can be seen on the Ombudsman’s website at www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au.

3 The purpose of the Act The Act commenced operation on 1 January 2004. It was substantially amended by the Public Interest Disclosures Amendment Act 2009, following a major review of the Act, and these procedures reflect those amendments. The amendments took effect on 1 October 2010. The purposes of the Act are contained in its long title. These are:  to encourage and facilitate disclosures of improper conduct by public officers and public bodies;  to protect persons making those disclosures, and others, from detrimental action;  to provide for the matters disclosed to be properly investigated and dealt with; and  to provide all parties involved in the disclosures with natural justice. The public interest is served by providing an avenue for persons to report improper conduct and be protected for doing so.

______

Page 114 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 4 How the Act works Briefly, the Act works in this way:  it gives certain people – “public officers” and “contractors” – the right to make a disclosure about “improper conduct” or “detrimental action” to certain integrity agencies, other persons and bodies (Part 2 of the Act, particularly s 6);1  it provides certain statutory protections for protected disclosures (Part 3);  it dictates how the recipient of the disclosure is to deal with it (Parts 4 to 8);  it treats the Ombudsman as the oversight agency in relation to the operation of the Act, including the default investigator, monitor of investigations by public bodies, and setter of standards under the Act;  where the disclosure is handled by the Ombudsman or a public body, it requires a preliminary determination as to whether the protected disclosure is a “public interest disclosure” (ss 30 and 33). In other words a disclosure which, in the case of decision-making by the Ombudsman, meets the requirements of s 30(2), or, in the case of decision-making by the public body, meets the requirements of s 33(2);  subject to exceptions, it requires investigation by the Ombudsman or public body of any protected disclosure which is found to be a public interest disclosure (ss 39 and 63);  it requires such investigation to be conducted as soon as practicable (ss 39A and 77A);  it controls the manner in which a disclosure is investigated, and provides powers in this respect;  in the case of investigation by the Ombudsman, it gives the Ombudsman the power to recommend that action be taken in light of the investigation (s 56); and  in the case of an investigation by a public body which results in a finding that the alleged conduct occurred, it obliges the public body to take action to prevent that conduct from continuing or recurring, and to take action to remedy any harm or loss which may have arisen (s 75). A flow chart, which depicts the way in which a public body should deal with a disclosure made to it under the Act, is at Attachment 1 to this document. It is important to note that a person does not have to expressly reference the Act when making a disclosure in order to be eligible for protection, if all the requirements in the Act are otherwise met.

5 Comparison with the Integrity Commission Act The Act and the Integrity Commission Act 2009 (IC Act) work very differently. Perhaps the most important difference is that the IC Act does not contain any provisions which protect a person who makes a complaint under that Act from detrimental action by way of reprisal. The provision of such protection is a key feature of the Act. Other important differences are:  the fact that anyone can make a complaint under the IC Act, whereas the right to make a disclosure under the Act is given only to a current public officer and a contractor;  in the types of conduct to which the Act applies;2 - the fact that a disclosure may be made under the Act about proposed conduct, whereas the IC Act only concerns past conduct;  the fact that a disclosure under the Act may be oral, whereas a complaint under the IC Act must be in writing; and

1 Note that s 7A of the Act permits a person to whom a disclosure may be made under Part 2 of the Act to treat a person who is not a public officer or contractor as a contractor for the purposes of the Act, if they consider that it would be in the public interest to do so. A disclosure by a contractor is not necessarily protected if made to a public body, so referral should be made to the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission. 2 The Act concerns “improper conduct”, which embraces “corrupt conduct”. The IC Act concerns “misconduct” only and it is unclear as to the extent to which corrupt conduct would be able to be investigated. The definitions of these expressions used in the two Acts do not align.

______

Page 115 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  the different processes which each Act applies to a matter brought forward under it. A person who is trying to decide which Act to proceed under should consider seeking legal advice on what is the best course for them to take. It is possible for a disclosure which is made under the Act to be dealt with under the IC Act – see Part 4A of the Act.

6 Key terms 6.1 The right to make a disclosure The right to make a disclosure under the Act is given by s 6 of the Act. That states: 6. Disclosures about improper conduct or detrimental action (1) A public officer who believes that another public officer or a public body – (a) has engaged, is engaging or proposes to engage in improper conduct in their capacity as a public officer or public body; or (b) has taken, is taking or proposes to take detrimental action in contravention of section 19 – may disclose that improper conduct or detrimental action in accordance with this Part. (2) A contractor who believes that the public body with which the contractor has entered into a contract – (a) has engaged, is engaging or proposes to engage in improper conduct in its capacity as a public body; or (b) has taken, is taking or proposes to take detrimental action in contravention of section 19 – may disclose that improper conduct or detrimental action in accordance with this Part. As can be seen from the emphasis given to certain expressions in this version of s 6, the specific meanings given to a number of expressions are key to its operation. These are:  “public officer”  “public body”  “contractor”  “improper conduct”  “detrimental action” Because of the way that the expression “improper conduct” is defined in s 3 of the Act, a further expression is also very important. This is the expression “corrupt conduct”. Each of these expressions is now explained. 6.2 “Public officer” and “public body” These expressions are defined in ss 3 and 4 of the Act, in this way: 3. Interpretation "public body" means a public body referred to in section 4; "public officer" means a public officer referred to in section 4; 4. Public bodies and officers (1) Subject to subsection (3), the following bodies and authorities are public bodies for the purposes of this Act: (a) the Parliament of Tasmania;

______

Page 116 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 (b) a State Service Agency; (c) the Police Service; (d) a council; (e) a Government Business Enterprise; (f) a State-owned Company; (g) a council-owned company; (h) a body or authority, whether incorporated or not, whose members or a majority of whose members are appointed by the Governor or a Minister; (i) any other prescribed body or authority, whether incorporated or not – (i) to which any money is paid by way of appropriation from the Public Account; or (ii) over which the Government or a Minister exercises control. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the following persons are public officers for the purposes of this Act: (a) a Member of Parliament; (b) a councillor; (c) a member, officer or employee of a public body; (d) a member of the governing body of a public body; (e) an employee of a council; (f) any person performing functions under the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1898; (g) a person employed in an office of a Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or other Member of Parliament whether in accordance with the State Service Act 2000, Parliamentary Privilege Act 1898 or otherwise; (h) any person performing functions under the Governor of Tasmania Act 1982; (i) a person appointed to an office by the Governor or a Minister under an Act (3) The following bodies are not public bodies for the purposes of this Act: (a) a court; (b) a tribunal; (c) the Tasmanian Industrial Commission; (d) the Integrity Commission; (e) any other prescribed body. (4) The following persons are not public officers for the purposes of this Act: (a) the Governor of Tasmania; (b) a judge of the Supreme Court; (c) the Associate Judge of the Supreme Court; (d) a magistrate of the Magistrates Court; (e) the Director of Public Prosecutions; (f) any other prescribed person.

The Kingborough Council is a “public body”, as so defined.

Further, any member, officer or employee of Kingborough Council is a “public officer”, as so defined. Note that the right which s 6 of the Act gives to a public officer to make a disclosure must be exercised whilst the person is still a public officer. It is not a requirement that a public officer refer to the Act, or even have knowledge that the Act exists, to make a disclosure which may be protected under the Act.

______

Page 117 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 6.3 “Contractor” This expression is defined in s 3 of the Act, in this way: 3. Interpretation "contractor" means – (a) a person who at any time has entered into a contract with a public body for the supply of goods or services to, or on behalf of, the public body; or (b) an employee of the contractor; or (c) a subcontractor engaged by the contractor to fulfil all or part of a contract with a public body for the supply of goods or services to, or on behalf of, the public body; This definition has the effect that a person may exercise the right given to a contractor by s 6 of the Act even though the contract which they held with the public body is now over. Note that contractors cannot make a protected disclosure to a public body and should be referred to the Ombudsman or Integrity Commission. 6.4 “Improper conduct” and “corrupt conduct” These expressions are also defined in s 3 of the Act, in this way: 3. Interpretation "improper conduct" means – (a) conduct that constitutes an illegal or unlawful activity; or (b) corrupt conduct; or (c) conduct that constitutes maladministration; or (d) conduct that constitutes professional misconduct; or (e) conduct that constitutes a waste of public resources; or (f) conduct that constitutes a danger to public health or safety or to both public health and safety; or (g) conduct that constitutes a danger to the environment; or (h) misconduct, including breaches of applicable codes of conduct; or (i) conduct that constitutes detrimental action against a person who makes a public interest disclosure under this Act – that is serious or significant as determined in accordance with guidelines issued by the Ombudsman; Note that paragraph (b) leads to another definition in s 3, being that of “corrupt conduct” – "corrupt conduct" means – (a) conduct of a person (whether or not a public officer) that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest performance of a public officer's or public body's functions; or (b) conduct of a public officer that amounts to the performance of any of his or her functions as a public officer dishonestly or with inappropriate partiality; or (c) conduct of a public officer, a former public officer or a public body that amounts to a breach of public trust; or (d) conduct of a public officer, a former public officer or a public body that amounts to the misuse of information or material acquired in the course of the performance of their functions as such (whether for the benefit of that person or body or otherwise); or (e) a conspiracy or attempt to engage in conduct referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);

______

Page 118 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Note that, for the right of disclosure under s 6 to apply, the improper conduct (including corrupt conduct) must be serious or significant as determined in accordance with guidelines issued by the Ombudsman. The guidelines can be accessed at www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au. Examples of “corrupt conduct”  A public officer takes a bribe in exchange for the discharge of a public duty;  a public officer favours unmeritorious applications for jobs or permits by friends and relatives; and  a public officer sells confidential information. Examples of other types of “improper conduct”  To avoid closure of a town’s only industry, an environmental health officer ignores or conceals evidence of illegal dumping of waste;  an agricultural officer delays or declines imposing quarantine to allow a financially distressed farmer to sell diseased stock; and  a building inspector tolerates poor practices and structural defects in the work of a leading local builder, giving rise to a risk to public health or safety. 6.5 Detrimental action This expression is defined in s 3 of the Act, in this way: "detrimental action" includes – (a) action causing injury, loss or damage; and (b) Intimidation or harassment; and (c) discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to a person's employment, career, profession, trade or business, including the taking of disciplinary action; and (d) threats of detrimental action; Note that the right to make a disclosure in relation to detrimental action under s 6 relates to detrimental action taken in contravention of s 19 of the Act. Section 19 is in these terms: 19. Protection from reprisal (1) A person must not take detrimental action against a person in reprisal for a protected disclosure. Penalty: Fine not exceeding 240 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or both. (2) A person takes detrimental action in reprisal for a protected disclosure if – (a) the person takes or threatens to take the action because – (i) a person has made, or intends to make, a protected disclosure; or (ii) the person believes that a person has made or intends to make the protected disclosure; or (b) the person incites or permits another person to take or threaten to take the action for either of those reasons. (3) In determining whether a person takes detrimental action in reprisal, it is irrelevant whether or not a reason referred to in subsection (2) is the only or dominant reason as long as it is a substantial reason. The effect of s 19 is that reprisal must have been a substantial reason behind the detrimental action taken, though other reasons may exist. Examples of detrimental action are:  refusal of a deserved promotion;  demotion, transfer, isolation in the workplace or changing a person’s duties to their disadvantage;

______

Page 119 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  threats, abuse or other forms of harassment directly or indirectly against the discloser, his or her family or friends; and  discrimination against the discloser or his or her family and associates in applications for jobs, permits or tenders.

7 The reporting system 7.1 To whom a disclosure may be made – general principles For the protections in the Act to apply, a disclosure must be made to the right person or body. Section 7 of the Act deals with this subject, and the following table summarises its effect:

Officer or public body to which the disclosure Person to whom the disclosure may be made relates

a member, officer or employee of a public body that public body; or other than the Police Service or a State Service the Integrity Commission; or Agency the Ombudsman

a member, officer or employee of a public body that State Service Agency; or that is a State Service Agency the Integrity Commission; or the Ombudsman

the principal officer of a public body or State the Ombudsman; or Service Agency the Integrity Commission

a member of the Police Service, other than the the Commissioner of Police Commissioner of Police

the Commissioner of Police the Ombudsman

a member of the Legislative Council the President of the Legislative Council

a member of the House of Assembly the Speaker of the House

a councillor, within the meaning of the Local the Ombudsman Government Act 1993

a person employed under the provisions of the the Ombudsman; or Parliamentary Privilege Act 1898 the Integrity Commission

the Auditor-General the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee

the Ombudsman the Joint Standing Committee on Integrity

a person employed in an office of a Minister, the Ombudsman Parliamentary Secretary or other Member of Parliament

in any other case, including if the disclosure is the Ombudsman; or about a public body as opposed to an individual the Integrity Commission public officer

Hence, disclosures which relate to improper conduct or detrimental action by a member, officer or employee of Kingborough Council must be made as explained in parts 7.2 to 7.6. A contractor, or a

______

Page 120 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 member of the public under s7A of the Act, can only make a disclosure about a public body, so they must make it to the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission. 7.2 Disclosure to persons within the Kingborough Council Disclosures of improper conduct or detrimental action by a member, officer or employee of Kingborough Council may be made to the following officers:  the General Manager – who is the “Principal Officer” of the public body, within the terms of the Act; and  a Public Interest Disclosure Officer.

Each person who holds or acts in any of the following positions within Kingborough Council has been appointed by the Principal Officer to act as a Public Interest Disclosure Officer, and holds a delegation which enables them to receive public interest disclosures under the Act. Deputy General Manager Executive Manager Organisational Development Executive Manager Information Services Where a person is contemplating making a disclosure and is concerned about approaching the Principal Officer or a Public Interest Disclosure Officer in the workplace, he or she can call the relevant officer and request a meeting in a discreet location away from the workplace. It is not a requirement that the person contemplating making a disclosure refers to the Act, or is aware of the Act, to make a valid disclosure. A disclosure about the Principal Officer or Kingborough Council should be immediately referred to the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission. 7.3 Disclosure to the Ombudsman A disclosure about improper conduct or detrimental action by Kingborough Council or any of its members, officers or employees may also be made directly to the Ombudsman. The contact details for the Ombudsman are:

The Ombudsman GPO Box 960 HOBART TAS 7001 or at Level 6, 86 Collins Street HOBART TAS 7000 Website: www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au Email: [email protected] Phone: 1800 001 170 (Freecall, though charges for mobile phones may apply) 7.4 Disclosure to the Integrity Commission A disclosure about improper conduct or detrimental action by Kingborough Council or any of its members, officers or employees may also be made directly to the Integrity Commission. The contact details for the Integrity Commission are: Tasmanian Integrity Commission GPO Box 822 HOBART TAS 7001 or at

Level 2 Surrey House 199 Macquarie Street HOBART TAS 7000 Website: www.integrity.tas.gov.au Email: [email protected] Phone: 1300 720 289 ______

Page 121 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 7.5 To which entity should a disclosure be made? As can be seen from part 7.1 of these procedures, there are some situations in which a disclosure may only be made to a single entity. For instance, if the disclosure is about a councillor in a local council, it must be made to the Ombudsman. Where there is a choice of entities, those choices will include the Ombudsman and the Integrity Commission. Either of those entities will be able to give advice on the most suitable entity to receive the disclosure, but the Ombudsman has overall responsibility for the administration of the Act. The considerations which might sensibly bear on the choice of entity to which the disclosure is made include:  the nature of the normal functions (and therefore the skills and experience) of the different entities which might be chosen;  the desirability of independent investigation of the disclosure – which might, for instance, lead away from making the disclosure to the public body; and  the seriousness or otherwise of the disclosure. Note that if the disclosure is about Kingborough Council it can only be made to the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission. Given the normal functions of the Integrity Commission focus on individual misconduct it is recommended that the Ombudsman be contacted in the first instance.

8 Roles and responsibilities This part explains the roles and responsibilities of individuals within Kingborough Council under the Act. 8.1 Members, officers and employees Members, officers and employees of Kingborough Council are encouraged to report known or suspected incidences of improper conduct or detrimental action under the Act, in accordance with these procedures. All members, officers and employees of the Kingborough Council have an important role to play in supporting those who have made a legitimate disclosure. They must refrain from any activity that is, or could be perceived to be, victimisation or harassment of a person who makes a disclosure. Furthermore, they should protect and maintain the confidentiality of a person they know or suspect to have made a disclosure. 8.2 Principal Officer The Principal Officer has primary responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the Act are implemented by the public body. Section 62A of the Act provides that the Principal Officer has responsibility for:  preparing procedures for approval by the Ombudsman;  receiving public interest disclosures and ensuring they are dealt with in accordance with the Act;  ensuring the protection of witnesses;  ensuring the application of natural justice in the public body’s procedures;  ensuring the promotion of the importance of public interest disclosures and general education about the Act to all staff, and ensuring easy access to information about the Act and the public body’s procedures, and  providing access to confidential employee assistance programs and appropriately trained internal support staff for those involved in the process. The Principal Officer may delegate many of his or her functions to a Public Interest Disclosure Officer. 8.3 Public Interest Disclosure Officer A Public Interest Disclosure Officer is appointed by the Principal Officer under s 62A(2) of the Act, and holds a delegation from the Principal Officer which enables him or her to exercise the statutory powers and functions given to the Principal Officer by the Act which are listed in their instrument of delegation. These procedures frequently give responsibilities or functions to a Public Interest Disclosure Officer. Not all of these are referable to specific statutory powers or functions bestowed on the Principal Officer by the ______

Page 122 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Act, and so some of them represent things which the Public Interest Disclosure Officer is expected to do on a purely administrative basis. Subject to the terms of their delegation, the responsibilities of a Public Interest Disclosure Officer generally include:  acting as a contact point for general advice about the operation of the Act for any person wishing to make a disclosure about improper conduct or detrimental action;  making arrangements for a disclosure to be made privately and discreetly and, if necessary, away from the workplace;  receiving any disclosure made orally or in writing (from internal and external disclosers);  recording in writing the details of any disclosure which is made orally;  impartially assessing the allegation and determining whether it is a disclosure made in accordance with Part 2 of the Act (that is, “a protected disclosure”);  impartially assessing under s 33 of the Act whether a disclosure is a “public interest disclosure”; and  taking all necessary steps to ensure that the identity of the discloser and the identity of the person who is the subject of the disclosure are kept confidential. 8.4 Investigator Where the Kingborough Council has determined that a disclosure is a public interest disclosure, or where the Ombudsman has referred a disclosed matter to Kingborough Council for investigation, the Principal Officer will appoint an investigator to investigate the matter in accordance with the Act. An investigator may be a person from within the public body or a consultant engaged for that purpose. 8.5 Welfare manager The welfare manager will be appointed by the Principal Officer or by a Public Interest Disclosure Officer, and is responsible for looking after the general welfare of the discloser. The welfare manager will:  examine the immediate welfare and protection needs of a person who has made a disclosure, and seek to foster a supportive work environment;  advise the discloser of the legislative and administrative protections available to him or her;3  listen and respond to any concerns of harassment, intimidation, victimisation or other detrimental action which may be occurring in reprisal for making the disclosure; and  so far as is practicable, protect the identity of the discloser in the course of carrying out these responsibilities. A welfare manager may be a person from within the public body or a consultant engaged for that purpose. 9 Confidentiality The Kingborough Council will take all reasonable steps to protect the identity of a discloser. Maintaining confidentiality is crucial in ensuring reprisals are not made against the discloser. All reasonable care should also be taken to protect the privacy of witnesses and of the person against whom the disclosure has been made. Section 23 of the Act requires any person who receives information due to the handling or investigation of a protected disclosure, not to disclose that information except in certain limited circumstances. Disclosure of information in breach of this section constitutes an offence that is punishable by a maximum fine of 60 penalty units or six months imprisonment, or both. The circumstances in which a person may disclose information obtained about a protected disclosure include:  where exercising their functions or the functions of the public body under the Act;  when making a report or recommendation under the Act;

3 See part 12 below for details of the legislative protections. ______

Page 123 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  when publishing statistics in the annual report of a public body; and  in proceedings for certain offences in the Act. However, the Act prohibits the inclusion of particulars in any report or recommendation that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser. The Act also prohibits the identification of the person who is the subject of the disclosure in any particulars included in an annual report made in accordance with Part 9 of the Act. It may be necessary to consider disclosing information where:  it is essential, having regard to the principles of natural justice, that the identifying information be disclosed to the person who is the subject of the disclosure; or  the investigating body believes that the disclosure of the identifying information is necessary for the matter to be effectively investigated. In both circumstances, the person who made the disclosure should be informed as to this step. The Kingborough Council will ensure that all relevant files, whether paper or electronic, are kept securely and can only be accessed by the Principal Officer, Public Interest Disclosure Officer/s, the investigator, and (in relation to welfare matters only) the welfare manager. All printed material will be kept in files that are clearly marked as confidential, and all materials relevant to an investigation, such as tapes from interviews, will also be stored securely with the files. Care should also be taken to ensure that all relevant phone calls and meetings are conducted in private. Section 90 exempts documents from release under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the extent that they contain information regarding a disclosure, or information that is likely to lead to the identification of the person who made the disclosure or the person who is the subject of the disclosure.

10 Publishing statistics

Section 86 of the Act requires Kingborough Council to include in its annual report:  the number and types of disclosures made to the Kingborough Council during the year, and the number of disclosures determined to be a public interest disclosure;  the number of disclosures determined by the Kingborough Council to be public interest disclosures that it investigated during the year;  the number and types of disclosed matters referred to the Kingborough Council by the Ombudsman for investigation;  the number and types of disclosures referred by the Kingborough Council to the Ombudsman for investigation;  the number and types of investigations taken over from the Kingborough Council by the Ombudsman;  the number and types of disclosed matters that the Kingborough Council has declined to investigate;  the number and types of disclosed matters that were substantiated upon investigation and the action taken on completion of the investigation, and  any recommendations made by the Ombudsman that relate to the Kingborough Council.

11 Preliminary issues 11.1 What should the recipient of the disclosure do upon receipt of the disclosure? If the disclosure is oral, the recipient should make a file note as soon as possible, which records the time when the disclosure was made, the circumstances under which it was made and, so far as is possible, the exact words used by the discloser. The recipient should also ask the discloser to put the disclosure in writing as soon as possible.

______

Page 124 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Unless the recipient is the Principal Officer (or the disclosure is about the Principal Officer), the recipient should immediately inform the Principal Officer of the disclosure, and should provide the Principal Officer with a copy of the disclosure, or record of the disclosure, and of any accompanying documents. If the disclosure is from a contractor, a member of the public or about the Principal Officer or Kingborough Council, it should be immediately referred to the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission. A file should be created for the disclosure, marked clearly as being a Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 matter – see part 9 of these procedures (Confidentiality). 11.2 Assessing the disclosure – is it a protected disclosure? The protections provided by the Act to disclosers (contained in Part 4 of the Act) only apply where the disclosure made is a “protected disclosure”. This is defined in s14 as a disclosure made in accordance with Part 2 of the Act. As soon as practicable after the receipt of a disclosure, the disclosure should therefore be assessed by the Principal Officer or a Public Interest Disclosure Officer to determine whether it has been made in accordance with Part 2 of the Act. The following questions need to be asked in carrying out this assessment:  has the disclosure been made by a public officer or contractor? (See parts 6.2 and 6.3 above.);  does the disclosure concern improper conduct or detrimental action? (See parts 6.4 and 6.5 above.)  did the alleged conduct or action occur more than 3 years before the commencement of the Act – i.e. on or after 1 January 2001? (See s 10 of the Act.); and  has the disclosure been made to the appropriate person? (See part 7.1 above.) As required by s 6 of the Act (see part 6.1 above), one of the preconditions to a disclosure being a protected disclosure, and therefore attracting the protections in Part 3 of the Act, is that it is made by a public officer or a contractor. Note that disclosure by contractors must be made to the Ombudsman or Integrity Commission. Note that an anonymous disclosure may be accepted if the person receiving it is satisfied that the disclosure is being made by a public officer or contractor (see s 8 of the Act). If the person is satisfied that an anonymous disclosure is from a contractor it should be referred to the Ombudsman. The person who carries out the assessment should inform the discloser as soon as practicable of their conclusion as to whether the disclosure is a protected disclosure, and of their reasons for coming to that conclusion. This should be done in writing. If the disclosure has been assessed as being a protected disclosure, the discloser should be given a copy of Part 3 of the Act, which details the protections which the Act provides. These protections should be explained to the discloser if necessary. The discloser should also be informed of the process which will now be followed with respect to the disclosure. A copy of the assessment should also be given to the Principal Officer without delay, where the person who carried out the assessment is not the Principal Officer. If the disclosure is considered to be a protected disclosure, the Principal Officer or a Public Interest Disclosure Officer should immediately appoint a welfare manager to protect the interests of the discloser, and ensure that the discloser is advised of the name and contact details of that person (see parts 8.5 and 15.1). Section 7A of the Act provides that a person to whom a disclosure may be made under Part 2 of the Act may, if the person considers that it would be in the public interest to do so, treat any other person who is not a public officer or a contractor as a contractor for the purposes of the Act. Only the Ombudsman or the Integrity Commission can accept disclosures from contractors, so the person will need to be advised to contact either of those bodies. If the Public Interest Disclosure Officer considers this is applicable, they should seek advice from the Ombudsman. 11.3 Should the disclosure be referred to another body? 11.3.1 Referral to the Ombudsman

The Kingborough Council may refer a public interest disclosure to the Ombudsman if it believes that it is not able to complete the investigation satisfactorily (see s 68 of the Act). The Act does not provide for other relevant circumstances in which a public body may refer a protected disclosure to the Ombudsman before commencing an investigation, but an alternative way of achieving the same result would for the ______

Page 125 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 public body to encourage the discloser to make their disclosure direct to the Ombudsman, such that there is no need for the public body to continue to investigate the matter. 11.3.2 Referral to the Integrity Commission

The Kingborough Council may refer a protected disclosure to the Integrity Commission where it considers that the disclosure relates to misconduct as defined in s 4(1) of the IC Act. The Kingborough Council must notify the discloser of the referral within a reasonable time (unless the disclosure was made anonymously) under s 29D. The Integrity Commission may deal with the disclosure under the IC Act, or it may refer the disclosure to the Ombudsman or a public body, as the case may require, for action by the Ombudsman or public body in accordance with the Act. Matters which would bear on a decision as to whether a protected disclosure should be referred to the Integrity Commission are:  the relevance of the disclosure to the normal functions of the Commission;  the desirability of independent investigation by the Commission of the subject matter of the disclosure; and  the views of the discloser as to whether referral should occur. 11.3.3 Referral of criminal conduct to the Police It is possible that, before or during an investigation, facts are uncovered that reveal the possibility of a criminal offence. If this happens, the Kingborough Council will not commence, or will suspend, the investigation and will consult with the Ombudsman as to the future of the matter. Under section 41 of the Act, the Ombudsman has the power to refer a disclosed matter to the Commissioner of Police for investigation. If the Ombudsman is satisfied that the disclosed matter should be referred to Tasmania Police, the Kingborough Council should consider whether the disclosure should be referred to the Ombudsman under s 68 of the Act. Early referral of the matter may avoid interference with the evidentiary trail. Referral to the police through the Ombudsman will also avoid any question of a breach of confidentiality under s 23 of the Act. Once a disclosure is referred to the Commissioner of Police through the Ombudsman, the investigation under the Act ceases. However, there may still be administrative or operational issues which have been identified during the disclosure process or investigation that should be dealt with under other internal processes of the Kingborough Council. The Principal Officer, or the Public Interest Disclosure Officer acting in consultation with the Principal Officer, will decide how the matter should be dealt with. 11.4 Further assessment - Is the disclosure a public interest disclosure? Where the Principal Officer or Public Interest Disclosure Officer has received a disclosure that has been assessed to be a protected disclosure, the Principal Officer or Public Interest Disclosure Officer must make a determination under s 33 of the Act as to whether the disclosure is a public interest disclosure. This assessment must be made within 45 days of the receipt of the disclosure. For a disclosure to be a public interest disclosure, the public body must be satisfied that the disclosure shows or tends to show that the public officer to whom the disclosure relates –  has engaged, is engaging or proposes to engage in improper conduct in his or her capacity as a public officer, or  has taken, is taking or proposes to take detrimental action in reprisal for the making of the protected disclosure. A disclosure must be more than a mere allegation without substantiation. A disclosure must include an indication of the existence of evidence that, if substantiated, would show or tend to show that the alleged conduct occurred. Where the Principal Officer or Public Interest Disclosure Officer concludes that the disclosure amounts to a public interest disclosure, he or she must -  advise the Principal Officer (if not the person receiving the disclosure);  notify the Ombudsman within 14 days of the decision; ______

Page 126 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  notify the person making the disclosure within 14 days of the decision (unless it is an anonymous disclosure); and  proceed to investigate the disclosed matter - see part 12 (Investigations) below - see s 34. If the Principal Officer or Public Interest Disclosure Officer concludes that the disclosure is not a public interest disclosure, he or she must -  advise the Principal Officer (if not the person receiving the disclosure);  notify the Ombudsman within 14 days of the decision; and  notify the person making the disclosure within 14 days of the decision (unless it is an anonymous disclosure) – see s 35. The Ombudsman must then review this decision under s 35(2). If, on review of the matter, the Ombudsman decides that the disclosure is not a public interest disclosure, the matter does not need to be dealt with under the Act. The Principal Officer, or the Public Interest Disclosure Officer in consultation with the Principal Officer, will then decide how the disclosure should be dealt with. If the Ombudsman determines the disclosure is not a public interest disclosure, but could be a complaint under the Ombudsman Act 1978 the Ombudsman must notify the discloser of his or her right to have the disclosure dealt with as a complaint under the Ombudsman Act if he or she wishes. If the Ombudsman determines that the disclosure is in fact a public interest disclosure, the matter may be referred back to the public body under s 42 for investigation under the Act or the Ombudsman will deal with the disclosed matter.

12 Protection 12.1 When does protection commence? Where the Kingborough Council receives a disclosure which complies with the requirements of Part 2 of the Act, the disclosure immediately attracts the protections set out in Part 3 of the Act. This is so whether or not the disclosure is factually correct (although one of the requirements of Part 2, as found in s 6, is that the discloser honestly believes that the alleged improper conduct or detrimental action in fact occurred). The protection also extends to a person who intends to make a disclosure. Note that, as provided in s 9, a disclosure can still be made where the discloser cannot identify the person or body to whom or to which the disclosure relates. 12.2 What protection does the Act provide? Part 3 of the Act gives various types of protection to a person who makes a protected disclosure. This part of these procedures only provides a summary of some elements of that Part of the Act. A person who makes a protected disclosure:  is not subject to any civil or criminal liability, or to any liability arising by way of administrative process, for making the protected disclosure (s 16);  does not by doing so commit an offence under a provision of any other Act that imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality, or which imposes any other restriction on the disclosure of information (s 17(1)(a)); and  does not by doing so breach an obligation by way of oath, or rule of law or practice, or under an agreement, which requires the discloser to maintain confidentiality or otherwise restricts the disclosure of information (s 17(1)(b)). These last two protections do not apply, however, to a disclosure of information to a person other than the person to whom the protected disclosure was originally made, unless that further disclosure was made in accordance with the Act (see s 17(2) of the Act). Part 3 also contains various provisions which are intended to protect a discloser from detrimental action by way of reprisal for a protected disclosure. By s 19, the Act makes it an offence to take such detrimental action. By s 20, it creates a liability to pay damages for such detrimental action. And by s 21, it gives a ______

Page 127 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 person who believes that detrimental action has been taken against him or her the right to apply to the Supreme Court for an order requiring the person who has taken the detrimental action to remedy that action, or for an injunction.

13 Investigations 13.1 Introduction The Kingborough Council must investigate every disclosure referred to it for investigation by the Ombudsman under s 63(b). Unless the matters set out in 13.2 below apply, or the matter is referred to the Ombudsman, the Kingborough Council will investigate every disclosure that it receives and determines is a public interest disclosure under s 33 of the Act (see s 63(a) of the Act). The Principal Officer will appoint an investigator to carry out the investigation. The investigator may be a person from within an organisation or a consultant engaged for that purpose. The objectives of an investigation are:  to collate information relating to the allegation as quickly as possible. This may involve taking steps to protect or preserve documents, materials and equipment;  to consider the information collected and to draw conclusions objectively and impartially; and  to maintain procedural fairness in the treatment of witnesses and generally to all parties involved in the disclosure. 13.2 Matters that do not have to be investigated Before embarking on the investigation of a public interest disclosure, the Principal Officer or Public Interest Disclosure Officer must first consider whether the disclosed matter needs to be investigated. Section 64 specifies certain circumstances under which a public body may legitimately decide not to investigate. Those circumstances are if:  in the opinion of the public body the disclosure is trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance;  the subject matter of the disclosure has already been adequately dealt with by the Ombudsman or a public body, statutory authority, Commonwealth statutory authority, commission, court or tribunal;  the person making the disclosure has commenced proceedings in a commission, court or tribunal in relation to the same matter, and that commission, court or tribunal has power to order remedies similar to those available under this Act;  the person making the disclosure had knowledge for more than 12 months of the disclosed matter before making the disclosure and failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the disclosure;  the disclosure relates solely to the personal interests of the person making the disclosure;  the disclosure is based on false or misleading information; or  the matter which is the subject of the disclosure has already been determined and the additional disclosure does not provide significant or substantial new information. Any decision not to proceed with an investigation on a ground specified in s 64 must be made by the Principal Officer. If the Principal Officer determines that the disclosed matter is not to be investigated, notice of this fact must be given within 14 days to both the Ombudsman and (except in the case of an anonymous disclosure) the person who made the disclosure. Reasons for the decision must accompany the notice. The Ombudsman is required by s 65(2) to review such a decision. Following the review, the Ombudsman must notify the Kingborough Council of his or her decision within a reasonable time. If the Ombudsman on review determines that the disclosure should not be investigated, the matter does not need to be dealt with under the Act. The Principal Officer, or the Public Interest Disclosure Officer in consultation with the Principal Officer, will decide how the matter should be dealt with.

______

Page 128 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 If the Ombudsman determines that the disclosure should be investigated, and the matter is not referred to the Ombudsman for a reason specified in s 68, the Kingborough Council must proceed with the investigation. 13.3 Appointment of investigator and framing of terms of reference The Principal Officer – not a Public Interest Disclosure Officer - will determine who is to carry out the investigation. As earlier indicated, this may be an officer within the Kingborough Council or an external consultant. The investigator will be given formal terms of reference, signed by the Principal Officer. The terms of reference will specify:  the matters to be investigated;  the date by which the investigation is to be concluded; and  the resources available to the investigator for the purposes of the investigation. The completion date should be as soon as practicable but, in any event, not more than 6 months from the date of the determination that the disclosure is a public interest disclosure under s 77A(1). If at any stage before or during the investigation it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within 6 months, the Kingborough Council may apply to the Ombudsman for an extension of up to 6 months in which to complete the investigation under s 77A(2). The terms of reference should require the investigator to make regular reports to the Principal Officer. 13.4 Investigation plan The investigator should prepare an investigation plan for approval by the Principal Officer. The plan should list the issues which are to be investigated and describe the steps which the investigator intends to take in investigating each of those issues. The plan should be updated as necessary during the course of the investigation. 13.5 Natural justice The principles of natural justice must be carefully observed in the course of the investigation, with respect to all parties involved. These principles are sometimes referred to as “procedural fairness”. The principles are a set of procedural standards which need to be met if the right of a person to a fair hearing can be accepted as having been satisfied. The Kingborough Council will comply with the following requirements in ensuring that procedural fairness is accorded to all parties involved. No one is to be involved in the investigation:  who is known to be biased against any person who is potentially subject to an adverse finding;  who is known to hold any biases which are relevant to the subject-matter of the investigation; or  in respect of whom there is reasonable ground for apprehending or suspecting bias.4 If the investigator is aware of any reason why they may be susceptible to an allegation of bias on the basis of these principles, they should immediately inform the Principal Officer. Any person who is potentially subject to an adverse finding or comment must be told of:  the allegations made against them, or which have arisen against them as a result of the investigation;  all of the information which is adverse to their interests and which is, on an objective basis, credible, relevant and significant to the investigation; and  the potential findings in view, and their possible consequences. This must be done before any final conclusions are formed by the investigator.

4 For apprehended bias, the test is whether a fair minded lay observer, taking into account all relevant circumstances, might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions that he or she is required to decide. ______

Page 129 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 Each such person must be given a reasonable time to respond to the material which is provided to them. The investigator must maintain an open mind, and must fairly take into account all representations which such a person may make. Note that there is no requirement to inform the person who is subject to the disclosure as soon as it is received, or as soon as the investigation has commenced. Note also that the name of the person making the disclosure or any particulars which might identify that person must not be revealed unless necessary, and with the discloser’s knowledge. The final investigation report should be drafted in a way that demonstrates that procedural fairness has been accorded. For instance, it should record and deal with all submissions and evidence which a person has put in their defence. 13.6 Conduct of the investigation A useful reference in planning and executing the investigation is the publication by the Australian Public Service Commission (albeit produced for a different purpose), Handling misconduct: A human resource manager’s guide (Second Edition, 2015.5 The investigator should make contemporaneous notes of all discussions and phone calls, and consideration should be given to the desirability of audiotaping significant interviews with witnesses All information gathered in the course of the investigation must be securely stored. Interviews should be conducted in private, and the investigator should take all reasonable steps to protect the identity of the discloser. Where disclosure of the identity of the person cannot be avoided, due to the nature of the allegations, the investigator should warn the discloser and his or her welfare manager of this. 13.7 Referral of an investigation to the Ombudsman Under s 68 of the Act, a public body may refer the investigation of a disclosed matter to the Ombudsman where the public body considers that its own investigation is being obstructed or that it is otherwise not within the capacity of the public body to complete the investigation. Any decision as to whether the investigation should be referred to the Ombudsman will be taken by the Principal Officer. See also part 11.3.3, concerning referral of an investigation to the Ombudsman, with a view to referral by the Ombudsman to the Commissioner of Police of suspected criminal conduct. 13.8 Provision of information about the investigation The Principal Officer or the Public Interest Disclosure Officer must ensure that the discloser is kept regularly informed concerning the handling of a protected disclosure and an investigation. The Principal Officer must report to the Ombudsman about the progress of an investigation. Section 74 of the Act requires a public body, at the request of the Ombudsman or the person who made the disclosure, to give the Ombudsman or that person reasonable information about the investigation. The information must be given within 28 days of the request. However, as provided in s 74(3), such information does not have to be given to the discloser if:  it has already been given to the person; or  the giving of the information would endanger the safety of another or may prejudice the conduct of the investigation.

14 Action taken after an investigation 14.1 Investigator’s final report At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must submit a written report of his or her findings to the Principal Officer. The report should contain:

5 Available online at http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/handling-misconduct-a- human-resource-managers-guide-2015/part-i-framework-for-handling-misconduct (current as at June 2017). ______

Page 130 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  the allegation/s;  a description of the manner in which the investigation was conducted, with sufficient detail to demonstrate that procedural fairness was observed;  an account of all relevant information received;  details of the evidence and submissions supplied by any person against whom an adverse finding is made, and the evaluation of that material by the investigator; and  the findings made and conclusions reached, and the basis for them. Note in particular that the report should not include any comment adverse to any person unless that person has been given an opportunity to be heard in the matter and their defence is fairly set out in the report (see part 13.5 of these procedures). With a view to potential action by the public body under s 75 of the Act, if the investigator has found that conduct disclosed by the discloser has occurred, the investigator may wish to include recommendations as to:  any steps that need to be taken by the Kingborough Council to prevent the conduct from continuing or occurring in the future; and  any action that should be taken by the Kingborough Council to remedy any harm or loss arising from that conduct. The steps to be taken may include bringing disciplinary proceedings against the person responsible for the conduct, and referring the matter to an appropriate authority for further consideration. For example, if the investigation has revealed conduct that may constitute a criminal offence, consideration should be given to whether the matter should be referred to Tasmania Police, unless this has previously occurred. The report must be accompanied by:  the transcript or other record of any oral evidence taken, including tape recordings; and  all documents, statements or other exhibits received by the officer and accepted as evidence during the course of the investigation. The report must not disclose particulars likely to lead to the identification of the discloser under s 23(2). 14.2 Action to be taken If the Principal Officer is satisfied that the conduct which was the subject of the investigation has occurred, he or she must consider the recommendations in the investigator’s report and decide upon the steps which are to be taken to prevent the conduct from continuing or occurring in the future under s 75(1)(a). Again taking into consideration any recommendations in the investigator’s report, the Principal Officer must also consider whether any action should be taken to remedy any harm or loss arising from the conduct under s 75(1)(b). Where the Public Interest Disclosure Officer is responsible for the progress of the investigation and is satisfied that the disclosed conduct has occurred, he or she will recommend to the Principal Officer the action that must be taken. The Principal Officer will provide a written report to Kingborough Council and the Ombudsman, setting out the findings of the investigation and any remedial steps taken. Where the investigation concludes that the disclosed conduct did not occur, the Principal Officer will report these findings to the Ombudsman and to the discloser. As required by s 77 of the Act, the Principal Officer will also inform the discloser of the findings of the investigation, and of any steps taken under s 75 as a result of the findings made.

15 Managing the welfare of the discloser 15.1 Commitment to protecting disclosers The Kingborough Council is committed to the protection of genuine disclosers against detrimental action taken in reprisal for the making of protected disclosures. The Principal Officer is responsible for ensuring that disclosers and witnesses are protected from detrimental action, and that the culture of the workplace is supportive of protected disclosures being made. ______

Page 131 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 The Principal Officer or the Public Interest Disclosure Officer must appoint a welfare manager to support all persons who have made a protected disclosure. See part 8.5 for the responsibilities of a welfare manager. The welfare manager must also provide advice about what the discloser should do if they believe that a colleague/s or a relative/s is being subjected to detrimental action. The advice will include what level of information it is necessary for them to provide. All employees will be advised that it is an offence for a person to take detrimental action in reprisal for a protected disclosure (s 19). The maximum penalty is a fine of 240 penalty units or two years imprisonment, or both. The taking of detrimental action in breach of this provision can also be grounds for making a disclosure under the Act and can result in an investigation. See part 6.5 for further details as to what constitutes detrimental action. A discloser who believes that they are being subjected to detrimental action should report it to the Principal Officer or a Public Interest Disclosure Officer. If they believe that the reprisal is not being effectively dealt with by the Kingborough Council, they may report the matter to the Ombudsman. A report of detrimental action may qualify as a protected disclosure under the Act. 15.2 Keeping the discloser informed The Principal Officer or the Protected Interest Disclosure Officer must ensure that the discloser is kept informed of action taken in relation to his or her disclosure, and the time frames that apply. The discloser must be informed of the objectives of any investigation that takes place, the findings of the investigation, and the steps taken by the Kingborough Council to address any improper conduct that has been found to have occurred. The discloser must be given reasons for all decisions made by the Kingborough Council in relation to a disclosure. All communication with the discloser must be in plain English. 15.3 Occurrence of detrimental action If a discloser reports an incident of detrimental action allegedly taken in reprisal for the making of the disclosure, the welfare manager must:  record details of the incident;  advise the discloser of his or her rights under the Act; and  advise the Principal Officer of the detrimental action. The taking of detrimental action in reprisal for the making of a disclosure can be an offence against the Act as well as grounds for making a further disclosure. Where such detrimental action is reported, the Public Interest Disclosure Officer or the Principal Officer will assess the report as a new disclosure under the Act, and it will be dealt with accordingly in accordance with these procedures. 15.4 Discloser implicated in improper conduct Where a person who makes a disclosure is implicated in misconduct, the Kingborough Council will handle the disclosure and protect the discloser from reprisals in accordance with the Act, the Ombudsman’s guidelines and these procedures. At the same time the Kingborough Council acknowledges that the act of disclosing should not shield disclosers from the reasonable consequences flowing from any involvement in improper conduct. Section 18 of the Act specifically provides that a person’s liability for his or her own conduct is not affected by the person’s disclosure of that conduct under the Act. However, in some circumstances, an admission may be a mitigating factor when considering disciplinary or other action. The Principal Officer will make the final decision as to whether disciplinary or other action will be taken against a discloser. Where disciplinary or other action relates to conduct that is the subject of the person’s disclosure, the disciplinary or other action will only be taken after the disclosed matter has been appropriately dealt with. In all cases where disciplinary or other action is being contemplated, the Principal Officer must be satisfied that it has been clearly demonstrated that:  the intention to proceed with disciplinary action is not causally connected to the making of the disclosure (as opposed to the content of the disclosure or other available information);  there are good and sufficient grounds that would fully justify action against any non-discloser in the same circumstances; and

______

Page 132 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017  there are good and sufficient grounds that justify exercising any discretion to institute disciplinary or other action. The Public Interest Disclosure Officer or Principal Officer will thoroughly document the process, including recording the reasons why the disciplinary or other action is being taken, and the reasons why the action is not in retribution for the making of the disclosure. The Public Interest Disclosure Officer or Principal Officer will clearly advise the discloser of the proposed action to be taken, and of any mitigating factors that have been taken into account.

16 Management of the person against whom a disclosure has been made The Kingborough Council recognises that employees against whom disclosures are made must also be supported during the handling and investigation of disclosures. The Kingborough Council will take all reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the person who is the subject of the disclosure during the assessment and investigation process. Where an investigation does not substantiate a disclosure, the fact that the investigation has been carried out, the results of the investigation, and the identity of the person who is the subject of the disclosure will remain confidential. The Public Interest Disclosure Officer or Principal Officer will ensure that the person who is the subject of any disclosure investigated by or on behalf of the Kingborough Council is accorded natural justice in accordance with part 13.5 of these procedures. Where the allegations in a disclosure have been investigated, and the person who is the subject of the disclosure is aware of the allegations or of the investigation, the Public Interest Disclosure Officer or Principal Officer will formally advise the person who is the subject of the disclosure of the outcome of the investigation. The Kingborough Council will give its full support to a person who is the subject of a disclosure where the allegations contained in a disclosure are clearly wrong or unsubstantiated. If the matter has been publicly disclosed, the Principal Officer of the Kingborough Council will consider any request by that person to issue a statement of support setting out that the allegations were clearly wrong or unsubstantiated.

17 Offences The Kingborough Council will ensure officers appointed to handle protected disclosures and all other employees are aware of the following offences created by the Act:  Section 19(1) This provision makes it an offence for a person to take detrimental action against a person in reprisal for a protected disclosure being made. The section provides for a maximum penalty of a fine of 240 penalty units or two years imprisonment, or both.  Section 23(1) This provision makes it an offence for a person to disclose, except under specified circumstances, information which they have obtained or received in the course of or as a result of a protected disclosure or the investigation of a disclosed matter under the Act. The section provides for a maximum penalty of 60 penalty units or six months imprisonment, or both.  Section 54 This section creates various offences relating to obstructing the work of the Ombudsman under the Act, including offences relating to misleading the Ombudsman. The section provides for a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or two years imprisonment, or both.  Section 87(1) This provision makes it an offence for a person to knowingly provide false information under the Act to certain officers (including the Ombudsman) with the intention that it be acted on as a disclosed matter. The provision provides for a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or two years imprisonment, or both.  Section 87(2)

______

Page 133 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 This section makes it an offence for a person to knowingly provide false information to a person conducting an investigation under the Act. The provision provides for a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or two years imprisonment, or both. The value of a penalty unit varies from time to time in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index. For more information, see the Department of Justice website.6

18 Approval and review of these procedures These procedures were approved by the Ombudsman under s 60(3) of the Act on 7 October 2017. The procedures will be submitted to the Ombudsman for review at least once in each 3 year period to ensure they meet the objectives of the Act and accord with the Guidelines and Standards published by the Ombudsman under s 38(1)(c) of the Act. The date by which the procedures must be submitted to the Ombudsman for review is 7 October 2020.

6 www.justice.tas.gov.au/about/legislation/value_of_indexed_units_in_legislation ______

Page 134 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 20 Attachment 1: Flowchart

______

Page 135 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 136 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

FILE NO 24.40 DATE 28 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER DAVID REEVE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES ENDORSED BY TONY FERRIER- ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1 PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 3.0 A healthy natural environment. Strategic Outcome 3.2 Sustainable land and waste management practices are adopted by landowners, contractors, businesses, government agencies and the general community. Strategy 3.2.3 Encourage reduced levels of waste going to landfill and waste avoidance, reuse and recycling 1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the adoption of a Waste Management Strategy for Kingborough Council.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 A draft Waste Management Strategy was developed in late 2016/17 by MRA Consulting group.

2.2 After several workshops the draft strategy was put forward for community comment through a public forum (12 attendees) and advertising via Council’s social media page (133 submissions received).

2.3 The comments from the public forum were generally positive but a desire was expressed to see more emphasis on waste reduction and a regional focus.

2.4 The submissions received through social media also wanted to see the strategy place more emphasis on waste reduction and regional involvement but also made comment on the following areas:

2.4.1 Support for green waste collection;

2.4.2 Action to deal with plastics, commercial and industrial waste;

2.4.3 Negativity towards extending collection services; and

2.4.4 The need for more detailed implementation dates and performance indicators.

2.5 The comments received were taken into account and changes made to the Waste Management strategy accordingly, in particular the adding of a new goal on waste avoidance and reduction. This was then presented to Council at a workshop on the 20 November 2017

______

Page 137 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 There are no statutory requirements requiring Council to have a waste management strategy, however, it is considered good practice to have one.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 The intention of the waste management strategy is to achieve a planned and collaborative approach to waste management, which is cost effective, supportive of the local community and economy and improves recycling rates.

4.2 The main pillars of the proposed strategy are encapsulated in five goals:

 Increased waste avoidance and reduction;

 Increased recycling rates;

 Best practice waste and resource recovery;

 Efficient and sustainable governance; and

 Effective community engagement.

4.3 Some of the key actions to be considered include:

 Develop and deliver an awareness raising program to increase public understanding and engagement of waste avoidance;

 Implement food waste avoidance program;

 Encourage community gardens and at home composting;

 Engage with businesses on waste avoidance and implement a business waste reduction program;

 Extend kerbside services to more townships where viable and provide access to waste and recycling drop off services to smaller communities;

 Provide larger recycling bins;

 The options for public place recycling;

 Implementation of a green waste collection service;

 Investigate a food organics collection service;

 Improvements to the operations of the transfer stations;

 Improved regional cooperation; and

 Increased community involvement and education in waste minimisation.

4.4 To successfully deliver the strategy appropriate resourcing, implementation planning, and performance measures are critical. The mechanism to be used to ensure this happens will form part of a separate workshop with Council.

______

Page 138 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 5 FINANCE

5.1 There will be costs associated with implementing the Waste Management Strategy that can broadly be split into two areas:

5.1.1 User pays costs associated with providing a service such as green waste, larger recycling bins or extension of services. These costs will be directly attributable to the users receiving the service.

5.1.2 Direct costs associated with implementing the strategy, in particular those associated with waste avoidance and reduction, education and community engagement. It is expected that this will be approximately one Full Time Equivalent (FTE).

6 ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are significant environmental benefits associated with implementation of the Waste Management Strategy including:

 Reduced greenhouse emissions

 Improved re-use of materials by diverting from landfill

 Discouraging illegal littering

7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 Community consultation was conducted in late 2016 and 632 respondents submitted responses to a general survey about waste management in Kingborough. These responses were used to shape the content of the strategy.

7.2 At the completion of the draft strategy a public forum was held and input sought through both printed and social media. Participants of the forum provided constructive feedback and raised valuable suggestions. This feedback, along with written submissions from this consultation has been incorporated within the Waste Management Strategy.

7.3 If adopted the Waste Management Strategy will be published on Council’s website and publicised via printed and social media channels.

8 RISK

8.1 The largest risk of adopting the Waste Management Strategy will be to not deliver on the key actions outlined within. To mitigate this proper resourcing, planning, and measurement criteria are key.

8.2 The risk in not adopting the strategy will be that Council has no clear waste management direction guidelines and the expectations of the community will not be met.

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 The Waste Management Strategy provides a set of clear goals and actions for Council that provide a road map to follow for the next five years and beyond.

______

Page 139 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 9.2 The Waste Management Strategy has similar goals to other organisations tasked with waste management and is consistent with regional, State, and Federal policies, strategies and directions.

9.3 To be successful the Waste Management Strategy needs to be properly resourced to ensure the key actions are delivered.

10 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That:

a) the Waste Management Strategy is formally adopted by Council

b) A further workshop is held with Council to discuss the implementation of the strategy.

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

______

Page 140 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Waste Management Strategy

A submission to Kingborough Council

Date 8 December 17

______

Page 141 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Mike Ritchie & Associates Pty Ltd trading as MRA Consulting Group ABN: 13 143 273 812 Suite 409, Henry Lawson Building 19 Roseby Street, DRUMMOYNE NSW 2047 AUSTRALIA Phone: +61 408 663942 Email: [email protected] www.mraconsulting.com.au

Author: Jason Rijnbeek, James Moverley Checker: Jas Bassi, David Cocks Approver: David Cocks

Document History Version Title Status Date Number

Waste Management Strategy 001 Draft 17/03/2017

Waste Management Strategy 002 Draft 26/04/2017

Waste Management Strategy 003 Final Draft 10/10/2017

Waste Management Strategy 004 Final 8/12/2017

Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Mike Ritchie and Associates (trading as MRA Consulting Group (MRA)) for Kingborough Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. MRA (ABN 13 143 273 812) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

______

Page 142 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Strategy at a glance Where do we want to get to?

Kingborough Council (Council) wishes to achieve a planned and collaborative approach to waste management, which is cost effective, supportive of the local community and economy and improves recycling rates. Kingborough Council’s waste management and resource recovery priorities are to: 1. Deliver cost effective and efficient waste and recycling services to all residents of Kingborough; 2. Assist the community to avoid waste and to improve recycling rates to exceed Tasmania’s statewide average; 3. Reduce emissions and energy usage and develop a truly sustainable community; and 4. Reduce the environmental impacts of littering and illegal dumping. Council is committed to working with its community to transition to a low carbon lifestyle. One facet of this journey will be tackled by a planned and collaborative approach to waste management, which is cost effective, supportive of the local community and economy and achieves recycling rates which exceed Tasmania’s statewide performance. Council recognises and supports a need for greater regional cooperation and is committed to actively engaging in regional discussions and working closely with other neighbouring councils to jointly undertake activities which support Council’s waste management and resource recovery priorities.

Where are we today?

Kingborough is home to an estimated population of 36,000 residents. Council currently offer a kerbside garbage and comingled recycling collection service to residential properties. Garbage is collected weekly and transported directly to Copping landfill. Comingled recycling is collected fortnightly and recycled at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). A critical component of Council’s waste management system are its transfer stations, managed and operated by Kingborough Waste Services (KWS). KWS, a company wholly owned by Council, was established in 2011 and is responsible for the management of the Barretta and Bruny Island Transfer Stations (TSs). To achieve this waste management strategy (the Strategy), Council wishes to identify a plan of action which will accomplish the key waste management goals identified, which are: 1. Increased waste avoidance and reduction; 2. Increased recycling rates; 3. Best practice waste and resource recovery; 4. Efficient and sustainable governance of waste services; and 5. Effective community engagement.

How are we going to get there?

To avoid and reduce waste and increase recycling rates, a roadmap was developed to transition Council to a new household waste collection service that:

______

Page 143 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

 Assists households to reduce the amount of waste they generate;  Diverts as much material as possible from landfill;  Reduces greenhouse gas emissions; and  Provides the community with the greatest cost/benefit.

Complementing the two-stage introduction of new kerbside service (Figure 1) and to further increase recycling rates throughout the municipality there is an opportunity to extend kerbside services to more townships, where viable, and to provide access to waste and recycling drop-off services to other smaller communities.

Figure 1 Kerbside service implementation plan7

Key: Stage 1: Stage 2:

It was identified that to improve the performance of Council’s waste management services, Council should review the operational effectiveness of its infrastructure against best practice. Council would then be able to assess the cost and benefits of facility upgrades and introduce new systems and processes to recycle more. Council needs to establish baseline data of the community’s waste generation as well as expand its collection and reporting of waste and recycling data to more effectively monitor the performance of services. This will provide greater transparency to the community and help to inform decisions regarding changes to future waste facilities and services. The management arrangements of Council transfer stations were reviewed to ensure they are able to sustainably provide services that meet the needs of the community. An opportunity exists to expand the role and function of KWS to include responsibility for delivering the implementation of Council’s waste strategy and programs and to support other waste and recycling activities of Council.

7 Note: the exact composition of the Kingborough garbage bins is unknown, hence these diversions rates are based on typical waste compositions from similar councils. ______

Page 144 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Community engagement undertaken to inform this strategy identified that the community’s priorities included: 1. Improved recycling; 2. Better education regarding household waste management, with an increased focus on waste avoidance; 3. Increased frequency of collection; 4. Improved facilities at Barretta; and 5. Greater community involvement (in decision making). A need for greater community engagement was identified to provide both education on waste avoidance and improved recycling practices, and to obtain ongoing feedback of community satisfaction to help inform decisions about changes to waste services. Engaging with households on a more regular basis on the importance of waste avoidance is essential to support the delivery of the Strategy. Greater community engagement will help residents connect with different waste management issues in the local community, enabling them to better understand the important role they play in household waste management. Priorities for greater community engagement include:  Raising awareness of problems and negative impacts associated with waste;  Providing advice on how to avoid waste generation through the decisions and choices households make about the things they buy and use; and  Providing opportunities for the reuse and recycling of items and materials which cannot be avoided. Prioritising low waste practices like food waste avoidance and re-use, and ‘at home’ composting, will ultimately reduce waste generation and support a reduction in waste to landfill. Education to support low waste practices should focus on specific waste streams, such as food waste, junk mail and electrical items and where possible complement existing services. A commitment to greater regional cooperation and working closely with other neighbouring councils, community and environmental groups is also essential to support the delivery of the Strategy, for example via the delivery of regional waste avoidance, reuse and recycling education programs (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste8), or by investigating opportunities to work with neighbouring councils to rationalise waste infrastructure or investigate shared infrastructure and services. Working in cooperation with neighbouring councils will provide an opportunity for greater consistency in communications and messaging, reducing confusion and enabling households to avoid waste and recycle more of the right materials on every occasion. Supporting the development of regional education strategies and programs is likely to lead to more efficient use of resources and reduced costs. Kingborough is committed to working collaboratively with the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority through Waste Strategy South to realise the benefits of greater regional cooperation. This Strategy sets out the goals and objectives to achieve Kingborough Council’s vision and provides a list of recommended actions to support this. These strategy actions are set out below.

8 More information available at: http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.vic.gov.au/ ______

Page 145 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Table 1 Summary of recommended actions Goal Actions Priority

1 Increased waste avoidance and reduction A Develop and deliver an awareness raising campaign to increase public understanding High and engagement of waste avoidance. B Implement a food waste avoidance program (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste) and target to Medium specific sections of the community (e.g. schools). C Support and promote community gardens and at home composting. Low D Engage with businesses on waste avoidance and implement a business waste Medium reduction program (e.g. Bin Trim9, Halve Waste10) to assist businesses to reduce waste. 2 Increased recycling rates A Introduce new kerbside services:  Fortnightly 240l comingled recycling bin; and High  Fortnightly GO bin. B Expand new kerbside service collection area to include Kettering. High C Review remote sites and upgrade community access to secure garbage and recycling High drop-off points. D Collaborate with neighbouring councils seeking to establish regional organics Medium processing solutions. E Review viability of implementing kerbside FOGO collections. Medium F Expand participation in product stewardship (takeback) schemes at Council facilities. Low 3 Best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure A Review and assess transfer stations against best practice (including tip shop). High B Review viable options for Barretta transfer station to consolidate new kerbside High services and best practice recommendation (including tip shop services). C Upgrade Barretta transfer station to support new kerbside services. High D Upgrade transfer stations to support best practice recommendations. High E Perform public place litter and recycling bin stations audits across municipality and Medium review against best practice. F Install additional stations and/or upgrade existing bin installations at priority sites, Medium identified through audits. 4 Efficient and sustainable governance A Adopt KPI’s and targets for the operation and management of Council transfer Medium stations. B Establish Council policy and implement procedures for setting waste gate fees aligned Low with the user pays principle. C Implement waste data system, to record and report key performance indicators, inform decision making and provide greater transparency to the community. (e.g. High waste data from facilities, kerbside service providers and audits)

9 More information available at: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/managewaste/bin-trim.htm 10 More information available at: http://halvewaste.com.au/commercial/ ______

Page 146 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

5 Effective community engagement A Roll out ongoing and periodic measurement of community satisfaction with waste High services. B Develop a community waste avoidance and new/expanded services education Medium program. C Expand participation in product stewardship (takeback) schemes at Council facilities. Medium D Investigate the causes and effects of illegal dumping and littering across the Low municipality E Expand and improve recycling at council run or supported events. Medium

______

Page 147 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Glossary Abbreviation Definition

ABS Australian Bureau Statistics ACCUs Australian Carbon Credit Units C&D Construction and demolition (waste) C&I Commercial and Industrial (waste) CCM Consolidated Cost Model CoH City of Hobart EA Enterprise Agreement ERF Emissions Reduction Fund EPR Extended Producer Responsibility FO Food organics FOGO Food organics and garden organics GHG Greenhouse Gas GO Garden Organics KPI Key Performance Indicator Kingborough Kingborough Council KWS Kingborough Waste Services LGA Local Government Area MRA MRA Consulting Group MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSW Municipal Solid Waste PPR Public Place Recycling the Strategy Waste Management Strategy

______

Page 148 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Contents Where do we want to get to? iii Where are we today? iii How are we going to get there? iii Glossary vii 1. Where are we today? 12 Tasmania waste performance 12 Kingborough Council waste management system 13 1.1.1 Kerbside collections 13 1.1.2 Remote communities 13 1.1.3 Disposal locations 13 1.1.4 Transfer stations 14 Kingborough Waste Services (KWS) 14 Evidence based decisions 14 Organic Waste 14 Waste education/community engagement 14 Litter/illegal dumping 15 Public place recycling (PPR) and litter bins 15 Greenhouse gas 16 Thin film plastic 16 Extended Producer Responsibility–Product Stewardship Schemes 16 2. Where do we want to get to? 17 Kingborough Council vision 17 2.1.1 Community consultation feedback 17 Kingborough Council goals and objectives 18 2.1.2 Goal #1: Increased waste avoidance and reduction 19 2.1.3 Goal #2: Increased recycling rates 19 2.1.4 Goal #3: Best practice waste and resource recovery 19 2.1.5 Goal #4: Efficient and sustainable governance 20 2.1.6 Goal #5: Community effectively engaged 20 2.1.7 Strategy considerations for KWS 20 3. How will we get there? 22 Goal #1: Increase waste avoidance and reduction 22 Goal #2: Increased recycling rates 22 3.1.1 Kerbside collection system to recycle more materials 23

______

Page 149 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

3.1.2 Kerbside collection system to service more communities 24 3.1.3 All communities have access to waste and recycling services 25 Goal #3: Best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure 25 3.1.4 Transfer stations offer best practice services 25 3.1.5 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction 25 Goal #4: Efficient and sustainable governance 26 3.1.6 Transfer station operation and management 26 Goal #5: Effective community engagement 26 3.1.7 Waste and recycling services satisfy community needs 26 3.1.8 Littering and illegal dumping is reduced 26 4. How will the strategy be implemented? 28 Appendix 1 Preliminary Strategy Budget 31

List of Tables Table 1 Summary of recommended actions v Table 2 Kingborough Council goals and objectives 18 Table 3 Objectives to be achieved by KWS in the future 20 Table 4 Detail of GHG emission reduction possible from kerbside options 25 Table 5 Summary of recommended actions 28 Table 6 Strategy implementation budget 31

List of Figures Figure 1 Kerbside service implementation plan iv Figure 2 Southern Tasmanian kerbside recycling rates 2014-15 12 Figure 3 Schematic of current kerbside collections 13 Figure 4 Main outcomes from community consultation 18 Figure 5 Waterfall diagram of all waste management projects 23 Figure 6 Proposed kerbside collection 23 Figure 7 Kerbside service implementation plan 24

______

Page 150 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

1. Where are we today? Tasmania waste performance

The current recycling rate in Tasmania is an estimated 37%. Approximately, 635,000 tonnes of waste are generated in Tasmania, with 400,000 tonnes being landfilled11.

Figure 2 shows the recycling rates for the Southern Tasmanian Councils. Kingborough Council (Council) has a reasonably high recycling rate at approximately 31% (2014/15 data), however, it is still less than the Tasmanian average and other states. Figure 2 Southern Tasmanian kerbside recycling rates 2014-15

Tasmania does not currently have any specific waste diversion targets and is behind other Australian states on the resource recovery rate spectrum. However, the trend to introduce organics collection by municipalities across the state will result in a dramatic increase in the coming years. For example, the City of Hobart (CoH), Tasmania’s largest municipality, has set its own targets of 50% diversion by 2020 and 70% by 2030. It is expected that the current diversion achieved by the CoH will rise to at least 57% with the introduction of a fortnightly Garden Organics (GO) collection services. The introduction of organics collection services across the region presents an opportunity for Council to work closely with neighbouring councils and the regional waste management group to rationalise waste infrastructure or investigate shared infrastructure and services. Council is committed to supporting regional collaboration and programs that aim to improve waste and recycling outcomes across the region.

11 http://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/EPA%20Annual%20Report%202014-15_web.pdf ______

Page 151 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Kingborough Council waste management system

1.1.1 Kerbside collections Kingborough Council is a Local Government Authority (LGA) covering 717 square kilometres of the southern part of Tasmania and has an estimated resident population of 36,000 in 2016 (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011). Council currently offer the following two bin kerbside collection system: Figure 3 Schematic of current kerbside collections

Copping Landfill Weekly

80L TS Barretta

Fortnightly Materials Recovery Facility 140L (MRF)

From the recent community consultation performed by Council, approximately three quarters of residents are satisfied with their current kerbside waste service.

1.1.2 Remote communities Kerbside services are not offered to all residents in the Kingborough local government area as some properties are considered too remote for it to be viable to offer a kerbside service. This is a common theme throughout Australia. Therefore, some of these remote communities do not currently have any opportunity to recycle their materials. However, through a recent community survey over three quarters of the residents who do not receive a kerbside service demonstrated they would like a kerbside service to be added.

1.1.3 Disposal locations All general waste from Council’s kerbside service and waste drop-off facilities/sites is transferred to Copping landfill. Along with Clarence City Council, Sorell Council and Tasman Council, Kingborough Council have shares or interest in the equity of the Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority which was established in 2001 to manage the landfill. The Copping landfill has been operating successfully for over 10 years and is predicted to have up to 200 years’ worth of landfill void space remaining. Council’s recyclables are currently processed by SKM Recycling, one of very few recycling processors in Tasmania. The cost associated with processing recyclables is very high when compared to other Australian jurisdictions, due to factors which include lack of local markets for recyclable commodities and additional transportation costs. There are few Garden Organics (GO) processors operating in southern Tasmania, and limited capacity within Kingborough’s immediate vicinity. However, there is a potential for new facilities to emerge to support regional growth in organics collection. Given that the recovery of organics represents a great opportunity to increase recycling rates both locally and regionally, Council supports regional organics activities and the establishment of organics processing infrastructure which would service the needs of Kingborough and the region. ______

Page 152 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

1.1.4 Transfer stations Council own two waste management facilities: a waste transfer station at Barretta and a waste transfer station at Main Road, North Bruny. The Barretta transfer station was previously a landfill site and the redevelopment of this site has involved the construction of a new waste management facility that includes:  Re-use Shop;  Recycling area;  Green waste area; and  General waste drop-off points. Kingborough Waste Services (KWS)

KWS was established in 2011 and is a Council owned company responsible for the management of the Barretta and Bruny Island transfer station’s. KWS operations are largely paid for by users, through gate fees which are set by Council after considering the cost of providing the service. More recently the cost of operations has been completely been offset by revenues derived from the facility i.e. gate fees and the sale of recyclables. KWS has transitioned to self-sufficient model, a result of changes in the management and operations at KWS as well as the re-adjustment of gate fees as approved by Council.

Evidence based decisions

There are waste management issues that require ongoing data collection and analysis to be undertaken during the Strategy i.e. due to a lack of currently available information or waste data. For example, understanding the composition for waste deposited at transfer stations and hence being able to identify which additional materials could be recycled. Similarly monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of council waste programs and service upgrades requires collection of waste and service performance data.

Organic Waste

Organic waste, comprising mostly garden waste and food waste, is the largest single category of potentially recoverable material currently in Kingborough Council’s general waste stream. Whilst accurate data is not known for Kingborough, across Tasmania up to 60% of the kerbside general waste bin content has been identified as organics with garden waste and food waste (both avoidable and unavoidable) being the major component. This is a common issue faced by all councils and represents environmental, economic, public health and amenity issues. For a household, food waste represents a significant annual cost with studies12 estimating $2,200 is wasted per household per annum. The decomposition of organic waste in landfill produces methane a significant contributor to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and unless managed well can lead to potential environment and public health risks. Where the cost of processing organics (e.g. at a commercial compost facility) is lower than the cost of disposing general waste to landfill the total cost of implementing a new organics collection service can be offset by these savings.

Waste education/community engagement

Waste education and community engagement is critical to the effective delivery of Council’s waste services. Education and engagement programs targeting waste avoidance and improved recycling are deployed by many municipalities throughout Australia and include school based education curriculum,

12 Sustainability Victoria Food Waste Analysis, 2014 ______

Page 153 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 broad-based household education and business waste reduction programs (e.g. Bin Trim13). These are usually presented as a combination of online material, collateral and media promotion (e.g. HalveWaste14). Council has identified a need to engage more regularly with the community to assist households and businesses to reduce waste and improve recycling practices. Waste education and community engagement is currently delivered irregularly with limited consideration given to prioritising different issues. Council has identified a need to reinforce key messages over time and engage with new issues as they arise or increase in importance. Council has also identified an opportunity to work more closely with schools through supporting the delivery of waste education as part of the school curriculum. Council is committed to working with neighbouring councils, and would support collaborating to develop campaigns that are tailored to school-aged children and can be adapted locally and regionally. The implementation of a new kerbside collection system, or alterations to the current system, will require extensive education and engagement activities to be delivered to support households to adapt and make the most of the new system. Therefore, a revised waste education program is vitally important. Council recognises the need to commence education and engagement activities early to foster a spirit of active citizenship and pride in a new kerbside collection system. The issue of food waste is becoming increasing important, requiring Council to consider it efforts to engage and educate the community on the issue. It is one of the most significant components in the general waste bin, and a major contribution to GHG emissions of municipal waste disposed in landfill. Despite this, Council do not currently utilise any food waste avoidance programs (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste15), which provide an opportunity to households to save money and reduce GHG emissions. These programs are well researched, evaluated and reported on, and have proven to be successful throughout Australia. Council recognises the need to develop well-designed waste education and community engagement campaigns that are targeted and continuous. Doing so will significantly increase participation, reduce contamination and increase recycling. Ideally, waste education campaigns will use diverse methods and be carefully tailored so that they engage with the values and motivations of the groups they target.

Litter/illegal dumping

Litter and illegal dumping is a generic problem, across all states and territories. Litter not only detracts from the local amenity but also has the capability to get into our water ways, and consequently harm the marine environment. However, the causes and scale of the effect of litter and illegal dumping occurring in Kingborough Council local government area are unknown and requires further investigation prior to determining further interventions.

Public place recycling (PPR) and litter bins

A lack of PPR stations throughout the LGA means materials that could otherwise be recycled are being landfilled. There is an opportunity to expand and upgrade all litter bin and PPR bin installation and signage to best practice, providing an improvement to both amenity and resource recovery rates. Kingborough Council has resolved to develop a policy to implement improved recycling at Council run or supported events.

13 More information available at: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/managewaste/bin-trim.htm 14 More information available at: http://www.halvewaste.com.au/ 15 More information available at: http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.vic.gov.au/ ______

Page 154 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Greenhouse gas

Kingborough Council is committed to work with its community to transition to a low carbon lifestyle. Landfilling valuable resources, especially organic material which significantly contributes to GHG emissions when landfilled, does not support this commitment. Increasing recycling rates will decrease Council’s emissions significantly. For example, if all the organic material currently landfilled, can instead be recovered through a composting process, Council would see a significant decrease in their GHG emissions. Although difficult to measure, waste avoidance also contributes to a reduction in GHG emissions, given that waste is not being generated in the first instance. Waste avoidance programs that encourage the community to adopt sustainable consumption practices and behaviours offer the best opportunities for improved environmental outcomes.

Thin film plastic

Tasmania is currently ahead of the rest of Australia with the implementation of the Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 201316. Other states in Australia have yet to follow suit, however, other countries have implemented similar bans (e.g. United Kingdom). However, thin film plastics are still present in Kingborough’s household waste streams, e.g. food and other product packaging, and from commercial sources.

Extended Producer Responsibility–Product Stewardship Schemes

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies engage producers and others involved in the supply chain of a product to take responsibility for the environmental, health and safety footprint of those products. Under the Commonwealth Product Stewardship Act 2011 a framework for three EPR schemes was introduced:  Mandatory schemes;  Co-regulatory schemes; and  Voluntary schemes (either accredited or not). There are no mandatory schemes created under the Act, and one co-regulatory scheme (the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme). Most EPR schemes are voluntary, and include schemes for:  Mobile phones (MobileMuster, an accredited scheme);  Fluorescent lamps (Fluorocycle, an accredited scheme);  Tyres (Tyre Stewardship Australia);  Agricultural chemical containers (DrumMuster);  Paint (Paintback);  PVC (PVC Stewardship); and  Newspapers. Kingborough Council supports voluntary product stewardship (takeback) schemes (e.g. TechCollect, MobileMuster, DrumMuster and Paintback) at the Barretta transfer station and at the Kingborough Council Civic Centre (e.g. MobileMuster).

16 More information available at: http://epa.tas.gov.au/sustainability/resources-for-the-community/plastic- shopping-bags ______

Page 155 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

2. Where do we want to get to? Kingborough Council seeks to improve on its current operations through the development and implementation of a waste management strategy (the Strategy).

Kingborough Council vision

Kingborough Council wishes to achieve a planned and collaborative approach to waste management, which is cost effective, supportive of the local community and economy and improves recycling rates. Council’s waste management and resource recovery priorities are to: 1. Deliver cost effective and efficient waste and recycling services to all residents of Kingborough; 2. Assist the community to avoid waste and to improve recycling rates to exceed Tasmania’s statewide performance; 3. Reduce emissions and energy usage and develop a truly sustainable community; and 4. Reduce the environmental impacts of littering and illegal dumping. Council is committed to work with its community to transition to a low carbon lifestyle. One facet of this journey will be tackled by a planned and collaborative approach to waste management, which is cost effective, supportive of the local community and economy and achieves resource recovery rates which exceed Tasmania’s statewide performance. Council recognises and supports a need for greater regional cooperation and is committed to actively engaging in regional discussions and working closely with other neighbouring councils to jointly undertake activities which support Council’s waste management and resource recovery priorities.

2.1.1 Community consultation feedback Council undertook community consultation throughout the municipality to inform this Strategy. The community ranked the following issues in order of importance of what they want the waste management system to deliver: 1. Improved recycling; 2. Better education regarding household waste management, with an increased focus on waste avoidance; 3. Increased frequency of collection; 4. Improved facilities at Barretta; and 5. Greater community involvement (in decision making). The main outcomes from the community consultation, with regards to improved recycling through kerbside services, are displayed in Figure 4.

______

Page 156 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Figure 4 Main outcomes from community consultation

Kingborough Council goals and objectives

In order to achieve Council’s vision for the strategy, four strategy goals have been established: 1. Increased waste avoidance and reduction. 2. Increased recycling rates. 3. Best practice waste and resource recovery. 4. Efficient and sustainable governance. 5. Effective community engagement. The objectives which will support these are shown below. Table 2 Kingborough Council goals and objectives Goal 1 Increased waste avoidance and reduction Avoid and reduce the generation of waste by changing the behaviours of Objective households, businesses and the wider community through education, engagement and involvement. 2 Increased recycling rates Kerbside collection improved to recycle more materials. Objectives Kerbside collection expanded to service more communities. All communities have access to waste and recycling services.

3 Best practice waste and resource recovery Kingborough Council transfer stations offer best practice services. Kerbside collections efficiently consolidated for transport to disposal and recycling. Transfer station services support the recovery of priority materials (e.g. E-waste, Objectives gas bottles, tyres). Public place recycling bins at all priority council open spaces. Waste and recycling services minimise the community’s carbon footprint and environmental impact.

______

Page 157 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

4 Efficient and sustainable governance Management and operation of Council transfer stations is effective and sustainable. Objectives A user pays principle is applied to gate fees for Council waste facilities. Data on community waste generation and Council waste services is available to measure performance and inform decision making. 5 Effective community engagement Waste and recycling services satisfy the community needs and expectations. The community is adequately informed to avoid waste and to correctly use waste Objectives services. Littering and illegal dumping is reduced.

2.1.2 Goal #1: Increased waste avoidance and reduction Waste avoidance and reduction programs are at the top of the waste hierarchy, and are therefore higher order. A key priority for Council is to develop waste avoidance programs that can be used to provide incentives and encourage the community to adopt sustainable consumption practices and behaviours. These programs offer the best opportunity for improved environmental outcomes and align with the community expectations identified through consultation. A focus on waste avoidance and reduction will support Council and the community to transition to a low carbon lifestyle. Increase waste avoidance and reduction would be supported by:  Prioritising low waste practices like food waste avoidance and re-use, and ‘at home’ composting;  Raising awareness of problems and negative impacts associated with waste;  Providing advice on how to avoid waste generation through the decisions and choices households and businesses make about the things they buy and use; and  Providing opportunities for the reuse and recycling of items and materials which cannot be avoided.

2.1.3 Goal #2: Increased recycling rates A key priority for Kingborough Council is to increase the recycling rates. This aligns with the community expectations, identified through consultation, and will enable Council’s performance to be amongst the leading Tasmanian local governments in terms of resource recovery. Increased recycling rates would be supported through a combination of:  Improvement to kerbside collection systems to recycle more materials (e.g. new organics service);  Expansion of kerbside collection, including comingled and organics collection, to service more communities, where it is cost effective (e.g. Kettering); and  Providing easy access to waste and recycling services to all communities. For example, remote communities (e.g. Bruny Island), where it is not feasible to introduce a kerbside collection service, are provided with Self Service Bulk Bin Drop-Off Points. At all drop-off points, security would be installed to prevent abuse of the system (e.g. key or swipe card access).

2.1.4 Goal #3: Best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure Council infrastructure supports the efficiency of the kerbside waste collection services as well as providing an essential service for the disposal and recycling of material not collected through the kerbside system and for residents without a kerbside service. Consequently, it is a priority for Council

______

Page 158 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017 to implement best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure and services. Three key waste system elements where the implementation of best practice will directly benefit Council are:  Transfer stations (Barretta and Bruny);  Public place litter and public place recycling bins; and  Kerbside collection services. Implementation of best practice at Council’s transfer stations should also consider the additional material collections required by the community (e.g. e-waste, hazardous household waste, gas bottles, tyres) as well as supporting the efficient kerbside consolidation and transfer of all garbage, comingled recyclables and organics.

2.1.5 Goal #4: Efficient and sustainable governance Council seeks to ensure all waste management operations are managed transparently, efficiently and are sustainable. To ensure this occurs, the following objectives must be achieved:  User pays principle applied to Council waste facilities;  Management and operation arrangements of Council transfer stations is aligned with performance objectives; and  An evidence base (data) is collected to measure community waste generation and the performance of waste and recycling services. 2.1.6 Goal #5: Community effectively engaged The fifth goal identified by Council is to provide effective community engagement to support delivery of waste and resource recovery services and support public participation in decision making. It is essential that waste services meet the needs and expectations of the community. Council will have achieved this goal if:  The community is supported to avoid waste and adequately informed how to correctly use waste services (kerbside services and transfer stations/drop-off);  The community is satisfied with the waste and recycling services; and  Littering and illegal dumping is reduced. 2.1.7 Strategy considerations for KWS KWS is a key asset to Council which in the future may expand its role to support and provide other essential waste and recycling services and programs to the community, however, firstly it is critical to Council that both Barretta and Bruny transfer stations, deliver best practice services in a cost effective reliable manner to the community. The strategy considers this under Goal #3. Recently KWS has transitioned to self-sufficient model, a result of changes in the management and operations at KWS as well as the re-adjustment of gate fees as approved by Council, i.e. Council is no longer required to fund the difference between income from gate fees, the sale of recyclables and operating expenses. This supports Goal #4 of the strategy and the principle of user pays. A range of specific objectives have been identified for the operation of Council owned transfer stations, which align with the goals of the strategy and specifically relate to KWS, as detailed below (Table 3).

______

Page 159 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Table 3 Objectives to be achieved by KWS in the future Criteria Objectives - Transfer station operation aligned with industry best practice17; Environmental - Diversion of materials from landfill maximised; and /Resource Recovery - Sustainable operation of the Tip Shop. - User pays principle implemented; Financial Viability/Cost - Kerbside collected waste consolidation and transportation cost are minimised. - Transfer stations support consolidation and transport of material from Integration with other existing and future kerbside services; and services - Transfer station consolidation reduces the impact and number of waste collection /bulk haul vehicles on the road. - Improved accessibility of transfer stations to the community; - Adequate information and education provided to residents via transfer Social stations; and - Impact of transfer stations on neighbouring communities minimised.

Council will require additional internal resources to implement the Strategy, as identified in Appendix 1 Preliminary Strategy Budget. There is an opportunity for Council to expand the role and function of KWS to include responsibility for delivering Council’s waste strategy as well as managing the kerbside waste services and support programs. Under this scenario the goals and objectives for KWS would be expanded and the resources required to deliver the Strategy would be provided by KWS.

17 There are no specific transfer station best practice guidelines for Kingborough Council, however, Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group have developed best practice guidelines. NSW have developed guidelines (available here) and Victoria has guidelines in development. ______

Page 160 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

3. How will we get there? Goal #1: Increase waste avoidance and reduction

The options to help deliver the objective under this goal are mainly based around communications and the provision of advice on specific waste streams, such as food waste. These can be complemented using incentives to encourage households and businesses to adopt preferred waste management practices and behaviours. The development and implementation of an awareness raising campaign to increase community understanding and engagement of waste avoidance is the key recommended action for delivery under this goal. It is considered an immediate priority for delivery. Supporting this is the implementation of a food waste avoidance program (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste) targeted to specific sections of the community (e.g. schools, community groups). In addition to the development and implementation of targeted waste avoidance and reduction campaigns, the provision of facilities and services that support the reuse of materials (e.g. collaborating with Mens Sheds, expanding re-sale shops or participating in Garage Sale Trail18) is important. Supporting community organisations that are involved in these activities will also be important as will engaging with businesses on waste avoidance through tailored waste reduction programs (e.g. Bin Trim, Halve Waste). Although difficult to measure, waste avoidance and reduction programs are likely to improve recycling rates, as overall waste generation decreases. To assess performance against this goal there is a need to improve data on the total amounts of waste and different waste composition types collected.

Goal #2: Increased recycling rates

The contribution of proposed strategy actions to improving Council’s recycling rates are shown below, Figure 6. The most significant impact on recycling rates would occur through upgrades to the current kerbside collection system, initially through introduction of Garden Organic (GO) kerbside collection and as second stage through the introduction of Food Organic (FO) collection using the GO binError! Reference source not found.. Other activities which contribute to improved recycling rates include expansion of Public Place Recycling (PPR), broadened support of product stewardship programs and upgrades to transfer stations (TS).

18 More information available at: https://www.garagesaletrail.com.au/ ______

Page 161 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Figure 5 Waterfall diagram of all waste management projects19

3.1.1 Kerbside collection system to recycle more materials The costs and benefits of a range of possible future kerbside collection service options20 were assessed to establish which option provided the greatest economic, environmental, governance and social benefit to Kingborough. The assessment demonstrated that a fortnightly garden organics service and upgrading existing recycling bins provided the greatest cost/benefit to Council (schematic of system shown in Figure 6). Figure 6 Proposed kerbside collection

Preferred Option Option

Waste Garbage to Recycling GO to GO Stream Landfill to MRF Facility

Collection 80L 240L 240L system Weekly Fortnightly Fortnightly

The benefits of the preferred option include:  Increase in the resource recovery rate from 31% to 58%; and

 Reduction in greenhouse gas emission by 1,128 tonnes/annum of CO2-e.

19 Note: Given the lack of substantial data, the diversion apparent for some of these factors have been estimated utilising national averages. 20 MRA completed thorough modelling utilising its bespoke consolidated cost model (CCM) to quantitatively analyse waste management options available to Kingborough Council. These outputs were combined with a qualitative assessment to ensure a quadruple bottom line (cost, environmental, governance and social) assessment was adhered to. ______

Page 162 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

As displayed in Figure 7, the introduction of a GO service provides a large increase in diversion from landfill, via the kerbside service, and the introduction of Food Organics (FO) (to make a Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) stream) yields the greatest results. Figure 7 Kerbside service implementation plan21

Key: Stage 1: Stage 2:

FO collection can only be implemented when an organics processing facility has been established which can accept FO and support Kingborough Council and other neighbouring councils to recycle this organic material. Hence, a two-stage rollout is proposed, as highlighted in Figure 7. Stage 1:  Extend service collection area to include Kettering;  Replace existing comingled recycling bin with bins of larger capacity (240l); and  Introduce a new GO bin to all households receiving a collection service. Stage 2:  Upgrade the service to FOGO by introducing FO collection to the GO bin; and  Provide households with kitchen caddies and a year’s supply of compostable caddy liners to collect food waste which is then placed in the bin with the GO. Implementing GO collection, stage 1, will ensure that Kingborough Council exceeds the current Tasmania state recycling rate. Each of the two stages requires an accompanying community education and engagement program to adequately inform and prepare households for the upgraded service.

3.1.2 Kerbside collection system to service more communities Analysis was also undertaken to assess the viability of extending kerbside services to more communities and to include the township of Kettering. The analysis established that it would be viable to extending the current collection areas to include Kettering when the new services were rolled out, without significantly impacting the cost to other residents and would expand the kerbside collection area to include more than 95% of the households. For households that have never received a service, there are additional capital costs to be accounted for in Year 1 (e.g. bin infrastructure). Therefore, if waste collection service was extended to Kettering, there would be a slight increase in waste service costs per household to account for this infrastructure. Analysis was undertaken to assess the viability to expand the kerbside collection services to all households in Kingborough, however the cost of providing kerbside collection services to sparsely populated and more remote communities is prohibitive.

21 The exact composition of Council garbage bins is unknown; hence these diversions rates are based on typical waste compositions from similar councils. ______

Page 163 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

3.1.3 All communities have access to waste and recycling services Some areas in Kingborough are still deemed too remote and costly to be serviced by a kerbside collection system, however, to increase the recycling rates exhibited by Kingborough households in these areas require access to waste and recycling services. Infrastructure upgrades are required in order to provide remote communities with both garbage and recycling drop-off points. To ensure that these drop-off points are not abused and are available for legitimate use by residents, security measures are recommended e.g. keys issued to households and Further security measures added (e.g. cameras) should illegal dumping become prevalent.

Goal #3: Best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure

3.1.4 Transfer stations offer best practice services MRA Consulting Group (MRA) assessed a range of options for the operation and management of the Barretta transfer station. During this assessment, several recommendations were identified to align the performance of Council’s transfer stations with best practice, these include:  Council perform an audit of the waste received at the transfer station as well as a review of operation of the facility, compared against industry best practice, in order to identify opportunities for an improvement in the recycling rates and services offered;  A gap analysis of current infrastructure vs industry best practice and projected future needs of the community (e.g. over a 10-year period);  An assessment of the cost benefit of infrastructure options to meet projected need (e.g. over a 10-year period);  Gate fee system revised to align with user pays principle. Prior to this, Council should perform investigations into: o Communities willingness to pay to ensure that the community supports increased gate fees resulting from implementing changes to services; o Investigation into cause and effect of litter and illegal dumping considering the impact of gate fees; and o Detailed study of sources of materials e.g. municipal versus industrial sources, to ensure that residential rates would not be subsidising industrial waste disposal activities.  Implement mechanisms to measure and monitor performance of the facility (i.e. diversion rate of waste from landfill). 3.1.5 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction Introducing a FOGO collection service significantly reduces the community’s GHG emissions. This reduction is achieved by diverting organic material away from landfill disposal to compost facilities which results in significantly less CO2-e being generated. When landfilled, organic material decomposes and forms methane a potent GHG. The reduction in GHG emissions can be shown in relatable terms by comparing the equivalent tonnes of CO2-e to the number of cars removed from the road each year. As displayed in Table 4, it is estimated that the reduction in GHG emissions from the introduction of a FOGO service is equal to the permanent removal of 984 cars from the road in Kingborough.

______

Page 164 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Table 4 Detail of GHG emission reduction possible from kerbside options

Option Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tCO2-e pa) Cars permanently removed from roads Current system 10,099 - Introduce a GO bin 8,971 271 Introduce a FOGO bin 6,007 984

Reducing the community’s GHG emissions through a new organics collection service provides Council the opportunity to generate Australia Carbon Credits Units (ACCUs), through the Emissions Reduction Fund, hence offering further economic benefit.

Goal #4: Efficient and sustainable governance

3.1.6 Transfer station operation and management During the assessment, MRA identified that governance model with the greatest benefit to Council is achieved through retaining KWS to manage and operate Barretta transfer station. The main advantages being:  Strong alignment of organisation aims, objectives and values between KWS and Council;  The experience and expertise of KWS Board members is retained to the benefit of KWS and Council;  In-house experience of KWS operators is maintained;  Kingborough Council has greatest ability to effect implementation of new services and delivery in accordance with best practice under current governance model;  It is the most financially sustainable model; and  It supports the opportunity to expand the role and function of KWS to include responsibility for delivering Council’s waste strategy as well as managing the kerbside waste services and support programs. To foster continual improvement, it is recommended that Council and KWS set clearly defined Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) to measure performance and implement best practice operation.

Goal #5: Effective community engagement

3.1.7 Waste and recycling services satisfy community needs To ensure Council’s waste and recycling continually satisfy community need, periodic measurement of community satisfaction is required. Through community satisfaction surveys, residents have the opportunity to raise their key waste management issues and enable Council to understand ongoing waste issues and priorities. This provides Council the opportunity to engage and effectively support the community with respect to any changes to their waste management system.

3.1.8 Littering and illegal dumping is reduced Littering and illegal dumping, in the municipality, requires further investigation specifically to identify the causes and the scale of the effects in Kingborough. With this baseline data, Council will be able to implement modifications to their waste management services to reduce the amount of littering and illegal dumping found in the area. Typically litter management strategies involve a range of actions including:  Education;  Litter Collection and Infrastructure; ______

Page 165 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

 Regulation and Enforcement;  Volunteering; and  Partnering with other organisations. Activities which directly target illegal dumping and might provide effective in Kingborough include:  Installing dummy and real cameras at identified hot-spot sites;  Installing lighting and signage based on chosen campaign slogan;  Increasing beautification;  Publicising all illegal dumping civil and criminal prosecutions; and  Designing stickers for suspected illegal dumping from households.

______

Page 166 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

4. How will the Strategy be implemented? The Strategy’s results and recommendations have been developed into a list of recommendations and actions, with associated priority and timeframe for each action (Table 5). The focus of the first year of the Strategy, 2017/18, is to investigate future service options and determine how they will be implemented. Changes to the kerbside system, flagged for 2018/19, would not occur until after the preliminary work has been completed. Council will require additional internal resources to implement the Strategy, as separately identified in Appendix 1 Preliminary Strategy Budget. Table 5 Summary of recommended actions Goal Recommendations 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Priority Measures of Success 1 Increased waste avoidance and reduction A Develop and deliver an awareness raising campaign to increase High  Reduction in household public understanding and engagement of waste avoidance. waste generation rates; B Implement a food waste avoidance program (e.g. Love Food Medium  Reduction in amount of Hate Waste) and target to specific sections of the community food waste in the (e.g. schools). general waste bin, C Support and promote community gardens and at home Low measured through composting. compositional bin audits; and Medium D Engage with businesses on waste avoidance and implement a  Businesses actively business waste reduction program (e.g. Bin Trim, Halve Waste) engaged in waste to assist businesses to reduce waste. avoidance initiatives led by Council. 2 Increased recycling rates A Introduce new kerbside services:  Recycling rates exceed  Fortnightly 240l comingled recycling bin; and High Tasmanian statewide  Fortnightly GO bin. performance; B Expand new kerbside service collection area to include  Kerbside recycling Kettering. High services comply with C Review remote sites and upgrade community access to secure best practice; garbage and recycling drop-off points. High  Rural/remote communities have D Collaborate with neighbouring councils seeking to establish Medium access to both recycling regional organics processing solutions. and waste drop-off E Review viability of implementing kerbside FOGO collections. services; and Medium  All facilities support

______

Page 167 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Goal Recommendations 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Priority Measures of Success F Expand participation in product stewardship (takeback) schemes product takeback at Council facilities. programs (e.g. Mobile Low Muster22 and Battery Back23). 3 Best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure A Review and assess transfer stations against best practice  Transfer stations (including tip shop). High comply with best practice; B Review viable options for Barretta transfer station to  Council facilities accommodate new kerbside services and best practice High support efficient recommendation (including tip shop services). consolidation of C Upgrade Barretta transfer station to support new kerbside kerbside waste collection. High collections; D Upgrade transfer station to support best practice  All public place litter recommendations. High and recycling bins installations comply E Perform public place litter and recycling bin stations audits with best practice; and Medium across municipality and review against best practice.  Council managed open F Install additional stations and/or upgrade existing bin spaces are cleaner. installations at priority sites. Medium G Register proposed waste services under the ERF (i.e. to generate ACCUs) to support the financial sustainability of introducing new Medium organics services. 4 Efficient and sustainable governance A Adopt KPI’s and targets for the operation and management of  Transfer station Council transfer stations. management & Medium operation of meets Council performance targets; B Implement Kingborough Council policy and procedures for  Transfer station gate setting waste gate fees aligned with the user pays principle. Low fees support the user pays principle; and

22 More information available at: http://www.mobilemuster.com.au/ 23 More information available at: http://www.batteryback.org/ ______

Page 168 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Goal Recommendations 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Priority Measures of Success C Implement waste data management system, to: record and  Community waste report performance; inform decision making and provide greater generation and Council transparency to the community. High waste service performance data is readily available. 5 Effective community engagement A Roll out ongoing and periodic measurement of community  Improved household satisfaction with waste services. food waste avoidance; High  Improved recycling and reduced contamination in new/expanded waste B Develop a waste avoidance and new/expanded services services; education program.  All Council facilities Medium support product takeback programs (e.g. Mobile Muster22 and C Expand participation in product stewardship (takeback) schemes 23 at Council facilities. Battery Back ); Low  The negative impacts of litter and illegal dumping are reduced; D Investigate the causes and effects of illegal dumping and littering and across the municipality.  Recycling rates at Low council run or supported events increased. E Expand and improve recycling at council run or supported events. Medium

______

Page 169 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Appendix 1 Preliminary Strategy Budget A preliminary budget for the additional cost to council for the implementation of the Strategy actions, excluding Council internal staff resources, is provided below (Table 6). Annual costs are quantified as “Low” (up to $20,000), “Medium” (from $20,000 up to $50,000) or “High” (from $50,000 up to $75,000). It is estimated that, in addition to the implementation budget, approximately one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position will be required to implement the Strategy, with a significant component being waste avoidance and reduction, education and community engagement. Table 6 Strategy implementation budget

Goal Recommendations 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 1 Increased waste avoidance and reduction (Requires additional resources to manage and deliver program elements - approx. 0.25 FTE) A Develop and deliver an awareness raising campaign to increase Low public understanding and engagement of waste avoidance.

B Implement a food waste avoidance program (e.g. Love Food Hate Low Low Low Low Waste) and target to specific sections of the community (e.g. schools). C Support and promote community gardens and at home Low composting. D Engage with businesses on waste avoidance and implement a Low Low business waste reduction program (e.g. Bin Trim, Halve Waste) to assist businesses to reduce waste. 2 Increased recycling rates (Requires additional resources to manage and deliver program elements - approx. 0.25 FTE) A Introduce new kerbside services: Medium -  Fortnightly 240l comingled recycling bin; and  Fortnightly GO bin. B Expand new kerbside service collection area to include Kettering. Nil-See note 1 Nil-See note 1 C Review remote sites and upgrade community access to secure Low Medium garbage and recycling drop-off points. (Trial) D Collaborate with neighbouring councils seeking to establish - regional organics processing solutions. E Review viability of implementing kerbside FOGO collections. Low F Expand participation in product stewardship (takeback) schemes - - - - at Council facilities.

______

Page 170 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Goal Recommendations 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

3 Best practice waste and resource recovery infrastructure (Requires additional resources to manage and deliver program elements - approx. 0.1 FTE) A Review and assess transfer stations against best practice Low (including tip shop). B Review viable options for Barretta transfer station to Low accommodate new kerbside services and best practice recommendation (including tip shop services). C Upgrade Barretta transfer station to support new kerbside TBC-See note 2 collection. D Upgrade transfer station to support best practice TBC-See note 2 recommendations. E Perform public place litter and recycling bin stations audits across Medium municipality and review against best practice. F Install additional stations and/or upgrade existing bin installations Low Low Low at priority sites. G Register proposed waste services under the ERF (i.e. to generate Low ACCUs) to support the financial sustainability of introducing new organics services. 4 Efficient and sustainable governance (Requires additional resources to manage and deliver program elements - approx. 0.1 FTE) A Adopt KPI’s and targets for the operation and management of - - Council transfer stations. B Implement Kingsborough policy and procedures for setting waste - - gate fees aligned with the user pays principle. C Implement waste data management system, to: record and report TBC TBC performance; inform decision making and provide greater transparency to the community. 5 Effective community engagement (Requires additional resources to manage and deliver program elements - approx. 0.5 FTE) A Roll out ongoing and periodic measurement of community Low Low Low Low Low satisfaction with waste services. B Develop a waste avoidance and new/expanded services education Medium High High High High program. (Program (Stage 2 FOGO (Stage 2 FOGO Development) Service) Service) C Expand participation in product stewardship (takeback) schemes - - - - at Council facilities.

______

Page 171 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Goal Recommendations 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

D Investigate the causes and effects of illegal dumping and littering Medium TBC - across the municipality. E Expand and improve recycling at council run or supported events Low Low Low Low Low (see note).

Legend

Low <$20,000 Medium $20,000 and <$50,000 High $50,000 and <$75,000

Note 1: The additional cost to council for the expanded kerbside services is not included in the Strategy budget, it is assumed that this would be recovered from householders through service charges.

Note 2: The capital expenditure associated with major infrastructure upgrades to Council’s transfer stations and alterations to the operation expenses arising from changes at the facilities have been specifically excluded from the Strategy budget.

______

Page 172 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

FILE NO 22.364 DATE 29 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICERS KRISTINE ANCHER – URBAN DESIGNER CAROL SWARDS – COORDINATOR COMMUNITY SERVICES ENDORSED BY DAVID REEVE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

SNUG OVAL PLAY SPACE DEVELOPMENT

1 PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 1.0 A safe, healthy and supportive community Strategic Outcome 1.1 A connected, supportive and thriving community Strategy 1.1.1 Work in partnership with the community to provide a broad range of beneficial outcomes To provide a municipal level play space in the south eastern corner of Snug Oval that is accessible and caters for a whole of family recreational experience.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Following a Council request consultation was undertaken with young people in Snug and surrounding districts concentrating on recreational opportunities and needs.

2.2 One hundred and twenty eight (128) responses were collected and the most popular suggestion was an improved and more engaging play space.

2.3 The youth strategy consultation and public comments on Council’s Facebook page have generated much interest in the provision of improved play spaces for the southern rural area of Kingborough which is poorly serviced in this regard.

2.4 The site chosen to locate a new play space in Snug is part of Snug Oval and would take up the south eastern corner bookending Beach Road with two public open space facilities.

______

Page 173 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

2.5 Preliminary discussions have been held with local sporting clubs and other stake holders and the response has been very positive.

2.6 It has been suggested that a name is required for the park and this will be considered as a separate process once the project develops further.

3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 The project will require a development application.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Relevant social and demographic information and a design concept for the park was presented at a Council workshop on the 20th November 2017 and a copy of this is attached. Pedestrian routes and vehicle movement routes on the site were observed with up to eight vehicles being located on the site from random observations.

4.2 Snug and neighbouring districts contain some of the most disadvantaged families in Kingborough with a high number of rental properties, relatively low median weekly income, high percentage of single parent families and high numbers of children and youth.

4.3 Public transport is limited to two services daily during the week catering for workers in Kingston and beyond. This creates 10 weekday services only, with a reduction to 6 on Saturdays and 0 on Sundays.

4.4 There is no public play space in Snug apart from the early childhood space attached to the community hall.

4.5 Consultation was held with five sporting groups, Snug School students and local residents. Positive comments included: ‘We strongly encourage the go ahead of this project’

‘It looks fantastic and will be an asset to the community’

‘Good idea will help keep children off the streets and keep them interested instead of watching the box ______

Page 174 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

‘This is fantastic news! What a fabulous thing to do for the Snug community’

‘The proposed new park will be very good for residents and visitors.’

4.6 Concerns raised during the consultation were as follows

 a possible reduction in car parking spaces;

 the danger of cricket balls/footballs being hit into the park;

 Sea Scouts will lose space at their Regatta; and

 a request to utilise space near the public amenities as part of the development.

These concerns have been addressed through further design work and taken back to the community for comment.

4.7 The final design incorporated the suggestions by the community, sporting groups and young people.

4.8 The proposed play space provides a play area for all ages and abilities catering to a whole of park approach and promoting active lifestyles for adults and children.

4.9 This proposal is located within an area that is subject to future inundation risk and most elements have been designed to allow them to be moved to an alternative site if this was necessary.

4.10 There is an intention to name the park once the design details are finalised, however, this will form part of a separate report to Council.

4.11 The concept is show below and a copy of the overheads describing the proposal are attached:

______

Page 175 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

5. FINANCE

5.1 Public Open Space accounts from the area will be used to fund this project as well as support from grant applications, sponsorship and capital works expenditure.

5.2 The park will be of benefit to many townships in the channel region and the distribution of funding from the various Public Open Space reserves reflects this as shown below.

Public open space Current Balance Amount sought accounts Snug/Electrona $81,446 $80,000 Conningham $89,929 $50,000 Kettering $112,249 $20,000 Woodbridge $69,721 $20,000 Total $170,000

Other possible funding sources for stage 2 and 3 include:

 NDIS funding $8,000 (stage 3- projects suitable for those with a disability)

 Sponsorship $13,000 (stage 3- projects suitable for those with a disability)

 Grant funding $23,038- (stage 2-exercise table and table tennis table)

 Capital works $46,275- (stage 2-Basketball key and perimeter fence)

6. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

6.1 Extensive communication and consultation has occurred with the community, Council and other stakeholders.

6.2 Further communication will be held with stakeholders as the project continues to be developed.

7. RISK

7.1 There is a high risk of a negative perception by the community if this project is not followed through as expectations have been raised and there have been positive responses to the proposed designs.

7.2 There is a risk that other nominated external funding sources will not come to fruition. This is mitigated by having a scale able project that would allow for some elements to form part of future stages.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 This investment in a quality of life project for rural Snug and southern district communities will have profound health and recreational benefits for the whole community.

8.2 The proposal will elevate Snug as an inclusive recreational hub for the southern region of Kingborough. Not only residents will benefit but visitors and family groups

______

Page 176 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

using the oval space. It will also assist local businesses in the area and encourage new residents.

9. RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That

a) Council approve the allocation of funds ($170,000) from several Public Open Space accounts (as listed in this report) to allow for the development of the Snug Oval Play Space;

b) consideration be given to funding future stages of the project through Council’s capital works program; and

c) external funding sources are sought to support the delivery of the project.

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

______

Page 177 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 178 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 179 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 180 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 181 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 182 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 183 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 184 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 185 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 186 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 187 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 188 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 189 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 190 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 191 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 192 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

______

Page 193 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

FILE NO 7.42, 5731507 DATE 30 NOVEMBER 2017 OFFICER TONY FERRIER - ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

UPDATE ON KINGSTON PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

1 PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 4 A vibrant local economy

Strategic Outcome 4.3 Vibrant central and local business districts

Strategy 4.3.2 Develop the former Kingston High School site and promote the broader economic and social benefits of this project

1.1 This report provides an update on the current situation in regard to this project.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Recent update reports on this project were provided to Council at its meetings on 13 June and 28 August 2017. This report provides a similar further update, together with additional information in regard to parking related matters.

2.2 The Kingston Park project aims to encourage the revitalisation of central Kingston. It will provide new community facilities, extensive public parkland and attractions and introduce a higher residential density. It will stimulate both private and public investment and facilitate the provision of many new services for the local Kingborough community.

3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 There are no relevant statutory issues to consider at this stage. Future development will occur in accordance with planning scheme requirements.

4 DISCUSSION

Boulevard Road

4.1 The road design and associated servicing requirements for the Boulevard road within Kingston Park has been completed. The final detailed engineering plans have been prepared and were included within the tender specifications for road construction. Tenders were called and closed on 15 November 2017. A report was considered by Council at its meeting on 27 November that dealt with the received tenders and the preferred contractor was determined to be Spectran Contracting Pty Ltd. Road construction is proposed to commence in January and be completed by July 2018.

4.2 This construction work will entail the southern half of the Boulevard only, in order to facilitate the Kingston Health Centre and Community Hub developments – as well as the future subdivision and development of the southern half of the Kingston Park ______

Page 194 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

site. It will also include the construction of the link road through to John Street. The Boulevard Road is now named as Goshawk Way and the link road is Skipper Lane.

Community Hub

4.3 The final building plans for the Community Hub were compiled and included in the tender specifications which were released on 8 November 2017. The tender closing date is 19 December 2017. It is proposed that the report to Council for consideration of these tenders will be provided at the 22 January 2018 meeting.

4.4 Construction of the Community Hub is proposed to commence in February and be completed by about October 2018. During this period Council will be establishing the future operational arrangements for this facility and administering the Building Better Regions grant that is paying for half of the construction costs.

Promenade

4.5 The original Development Plan included a Promenade as the main pedestrian access spine through the Kingston Park site. The first stage is designed for pedestrians only and is a wide paved area passing through the existing Council owned John Street car park to the future Boulevard. From there the Promenade provides for both vehicular and pedestrian access to the western boundary of the site – in line with the Southern Outlet underpass. The Promenade is now named as Pardalote Parade.

4.6 The design of these two sections of the Promenade is proposed to commence in a few months and will be done in-house by Council staff. The pedestrian component will require a high level of public amenity and landscaping. Consideration will need to be given to how existing adjoining properties are treated. The road component is required relatively soon as it will facilitate the operation of the Community Hub and the subdivision of the future commercial and residential properties to the south. These latter subdivisions will be early opportunities for Council to obtain significant revenue from the overall site development.

Public Open Space

4.7 As with the Promenade, a draft brief has been prepared for the future design of the Kingston Park public open space areas. The Development Plan provides a conceptual design for about 3ha of public recreational space with a variety of activity opportunities and attractions.

4.8 It is proposed that there be a large children’s playground just to the west of the Community Hub and north of the Promenade. This will be a challenging part of the public open space design as there is a desire for it to be a unique feature and a major attraction in the municipality. The remaining parts of the public open space will provide spaces for outdoor events and pleasant trails and more passive recreational experiences. There will be roadside parking provided, together with a larger parking area adjoining the Boulevard to the north of the site.

4.9 The design brief is being finalised and will be released next month and an external consultant commissioned to assist Council in designing a high quality recreational area. It is envisaged that this will involve opportunities for public comment as there will be considerable interest in what might be proposed. Following completion of the design, construction specifications will be prepared. Construction of the first stage is envisaged to commence towards the end of 2018.

______

Page 195 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Land Release Strategy

4.10 Council has commissioned NAVIRE consultants to prepare a Land Release Strategy for the site. The consultants have presented their proposals to Council at workshops on 6 February and 3 July 2017. It is being recommended that the future land sale process involve a “post pre-sales” approach.

4.11 This involves the land being sold and transferred to the developer only after a planning permit is granted for the proposed site development and after the developer has obtained the commitments to secure construction finance. This delayed approach optimises developer confidence and enables Council to put forward a higher purchase price.

4.12 This is also a very effective means of preventing “land banking” but will require a strategy that includes supportive planning scheme provisions, Council provides the core infrastructure (roads and services) and catalyst projects (Community Hub, Health Centre, playground and recreational facilities), sound legal advice and good marketing and governance processes that provide investor confidence. All of these aspects are currently being dealt with as part of the Land Release Strategy.

4.13 The final draft of the Land Release Strategy will be presented to Council separately. This Strategy is supported by a detailed inter-active financial model that examines and predicts all of the costs and revenue for the Kingston Park project as a whole. In the meantime, NAVIRE and Council staff have been conducting some initial discussions with potentially interested developers. These “market sounding” activities enabled Council to better understand the type of needs that developers might have and will inform the preparation of subsequent Expression of Interest briefs.

4.14 The Specific Area Plan for Kingston Park in the planning scheme is also being reviewed by independent planning consultants and it is important that it aligns well with Land Release Strategy and the messages that are being communicated to potential developers.

4.15 NAVIRE provided a brief presentation to Council on 4 December 2017 in regard to the results of the developer discussions and the impending preparation of the ‘Expressions of Interest’ background documentation. Expressions of Interest will be sought from any potential developer or investor, after which a selection process will result in the circulation of a ‘Request for Proposal’ to those that appear to be the most suitable. NAVIRE intend to conduct a Councillor workshop early in 2018 to discuss this process.

Kingston Health Centre

4.16 The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has submitted a development application (DA2017-392) for stage 1 of the new Health Centre and this was approved by Council at its meeting on 27 November. Construction is programmed to occur during 2018. The first stage of development will essentially involve the direct transfer of all staff and services from the existing Community Health Centre on John Street. Subsequent stages will involve an expansion of services being provided to the Kingborough community but are dependent on new funding allocations from the State government.

4.17 This first stage is a two storey building located in the southern part of the land parcel, at the corner of the Boulevard and Promenade – as shown on the plan above. Subsequent stages will be fronting the Boulevard (most of the yellow coloured area above), with all parking to be provided to the rear of these buildings. ______

Page 196 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Access to parking will be from the link road through to John Street. There will be sufficient parking provided to cater for the health centre’s needs. This new facility will complement the many other existing health and medical businesses that are located close by on John Street.

Parking

4.18 Further consideration needs to be given to the removal of the existing ‘temporary’ parking within Kingston Park. While there is sufficient short term parking within the Kingston CBD, there will in future be much less all-day parking than is currently the case. Some preliminary investigations have been conducted into this issue and they have included the following matters.

 reference to the existing Central Kingston Parking Strategy;

 reference to the existing Kingston Park Development Plan;

 community costs in Council providing all-day free public parking;

 the benefits of improved bus services;

 a potential future multi-storey car park in the CBD; and

 other broader considerations.

4.19 Each of these matters are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

4.20 The Central Kingston Parking Strategy (completed in May 2016) noted that parking is a finite resource which is expensive to supply and maintain. It also competes with ______

Page 197 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

other land uses (residential, commercial, recreation). The preference should always be to try to reduce demand rather than increase supply. Council’s free public parking is subsidised by ratepayers and by those that don’t drive. Contemporary parking strategies require parking users to pay for the space they occupy.

4.21 The Strategy did not recommend that Council replace all of the current all-day car parking that exists within Kingston Park. It stated that Council should not be encouraging so many private vehicles to park all day in central Kingston, as has been the case with all the free parking that is currently available.

4.22 The Strategy also indicated that circumstances will change over time and that Council should identify how to reduce the parking demand whenever opportunities arise. For example, technological advances will see a reduction in the need to travel (eg use of telecommunications and internet) and transport changes (eg driverless vehicles) would reduce the need for parking. In regard to new park-and-ride facilities the only future option suggested in the Strategy was the purchase and development of the golf club property on the Channel Highway opposite the Browns Road junction. Potential park-and-ride locations further away from central Kingston were not considered.

4.23 The Development Plan for Kingston Park proposes that sufficient parking will be provided on site to meet the future demand for parking, as generated by all public and private developments within Kingston Park. This includes a time limited parking area that would cater for about 100 vehicles (unless expanded to be a multi-storey car park). This parking area is designed to meet the demands of the Community Hub and other more general uses of the area. There will also be a substantial amount of roadside parking (often at 90˚), particularly alongside the parkland areas – amounting to a total of about 160 spaces.

4.24 The Development Plan also includes a multi-purpose park-and-ride area within the public open space area. This is large enough to cater for 100 cars. It would be used by commuters during the week days and then on week-ends by park users and for occasional community events. It could also be used by people who work in Kingston. These 100 spaces would be the effective replacement of the existing 300 public all-day spaces currently available within the John Street car park, the former high school car park and the large area on the old concrete slab.

4.25 There will need to be public parking provided that is relatively close to the Community Hub. The planning permit requires that a total of 81 parking spaces be provided, including 4 disabled parking spaces in a location close to the building. The remaining 77 spaces are currently provided in the existing temporary car park area (the concrete slab area) and must be provided elsewhere when this space is developed. This will require the early construction of a new car park, although it is likely that it will be located in a different location to that shown in the Development Plan.

4.26 The Development Plan will be reviewed in the light of these further parking investigations and other information obtained from prospective developers. For example, a normal ground level public car parking area could have the potential for redevelopment to a multi-level car park and/or be combined with a private commercial development.

4.27 If there is to be all-day public parking provided by Council within Kingston Park, then in future it will need to be paid parking. Council is not obliged to provide expensive public land for people to park their cars all day at no cost. It is an incredibly inefficient use of land, particularly when the lost opportunities for alternative uses are considered. A user pays system is the only fair option and some analysis will be ______

Page 198 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

required to determine what fees would be appropriate and how these fees could be collected.

4.28 Ideally, Council would know how many of the all-day parked vehicles are owned by commuters into Hobart and how many are people who work in Kingston. Of the approximate 300 spaces, it would appear that more than 100 are for park-and-ride and almost 200 are used by central Kingston employees. A survey is proposed to confirm the actual split. Most of this existing parking infrastructure is of course of a temporary nature and this is clearly evident from the current standard of construction and the well-known fact that these areas are within the proposed Kingston Park development.

4.29 The construction of the new road, Community Hub and Health Centre will result in the immediate removal of about 100 parking spaces early in 2018. This will be that area which was the teachers’ carpark within the former high school. In the following year, it is planned that site construction will result in the removal of the remaining 200 spaces.

4.30 During this period, a new permanent public parking area will be developed within Kingston Park, consistent with the proposals within the Site Development Plan. It is envisaged that this will only have about 150 parking spaces. The current users of the other 150 spaces will need to find alternative locations or use public transport. This is the challenge facing Council – both in regard to the identification of these alternative locations and being able to communicate why Council cannot continue to provide free all-day parking in central Kingston.

4.31 Further investigations now need to be carried out into how the proposed all-day (or park-and-ride) parking area within Kingston Park should be managed. Paid parking will need the installation of specific infrastructure and a new parking area will need to consider this requirement. The all-day parking areas located on the fringe of the CBD (eg Denison Street or near the Council wetlands) would not require fees. Short term parking (less than three hours) would continue to be free and would be mainly provided by private businesses as part of their development approval requirements (including any cash in lieu of parking requirements).

4.32 The streets surrounding central Kingston can of course be used for all-day parking. This is however limited by the fact that the CBD is bounded by the Southern Outlet and the golf course on two sides and roadside parking is only possible on a few streets to the south of the central area. Increased parking demand may generate concerns from local residents, resulting in requests for time limited parking, pushing the all-day parking options further out. It may be necessary to explore other opportunities in regard to existing parking areas on private property. Further afield, other park-and-ride options are at the Sports Centre and the Algona Road roundabout.

4.33 It is acknowledged that, with the further development of the CBD, the demand for all-day parking will increase. This has been witnessed in recent years by the rapid take-up of the existing temporary parking within Kingston Park. It will however still be important not to duplicate the recent experience where community expectations have been raised by providing what is an excessive amount of all-day parking. This discourages a change in behaviour with people using car travel rather than other alternatives.

4.34 Consideration will be given to feasibility of Council providing a multi-storey car park. However the cost to construct such facilities may be beyond Council’s reach and a business case is likely to indicate a very long “pay-back” period. This is indicated by the fact that each individual parking space within such a facility is likely to cost about ______

Page 199 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

$40,000 to $60,000. A private-public partnership may be an option. At the national level, these types of car parks are falling out of favour. The major cities have car parking levies and people are encouraged to use public transport rather than to park in the CBD. Kingston is quite different but we should be aware of the national trends, particularly in regard to how driver behaviour is changing and CBD parking is becoming more expensive. The demand for CBD parking usually exceeds supply in most cities.

4.35 It is very important that there are good bus services into Kingston, in order that people will choose to catch the bus rather than drive their car. This is particularly the case for those people that work in Kingston, who will in future find it increasingly difficult to find a convenient all-day parking space. Good bus services into Kingston also enable local residents to more easily shop and visit other services – and are an important part of the overall viability of the CBD.

4.36 For commuters, all of the Metro services that go into Hobart currently pass through the centre of Kingston. This ensures a frequent and regular bus service can be relied upon if these commuters park-and-ride from the existing bus stop on the Channel Highway. The bus services elsewhere are much less frequent and this has resulted in many people who live in Kingston and Blackmans Bay parking their cars at Kingston Park and then catching the bus to Hobart. This is an extremely inefficient arrangement. Such commuters should be catching the bus near their residence – but this will require more frequent bus services within suburban areas and some express routes into Hobart. This could be supported by a few park-and- ride facilities dispersed around the greater Kingston area and further afield, such as at Margate.

4.37 Some initial meetings have been held with staff from Metro and the Department of State Growth. DSG is currently reviewing the Metro services and a priority will be given to encouraging more people to catch the bus from the Channel area. Council will need to further promote the need to improve the Kingston/Blackmans Bay services. Metro is contracted by DSG to provide a quite specific service and any major changes to this would require the support of State government.

4.38 While it may not be that relevant in the short term, it is worth acknowledging the broader trends associated with urban parking. The average car is stationary about 96-98% of the time. Substantial amounts of land and buildings are set aside to accommodate “immobile” vehicles. All central business districts benefit from densification, consolidation and infill development. Some actually set maximum limits on parking to prevent it taking over valuable inner-city properties. Increasing dwelling densities and reducing the capital costs involved in providing parking and roads also enhances affordability. Demand for parking will decrease for those people that live near the CBD or where there is a good public transport service. This will be the case for the future Kingston Park development and those that choose to live within this precinct should not need access to as many private vehicles as might normally be the case.

4.39 Car parks within town centres are usually quite large and are usually empty outside of business hours. Cities, all over the world, are now prioritising walkable urban developments and encouraging inner-city living that is not reliant on the use of a car. It is well understood that having plenty of cheap parking available will only contribute to traffic congestion. New parking paradigms are required in order to ensure greater efficiencies, more equitable solutions and improving the public amenity and liveability of our urban environments.

______

Page 200 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

4.40 Such trends can be carefully applied to Kingston although other larger centres will have a much greater demand for parking and stronger public transport systems as an alternative. Those communities are also accustomed to paid parking. It will be necessary to conduct extensive public consultation prior to any paid parking proposal.

4.41 The focus now needs to be on the identification of all-day parking on the outer fringe of central Kingston and further afield for park-and-ride – plus the parking solutions that address the internal Kingston Park needs (which may include the multi-storey facility).

4.42 For both Kingston Park and the adjoining business district, it will be necessary to ensure that there is an efficient “cash in lieu of car parking” scheme in place. Council will need to develop a specific policy that deals with this issue. A parking reserve can then be accumulated to pay for future public parking facilities. Such a scheme requires a strategy that shows how these funds will be spent – which will include the car parking that meets the needs of those commercial establishments that paid for it in the first place. These needs relate mainly to short term parking for their customers.

4.43 The current immediate need is to develop an appropriate response to the removal of the existing temporary all-day parking areas within Kingston Park. A decrease in available parking is inevitable and this will inconvenience existing users of these parking areas.

4.44 To summarise, it is now intended to:

 Determine (by survey) the origin, time of arrival and destination of the drivers of parked vehicles on Kingston Park.

 Schedule the construction of a new parking area within Kingston Park, following confirmation of the most suitable long term site and consideration of possible future inclusion within a multi-storey (public/private) building.

 Investigate future all-day parking opportunities on the fringe of the CBD – such as the golf club land near Council’s wetlands parking area.

 Investigate park-and-ride opportunities further afield – such as at the Huntingfield roundabout and at the Kingston Sports Centre.

 Continue to liaise with DSG and Metro in regard to improved bus services to both Kingston and from park-and-ride facilities to Hobart.

Branding

4.45 Council has commissioned Corporate Communications to provide some assistance in a branding exercise for the project and the establishment of a dedicated website. The Brand Positioning Findings strove to develop an engaging theme that correctly places the project within its desired market; that is, the Kingborough community and future investors and residents.

4.46 The brand positioning was that Kingston Park would be a place to work, live and play – learn, create and connect. It should celebrate its natural environment, connects people and is a source of community pride. It should provide a lively, active, vibrant and evolving space that is welcoming and inclusive. It should introduce elements that are tech-savvy, visionary, contemporary and speak of

______

Page 201 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

quality. The ‘brand’ should identify what separates Kingston Park from other developments.

4.47 Previous consultation has identified a strong sense of place and environment within Kingborough – including the timbered hilly backdrop, waterways and native flora and fauna. As well as this there is a strong sense of community, connectedness, technology and lifestyle. From this, the consultants came forward with various themes and the following logo and style was selected as the most appropriate.

4.48 This style is now being used to form the background and basis for a new Kingston Park website which will be available early in 2018 after all of the website content and information is compiled.

5 FINANCE

5.1 Detailed financial information was provided in the earlier August 2017 report and is also provided in the publicly available Kingston Park Implementation Report that is updated on a quarterly basis. Costs to date that have been attributed to the whole project amount to about $2.3 million – with most of this expenditure relating to the preparation of the development plan and the demolition of the school buildings.

5.2 Council has approved the expenditure of $10M in the 2017/18 capital expenditure budget. To fund this expenditure, Council will need to borrow the $10M, which has been approved by Treasury in the Local Government Loan Council Allocation. These funds will be primarily utilised for the purchase of the land, construction of the first stage of Goshawk Way and the Community Hub and to reimburse Council’s expenses incurred to date.

5.3 Council is still waiting for notification that the State Government will provide an additional interest free loan of $6M (which would need to be repaid within 5 years). It is expected that the interest free loan would be repaid from the settlement of the first stage of the land sales in 2022/23.

5.4 As reported above, the NAVIRE consultants have provided detailed financial modelling that enables Council to explore different scenarios that optimise the final financial outcome. The recent announcement about the Building Better Regions Program grant (of $2.8M) and the possibility of an interest free loan (for $6M) will have a major positive impact on the overall project’s financial bottom line. The financial modelling is being regularly updated so that operational adjustments can be made to achieve a final break-even financial result.

______

Page 202 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

6 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

6.1 Council continues to provide media releases and updates on the progress being made with the Kingston Park project. An important mechanism to improve the flow of information will be the release of the new website. This will contain more detailed information in regard to various aspects of the project, including the regularly updated Kingston Park Implementation Report – which includes timelines for particular actions that are likely to occur over the next year or two details on project expenditure to date and what is proposed to be spent within the current financial year. This provides a high level of public transparency for a project that is of considerable public interest.

6.2 As indicated earlier in this report, there may well be strong public reaction against the loss of any of the temporary parking space within Kingston Park. This will be a major challenge for Council and it will be critical that upcoming changes are well communicated. All of the available spaces are now being taken up on each working day. The owners of the parked vehicles will need to be informed as to why the changes are being made and of any other alternative parking opportunities.

7 RISK

7.1 As previously reported, the largest risks for a project of this size and complexity will be financial. There is always the potential that costs will exceed expectations and that revenue from land sales will be less than expected. Current cash flow projections are conservative in order to minimise this risk. As well as this, there are those related risks associated with the future economic climate as it might affect the rate of private investment within central Kingston. These risks are being addressed as much as possible within the Land Release Strategy.

7.2 Other project risks are associated with the capacity of Council staff (in regard to available resources, skills, experience and other work priorities) to manage and implement this project. These risks are being addressed by way of the appointment of an in-house Project Manager that is solely dedicated to this project.

7.3 There are also a number of risks that specifically relate to future parking issues. Most of these have been alluded to within this report. Short term risks include the adverse public reaction following the closure of existing spaces on the site and the possible subsequent increase in illegal parking elsewhere within central Kingston. In the longer term there are risks associated with Council having to construct public parking areas, the up-front costs involved in doing this and other related issues if paid parking is to be introduced.

8 CONCLUSION

8.1 The Kingston Park project is progressing on a number of fronts. This report summarises the current situation with the main project components. Additional attention has been given to the reduction of free all-day public parking that will occur as a result of construction commencing on the site.

8.2 Investigations are being carried out into various possible responses to the parking situation and these will also implement the recommendations within the Central Kingston Parking Strategy (2016). This should clarify what the most viable solutions are for parking issues and form the basis for a revised strategy to be developed. Further discussions with councillors at a workshop are envisaged.

8.3 The site development remains critically important for Kingborough as it is Council’s main initiative in revitalising the central Kingston area and addressing the need for ______

Page 203 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

additional community services and employment opportunities within our own municipality.

9 RECOMMENDATION

MOVED SECONDED

That the report on the current progress of the Kingston Park site development project be noted.

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

______

Page 204 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

INFORMATION REPORTS

MOVED SECONDED

That the following information reports be noted:

1. Financial Report for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 November 2017.

2. Infrastructure Works Progress Report.

3. Current and Previous Minute Resolutions.

4. Notices of Motion Moved at the Annual General Meeting.

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

______

Page 205 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL

FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1ST JULY, 2017 TO THE 30TH NOVEMBER, 2017

SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL 13TH DECEMBER, 2017

______

Page 206 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - Monthly Report November 2017 FINAL MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT

Table of Contents Page

Cash Balances……………………………………………………………………………...... 5 Comments on Financials……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Budget Reconciliation Notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Summary Operating Statement Total for All Programs - Actual vs Budget…………………………...... 8 Capital Works Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

______

Page 207 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - Monthly Report November 2017 FINAL

CASH BALANCES

Balance Type July August September October November December January February March April May June Reserves $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 Held in Trust $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 $ 1,418,000 Unexpended Capital Works $ 6,866,507 $ 8,793,292 $ 8,474,830 $ 8,835,012

Current Year Total Committed Cash $ 10,992,507 $ 12,919,292 $ 12,600,830 $ 12,961,012 $ 4,126,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Previous Year Total Committed Cash $ 22,260,012 $ 21,664,134 $ 21,556,844 $ 21,578,461 $ 21,084,100 $ 19,907,885 $ 19,510,920 $ 18,443,458 $ 18,100,176 $ 17,758,479 $ 16,922,418 $ 15,243,035

Uncommitted Funds $ 703,571 $ 3,107,965 $ 823,422 $ 1,155,813 $ 9,023,533 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Current Year Total Cash $ 11,696,078 $ 16,027,257 $ 13,424,252 $ 14,116,825 $ 13,149,533 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Previous Year Total Cash $ 9,043,247 $ 12,312,121 $ 11,378,449 $ 12,456,837 $ 10,173,763 $ 8,476,956 $ 10,964,070 $ 10,783,101 $ 9,926,136 $ 10,176,197 $ 11,037,997 $ 9,492,322

$18,000,000 Total Cash & Investments Total Cash & Investments 2016/2017 $16,000,000 Total Cash & Investments 2017/2018 $14,000,000

$12,000,000

$10,000,000

$8,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$- July August September October November December January February March April May June

______

Page 208 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - Monthly Report November 2017 FINAL

CASH & INVESTMENTS

CASH ACCOUNTS Interest Rate Maturity Date July August September October November December January February March April May June CBA - Overdraft Account $ 4,146,838 $ 2,777,745 $ 1,494,562 $ 3,859,955 $ 2,772,279 CBA - AR Account $ 330,043 $ 12,986 $ 187,966 $ 100 $ 95,057 CBA - Bruny Passbook $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2

Total Cash $ 4,476,883 $ 2,790,733 $ 1,682,530 $ 3,860,057 $ 2,867,338 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

INVESTMENTS CBA At Call 1.40% At-Call $ 54,115 $ 54,179 $ 54,242 $ 54,306 $ 54,369 Bendigo (2) 2.40% 17-Jan-18 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,012,329 $ 2,012,329 NAB (1) Term Deposit 2.40% 30-Jan-18 $ 1,028,029 $ 1,034,493 $ 1,034,493 $ 1,034,493 $ 1,040,615 NAB (2) Term Deposit 2.45% 26-Feb-18 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,017,753 Mystate 2.45% 18-Dec-17 $ 1,027,516 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,033,977 $ 3,033,977 Tascorp HT 1.50% Managed Trust $ 1,086,263 $ 2,087,729 $ 589,995 $ 590,746 $ 591,529 Tascorp Cash Indexed 1.57% Managed Trust $ 2,023,271 $ 2,026,146 $ 2,029,015 $ 530,916 $ 531,624

Total Investments $ 7,219,195 $ 13,236,524 $ 11,741,722 $ 10,256,768 $ 10,282,195 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Current Year Total Cash & Investments $ 11,696,078 $ 16,027,257 $ 13,424,252 $ 14,116,825 $ 13,149,533 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Previous Year Cash & Investments $ 9,043,247 $ 12,312,121 $ 11,378,449 $ 12,456,837 $ 10,173,763 $ 8,476,956 $ 10,964,070 $ 10,783,101 $ 9,926,136 $ 10,176,197 $ 11,037,997 $ 9,492,322

$18,000,000 $16,000,000 Total Cash & Investments Total Cash & Investments 2015/16 Total Cash & Investments 2016/17 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $- July August September October November December January February March April May June

4 ______

Page 209 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - Monthly Report November 2017 FINAL

COMMENTS ON FINANCIALS ______

The following items are significantly higher/lower than budget:

OPERATING INCOME Rates Rates income is higher than budget by $204k due to general rates (+$145k), garbage rates (+$45k) and Stormwater rate (+$13k) being higher than the budget estimate. A large supplementary rates of $48k was processed in November. User Fee User Fees are $134k over budget primarily due to Town Planning being over budget by $84k as a result of engineering fees paid on a few large developments and the Sports Centre is $40k over budget primarily due to sales revenue from the kiosk. Grants Recurrent Grants Recurrent is $432k under budget due primarily to the FAGS grants being $532k under budget resulting from the prepayment of funds in June 2017. Grants for Family Day Care are $131k under budget due to reduced numbers of clients and the transfer of the business. These losses have been offset by $65k in State Government grants and $150k in Federal Government grants that were not in the budget Contributions - Cash Cash contributions are $174k over budget due to the receipt of $100k in public open space funds for the Panorama Estate development and $57k in tree preservation funds for the Wattle Street development in November

OPERATING EXPENSES Employee Costs Employee Costs are $117k under budget due primarily to the delay in approving the wage increase under the Enterprise Agreement. Loan Interest The Loan Interest account is $80k under budget due to the later than expected need to undertake borrowings. Materials and Services Materials and Services is $231k under budget primarily due to Community Services being $146k under budget as a result of the transfer of the Family Day Care business. Governance and Property is also $66k under budget and Infrastructure is $57k under budget. These are offset by Environmental Services which is $56k over budget due to costs associated with the cat management program Depreciation Depreciation is $25k over budget due to the impacts of the 10% revaluation in buildings during 2016/17 and the 3.7% revaluation of infrastructure assets at 30 June 2017. Profit on Disposal of The profit on the disposal of assets of $83k primarily relates to the sale of Assets land in Kingston View Drive for $51k, with the remainder being the profit on the sale of plant and vehicles.

OTHER NON-OPERATING EXPENDITURE/REVENUE Grants Capital The variance of $694k resulted from the early payment of the Roads to Recovery grant for 2017/18.

______

Page 210 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - Monthly Report November 2017 FINAL BUDGET NOTES

RECONCILIATION OF ORIGINAL TO FORECAST BUDGET

BUDGET UNDERLYING RESULT (860,240)

Forecast Changes: Rates above budget 150,000 Depreciation - impacts of revaluations (100,000) Loan Interest - delayed borrowings 140,000 Share of Profit in Associate/Subsidiary 200,000 User Fees - above budget 100,000

FORECAST UNDERLYING RESULT (370,240)

Budget Net Surplus 139,758 Adjustments Above 490,000 Capital Grant - Kingston Park Federal Grant 50% 1,400,000 Grants for 2017/18 Received in Advance (1,050,000)

FORECAST BUDGET 979,758

6 ______

Page 211 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17 Summary Operating Statement ALL

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 25,161,185 24,957,500 203,685 25,062,500 25,212,500 150,000 Income Levies 1,528,408 1,485,000 43,408 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 723,212 705,650 17,562 1,629,160 1,629,160 (0) User Fees 764,813 630,550 134,263 1,397,790 1,497,790 100,000 Grants Recurrent 1,556,372 1,988,375 (432,003) 3,917,400 2,867,400 (1,050,000) Contributions - Cash 358,491 184,440 174,051 602,696 602,696 (0) Reimbursements 1,015,852 920,000 95,852 1,052,000 1,052,000 (0) Other Income 209,155 238,635 (29,480) 874,604 874,604 (0) Internal Charges Income 231,830 205,000 26,830 491,000 491,000 (0) Total Income 31,549,318 31,315,150 234,168 36,512,150 35,712,150 (800,000)

Expenses Employee Costs 6,266,428 6,383,904 117,476 14,009,759 14,009,759 (0) Expenses Levies 381,712 371,250 (10,462) 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Loan Interest 0 80,000 80,000 240,000 100,000 140,000 Materials and Services 3,600,631 3,831,926 231,295 9,113,549 9,113,549 (0) Other Expenses 2,408,127 2,467,421 59,294 3,880,424 3,880,424 (0) Internal Charges Expense 200,580 204,790 4,210 491,500 491,500 (0) Total Expenses 12,857,478 13,339,291 481,813 29,220,232 29,080,232 140,000

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 18,691,840 17,975,859 715,981 7,291,918 6,631,918 (940,000)

Depreciation 3,993,389 3,968,150 25,239 9,544,160 9,644,160 (100,000) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets (83,437) 0 (83,437) 600,000 600,000 (0) Share of Profits/(Losses) of Invest. In Assoc 0 0 0 - 200,000 (200,000) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 14,781,888 14,007,709 774,179 (2,852,242) (3,412,242) (840,000)

Interest 107,658 60,000 47,658 144,000 144,000 (0) Dividends 769,487 770,000 (513) 1,848,000 1,848,000 (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 15,659,033 14,837,709 821,324 (860,242) (1,420,242) (840,000)

Grants Capital 694,475 0 694,475 800,000 2,200,000 1,400,000 Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) 16,353,508 14,837,709 1,515,799 139,758 979,758 560,000

TOTAL CASH GENERATED 11,665,644 10,869,559 796,085 (10,404,402) (11,064,402) (740,000)

______

Page 212 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17 Operating Statement Governance

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 21,976,948 21,831,500 145,448 21,922,500 22,032,500 110,000 Income Levies 1,528,408 1,485,000 43,408 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) User Fees 33,333 33,000 333 80,000 80,000 (0) Grants Recurrent 762,489 1,080,000 (317,511) 2,160,000 2,160,000 (0) Contributions - Cash 258,070 155,000 103,070 372,000 372,000 (0) Reimbursements 1,015,852 920,000 95,852 1,052,000 1,052,000 (0) Other Income 20,149 33,000 (12,851) 204,200 204,200 (0) Internal Charges Income 36,000 40,000 (4,000) 96,000 96,000 (0) Total Income 25,631,249 25,577,500 53,749 27,371,700 27,481,700 110,000

Expenses Employee Costs 241,271 243,944 2,673 555,233 555,233 (0) Expenses Levies 381,712 371,250 (10,462) 1,485,000 1,485,000 (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 147,634 145,000 (2,634) 373,000 373,000 (0) Other Expenses 1,608,719 1,525,415 (83,304) 2,118,900 2,118,900 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 2,379,336 2,285,609 (93,727) 4,532,133 4,532,133 (0)

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 23,251,913 23,291,891 (39,978) 22,839,567 22,949,567 110,000

Depreciation 33,808 30,500 (3,308) 73,200 73,200 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets (83,437) 0 83,437 600,000 600,000 (0) Share of New Profits/(Losses) of Invest. In 0 0 0 0 200,000 (200,000) Assoc Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: 23,301,542 23,261,391 40,151 22,166,367 22,276,367 110,000

Interest 361 0 361 0 - (0) Dividends 769,487 770,000 (513) 1,848,000 1,848,000 (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 24,071,390 24,031,391 39,999 24,014,367 24,124,367 110,000

Grants Capital 694,475 0 (694,475) 800,000 800,000 (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) 24,765,865 24,031,391 734,474 25,014,367 25,124,367 110,000

TOTAL CASH GENERATED 24,037,582 24,000,891 36,691 23,941,167 24,051,167 110,000

______

Page 213 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17

Operating Statement Corporate Services

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income

Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 112,454 131,000 (18,546) 314,400 314,400 User Fees 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 36,399 60,000 (23,601) 165,600 165,600 (0) Internal Charges Income 94,580 95,000 (420) 227,000 227,000 (0) Total Income 243,433 286,000 (42,567) 707,000 707,000 (0)

Expenses Employee Costs 1,101,004 1,175,528 74,524 2,661,269 2,661,269 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 80,000 80,000 240,000 100,000 140,000 Materials and Services 268,157 286,750 18,593 587,000 587,000 (0) Other Expenses 494,345 555,500 61,155 909,700 909,700 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 1,863,506 2,097,778 234,272 4,397,969 4,257,969 140,000

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (1,620,073) (1,811,778) 191,705 (3,690,969) - 3,550,969 (140,000)

Depreciation 54,005 69,000 14,995 165,600 165,600 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (1,674,078) (1,880,778) 206,700 (3,856,569) - 3,716,569 (140,000)

Interest 107,297 60,000 47,297 144,000 144,000 (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,566,781) (1,820,778) 253,997 (3,712,569) (3,572,569) (140,000)

Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,566,781) (1,820,778) 253,997 (3,712,569) (3,572,569) (140,000)

TOTAL CASH GENERATED (1,620,786) (1,889,778) 268,992 (3,878,169) (3,738,169) (140,000)

______

Page 214 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17 Operating Statement Governance & Property Services

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 195,453 165,500 29,953 332,800 332,800 (0) User Fees 101,912 72,125 29,787 167,640 167,640 (0) Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 33,265 0 33,265 0 - (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 6,740 2,750 3,990 6,600 6,600 (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 337,370 240,375 96,995 507,040 507,040 (0)

Expenses

Employee Costs 752,424 633,267 (119,157) 1,460,556 1,460,556 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 439,019 505,345 66,326 1,213,258 1,213,258 (0) Other Expenses 43,970 76,650 32,680 193,400 193,400 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 1,235,413 1,215,262 (20,151) 2,867,214 2,867,214 (0)

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (898,043) (974,887) 76,844 (2,360,174) - 2,360,174 (0)

Depreciation 53,422 50,750 (2,672) 125,800 125,800 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (951,465) (1,025,637) 74,172 (2,485,974) - 2,485,974 (0)

Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (951,465) (1,025,637) 74,172 (2,485,974) (2,485,974) (0)

Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (951,465) (1,025,637) 74,172 (2,485,974) (2,485,974) (0)

TOTAL CASH GENERATED (1,004,887) (1,076,387) 71,500 (2,611,774) (2,611,774) (0)

______

Page 215 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17 Operating Statement Community Services

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 291 0 291 0 - (0) User Fees 517,944 498,425 19,519 1,085,350 1,105,350 20,000 Grants Recurrent 606,611 728,375 (121,764) 1,577,400 1,577,400 (0) Contributions - Cash 50,655 29,440 21,215 70,696 70,696 (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 11,650 10,550 1,100 25,000 25,000 (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 1,187,151 1,266,790 (79,639) 2,758,446 2,778,446 20,000

Expenses Employee Costs 868,964 913,592 44,628 2,069,874 2,069,874 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 460,221 606,120 145,899 1,381,482 1,381,482 (0) Other Expenses 132,116 144,010 11,894 319,152 319,152 (0) Internal Charges Expense 36,000 40,000 4,000 96,000 96,000 (0) Total Expenses 1,497,301 1,703,722 206,421 3,866,508 3,866,508 (0)

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (310,150) (436,932) 126,782 (1,108,062) - 1,088,062 20,000

Depreciation 107,758 101,000 (6,758) 246,400 246,400 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (417,908) (537,932) 120,024 (1,354,462) - 1,334,462 20,000 Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (417,908) (537,932) 120,024 (1,354,462) (1,334,462) 20,000

Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (417,908) (537,932) 120,024 (1,354,462) (1,334,462) 20,000

TOTAL CASH GENERATED (525,666) (638,932) 113,266 (1,600,862) (1,580,862) 20,000

______

Page 216 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17 Operating Statement Development Services

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 382,968 369,165 13,803 885,996 885,996 (0) User Fees 99,169 15,000 84,169 36,000 116,000 80,000 Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 482,137 384,165 97,972 921,996 1,001,996 80,000 Expenses Employee Costs 811,089 824,756 13,667 1,866,916 1,866,916 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 56,166 55,300 (866) 132,720 132,720 (0) Other Expenses 40,045 62,996 22,951 154,492 154,492 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 907,300 943,052 35,752 2,154,128 2,154,128 (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (425,163) (558,887) 133,724 (1,232,132) - 1,152,132 80,000 Depreciation 2,747 2,800 53 6,720 6,720 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (427,910) (561,687) 133,777 (1,238,852) - 1,158,852 80,000 Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (427,910) (561,687) 133,777 (1,238,852) (1,158,852) 80,000

Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (427,910) (561,687) 133,777 (1,238,852) (1,158,852) 80,000

TOTAL CASH GENERATED (430,657) (564,487) 133,830 (1,245,572) (1,165,572) 80,000

______

Page 217 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17

Operating Statement Environmental Services

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 32,045 39,585 (7,540) 95,004 95,004 (0) User Fees 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Grants Recurrent 187,273 180,000 7,273 180,000 180,000 (0) Contributions - Cash 1,500 0 1,500 150,000 150,000 (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 60 335 (275) 804 804 (0) Internal Charges Income 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Total Income 220,878 219,920 958 425,808 425,808 (0)

Expenses Employee Costs 437,919 454,941 17,022 1,029,681 1,029,681 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 317,887 261,490 (56,397) 777,576 777,576 (0) Other Expenses 22,130 16,375 (5,755) 39,300 39,300 (0) Internal Charges Expense 0 0 0 0 - (0) Total Expenses 777,936 732,806 (45,130) 1,846,557 1,846,557 (0)

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (557,058) (512,886) (44,172) (1,420,749) - 1,420,749 (0)

Depreciation 1,176 1,100 (76) 2,640 2,640 (0) Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (558,234) (513,986) (44,248) (1,423,389) - 1,423,389 (0)

Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (558,234) (513,986) (44,248) (1,423,389) (1,423,389) (0)

Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (558,234) (513,986) (44,248) (1,423,389) (1,423,389) (0)

TOTAL CASH GENERATED (559,410) (515,086) (44,324) (1,426,029) (1,426,029) (0)

______

Page 218 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL - November 17

Operating Statement Infrastructure Services

YTD YTD YTD Annual Forecast Forecast Actuals Budget Variance Budget Budget Variance

Income Rates 3,184,236 3,126,000 58,236 3,140,000 3,180,000 40,000 Income Levies 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Statutory Fees & Fines 0 400 (400) 960 960 (0) User Fees 12,455 12,000 455 28,800 28,800 (0) Grants Recurrent 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Contributions - Cash 15,000 0 15,000 10,000 10,000 (0) Reimbursements 0 0 (0) 0 - (0) Other Income 134,157 132,000 2,157 472,400 472,400 (0) Internal Charges Income 101,250 70,000 31,250 168,000 168,000 (0) Total Income 3,447,098 3,340,400 106,698 3,820,160 3,860,160 40,000

Expenses Employee Costs 2,053,756 2,137,876 84,120 4,366,230 4,366,230 (0) Expenses Levies 0 0 0 0 - (0) Loan Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Materials and Services 1,914,039 1,971,921 57,882 4,648,513 4,648,513 (0) Other Expenses 66,803 86,475 19,672 145,480 145,480 (0) Internal Charges Expense 164,580 164,790 210 395,500 395,500 (0) Total Expenses 4,199,178 4,361,062 161,884 9,555,723 9,555,723 (0)

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (752,080) (1,020,662) 268,582 (5,735,563) - 5,695,563 40,000

Depreciation 3,740,474 3,713,000 (27,474) 8,923,800 9,023,800 100,000 Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) before: (4,492,554) (4,733,662) 241,108 (14,659,363) - 14,719,363 (60,000)

Interest 0 0 0 0 - (0) Dividends 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (4,492,554) (4,733,662) 241,108 (14,659,363) (14,719,363) (60,000)

Grants Capital 0 0 0 0 - (0) Contributions - Non Monetory Assets 0 0 0 0 - (0) NET SUPRPLUS/(DEFICIT) (4,492,554) (4,733,662) 241,108 (14,659,363) (14,719,363) (60,000)

TOTAL CASH GENERATED (8,233,028) (8,446,662) 213,634 (23,583,163) (23,743,163) (160,000)

______

Page 219 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Budget Actual IMG Carry 2017/18 Grants Adjustme Total Actual Commitmen Total Remaining Forward Received nts ts

EXPENDITURE BY ASSET TYPE Roads 3,665,108 4,799,000 200,000 - 8,664,108 3,431,197 1,819,750 5,250,947 3,413,162 Stormwater 1,091,850 1,741,400 - - 2,833,250 351,097 659,289 1,010,386 1,822,864 Property 1,309,658 1,014,750 21,000 50,400 2,395,808 427,214 563,627 990,841 1,404,967 Other 461,325 626,758 - (50,400) 1,037,683 19,363 294,540 313,903 723,780 Sub total 6,527,941 8,181,908 221,000 - 14,930,849 4,228,871 3,337,206 7,566,076 7,364,773

Kingston Park - 10,000,000 - - 10,000,000 271,958 213,206 475,472 9,524,528 Grand Total 6,527,941 18,181,908 221,000 - 24,930,849 4,500,829 3,550,412 8,041,548 16,889,301

Kingston Park Infrastructure Assets Expended 3% Committed

Expended

Unexpended

Committed Unexpended

______

Page 220 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURE BY YTD CATEGORY COMPARED TO BUDGET CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Expenditure-Roads Expenditure-Property

Expenditure('000)

Expenditure('000) 500

Expenditure-other Expenditure-Stormwater

Actuals

Expenditure('000) Expenditure('000) 200

______

Page 221 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments Overall Project budget Kingston Park - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 - - - 10,000,000 C00688 KP Boulevard Construction Kingston Park - - - - 16,452 - 6,760 (6,760) C00690 KP Community Hub Design Kingston Park - - - - 92,602 119,526 212,127 (212,127) C01614 Central Kingston Rd Design Kingston Park - - - - 41,442 - 41,442 (41,442) C01618 Boulevard Construction Kingston Park - - - - 25,239 - 25,239 (25,239) C01627 KP Site - Land Release Strategy Kingston Park - - - - 17,507 - 17,507 (17,507) C01628 KP Site - General Expenditure Kingston Park - - - - 14,086 550 14,636 (14,636) C03068 Kingston Park Operational Expenditure Kingston Park - - - - 16,501 45,000 61,501 (61,501) C03069 KP Community Hub Construction Kingston Park - - - - 48,130 48,130 96,261 (96,261) - 10,000,000 - - 10,000,000 271,958 213,206 475,472 9,524,528

C01375 Kingston Beach Hall Courtyard Upgrade Property 13,274 - 11,000 - 24,274 21,972 - 21,972 2,302 C01608 25A Osborne Esplanade Property - - - - 3,723 21,531 25,255 (25,255) C01611 Cat Facility Bruny Island Property 32,797 - - 32,797 1,422 (700) 722 32,075 C01612 Depot Dog Pound Waste System Property 10,170 - - 10,170 7,055 7,100 14,155 (3,985) C02313 KSC LED Light Upgrade Property 39,141 - - 39,141 72,409 - 72,409 (33,268) C02332 Alonnah New Toilet Block Property 126,716 - - 126,716 104,264 15,000 119,264 7,452 C02343 Kingston Beach Hall Upgrade Property 48,500 - - 48,500 37,570 - 37,570 10,930 C03001 Hall Accoustics - Dennes Point Hall Property - 10,000 - 10,000 - - - 10,000 C03002 Margate Hall Floor Replacement Property - 11,000 5,400 16,400 11,162 - 11,162 5,238 C03003 Sports Ground Lighting - Kingston Beach Property - 180,000 45,000 225,000 1,861 210,224 212,085 12,915 C03004 KSC Level 2 Men's Shower Room Upgrade Property - 143,750 - 143,750 - - - 143,750 C03005 Coningham Toilet Block Replacement Property - 175,000 - 175,000 - - - 175,000 C03006 Sandfly Hall Toilets - Wastewater Replacement Property - 15,000 - 15,000 20,090 1,106 21,196 (6,196) C03007 Kingston Beach Oval Gymnasium Extension Property - 60,000 10,000 - 70,000 4,450 - 4,450 65,550 C03009 Cricket Net Replacement - Woodbridge Oval Property - 33,000 - 33,000 43,923 - 43,923 (10,923) C03047 Tracks & Trails Assessment Property - 15,000 - 15,000 - 9,280 9,280 5,720 C03067 Depot Security Upgrade Property - - 14,835 14,835 14,835 - 14,835 - C03071 Depot Improvements 17/18 Property - 60,000 (14,835) 45,165 5,219 39,198 44,417 748 C01133 Snug to Margate Cycleway Property 3,549 - - 3,549 2,954 15,837 18,791 (15,242) C01182 Margate to Snug shared path Property 686,286 - - 686,286 18,537 1,363 19,900 666,386 960,433 702,750 21,000 50,400 1,734,583 371,445 319,939 691,384 1,043,199

______

Page 222 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments C00613 Purchase IT Equipment IT - - - - 797 11,495 12,292 (12,292) C00672 Digital Local Government Program IT 82,715 - - 82,715 - 15,197 15,197 67,518 C00686 Records Management System Upgrade IT 6,488 - - 6,488 - - - 6,488 C01601 Civic Centre Card Security System IT 12,000 - - 12,000 12,512 - 12,512 (512) C01602 Financial Systems Replacement IT 316,122 - - 316,122 2,106 208,667 210,773 105,349 C01625 Epathway Booking System IT ------C01626 Networking Switching Phone System IT 36,000 - - 36,000 749 34,841 35,590 410 C03070 Desktop PC Replacement IT - 252,000 - 252,000 1,377 22,100 23,477 228,523 453,325 252,000 - - 705,325 17,540 292,300 309,840 395,485

C01622 Investigation into Water Bores Bruny Isl Other 8,000 - - 8,000 923 2,240 3,163 4,837 C03076 Dennes Point Land Acquisition Land - - 900 - 900 (900) C03077 Maddocks Road land acquisition Land - - - - - 8,000 - - - 8,000 1,823 2,240 4,063 3,937

C90003 Design/survey for future works Design - 50,000 - 50,000 - - - 50,000 C01629 Future Capital Works Design - - - - 41,349 - 41,349 (41,349) C03063 Parish Lane - Reconstruction & Sealing Design - - - - 2,018 - 2,018 (2,018) C03065 Beach Rd - Church St to Roslyn Ave Footpath Design - - - - 6,001 - 6,001 (6,001) Widen C03066 Talone Avenue - Reconstruction Design - - - - 1,673 - 1,673 (1,673) - 50,000 - - 50,000 51,041 - 51,041 (1,041)

C02317 Adventure Bay Foreshore Path Reserves 2,920 - - 2,920 2,120 - 2,120 800 C02335 Cottage Rd To Kingston Wetlands walking Reserves 10,000 - - 10,000 4,363 - 4,363 5,637 C02342 Kingston Beach Swing Set Reserves 5,553 - - 5,553 7,686 - 7,686 (2,133) C03008 Lightwood Park - New soccer Training Ground Reserves - 312,000 - 312,000 26,805 223,900 250,705 61,295 C03073 Blackmans Bay Playground Development Reserves - - 1,207 - 1,207 (1,207) C03075 KSC Water Connection Upgrades Reserves - - 1,300 - 1,300 (1,300) 18,473 312,000 - - 330,473 43,481 223,900 267,381 63,092

______

Page 223 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments C00294 North West Bay Bridge Upgrade Bridges 66,640 - - 66,640 77,650 - 77,650 (11,010) C01089 Summerleas Rd/Leslie Rd Junction Squarin Roads - - - - 13,485 - 13,485 (13,485) C01082 Dru Point Seawall & Road Widening Roads 1,161,493 - - 1,161,493 917,689 175,882 1,093,571 67,922 C01142 Beach Rd Margate Rehab Roads - - - - 6,640 - 6,640 (6,640) C01153 Kingston Beach Master Plan - Stage 5 Roads - - - - 50,325 8,545 58,869 (58,869) C01158 Powell Rd - Footpath/Drainage Improvemen Roads 1,021,278 - - 1,021,278 183,837 968,606 1,152,444 (131,166) C01163 Pelverata Rd/Sandfly Rd Junction reseal Roads - - - - - 1,468 1,468 (1,468) C01171 Tingira Road Safety Improvements Roads 23,963 - - 23,963 1,146 6,582 7,728 16,235 C01173 Kunama Drive Upgrade vic19-49 Roads 459,303 - - 459,303 381,291 26,914 408,206 51,097 C01174 Old Station Upgrade Ch0-418 Roads 94,000 - - 94,000 152,364 - 152,364 (58,364) C01177 Beach Road Margate Upgrade vic Roads - - - - 618 - 618 (618) C01183 Beach Road Upgrade vic Motel Roads - - - - 523 - 523 (523) C01185 Hutchins Street Reseal vic48-72 Roads - - 151 - 151 (151) C01187 Roslyn Avenue RAB Reseal vic 93 Roads - - 652 - 652 (652) C01190 Kiama Place Reseal vic12-18 Roads - - 113 - 113 (113) C01191 Kiama Place Reseal vic1-11 Roads - - 151 - 151 (151) C01192 Tingira Road Reseal vic2-30 Roads - - 170 - 170 (170) C01193 Burwood Road Reseal vic1-21 Roads - - 151 - 151 (151) C01196 Summerleas Road Reseal vic208-260 Roads - - 264 - 264 (264) C02101 Tinderbox Road-gravel resheeting Roads - - - - 2,631 - 2,631 (2,631) C02106 Kingston Bch Foreshore Esp 30-32 Roads 702,815 - - 702,815 434,772 240,938 675,710 27,105 C02108 Summerleas Rd - 354 Onwards Roads 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 C02109 Whitewater Creek Walkway Bridge Replacem Roads 10,686 - - 10,686 344 9,860 10,204 482 C02110 Channel Hwy vic Oakleigh Ave Roads 7,000 - - 7,000 23,800 - 23,800 (16,800) C02112 Summerleas Rd Protect Embank Roads 7,897 - - 7,897 3,662 - 3,662 4,235 C02113 Pavement Protection Roads - - - - 4,693 816 5,509 (5,509) C03010 Kelvedon Avenue Turning Facility Roads - 45,000 - 45,000 10,039 - 10,039 34,961 C03011 Redwood Road to Willow Avenue Lane Upgrade Roads - 15,000 - 15,000 7,851 79 7,929 7,071 C03012 Tinderbox Beach and Reserve Upgrade Roads - 250,000 - 250,000 3,141 - 3,141 246,859 C03013 Pearl Place to Opal Drive Footpath Upgrade Roads - 20,000 - 20,000 - - - 20,000 C03014 Oxleys Road Sealing-Channel Hwy to Groombridge Rd Roads - 540,000 - 540,000 30,733 - 30,733 509,267 C03015 Morris Avenue Rehabilitation Roads - 350,000 - 350,000 12,005 - 12,005 337,995 C01176 Blanche Avenue Reconstruction Roads 6,969 - - 6,969 8,589 - 8,589 (1,620) C03016 Blanche Avenue Reconstruction Roads - 260,000 - 260,000 1,473 - 1,473 258,527 C03017 Palmers Road Junction Safety Improvements Roads - 30,000 - 30,000 3,918 - 3,918 26,082 C03018 Mountain Road Rehabilitation Roads - 350,000 - 350,000 30,090 576 30,666 319,334 C03019 Brightwater Road renewal and stormwater Roads - 495,000 (463,000) 32,000 1,644 - 1,644 30,356 C03020 Great Bay Boatramp Upgrade and Improvements Bridges - 40,000 - 40,000 776 - 776 39,224 C01143 Pelverata Rd Upgrade Roads 3,064 - - 3,064 27,233 7,673 34,906 (31,842) C03021 Pelverata Road Upgrade Roads - 250,000 - 250,000 10,666 6,843 17,510 232,490 C03048 Lighthouse Rd Upgrade - Blackspot Grant Roads - - 200,000 - 200,000 35,165 - 35,165 164,835 C03062 Kingston Beach - Beach Rd to Victoria St Foreshore Roads - - - - 552 - 552 (552) C03064 John Street Kingston - Reconstruction Roads - - - - 26,008 - 26,008 (26,008) ______

Page 224 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments C03074 Resurfacing Beach Road, Margate Roads - - 713,000 713,000 - 50,000 50,000 663,000 C90004 Geotechnical investigation for future works Other - 50,000 - 50,000 - - - 50,000 C90005 Works necessitated by development - Roads Other - 50,000 (6,350) 43,650 - - - 43,650 C03079 Tania News footpath extension Roads - - 6,350 6,350 - - - 6,350 C03080 Frost St, Snug - Heavy Patching Roads 65,000 65,000 - - - 65,000 C03081 Charlton St, Snug - Heavy Patching Roads 36,000 36,000 - - - 36,000 C90006 Access ramps Roads - 10,000 - 10,000 - - - 10,000

C90002 2017/18 Resheeting Program Roads - 844,000 (844,000) - - - - - C03043 Killora Rd Resheeting Roads - - 102,000 102,000 82,070 12,397 94,466 7,534 C03044 Cemetery Road Bruny Resheeting Roads - - 109,000 109,000 1,372 - 1,372 107,628 C03045 Old Station Road Resheeting Roads - - 210,000 210,000 184,331 49,826 234,157 (24,157) C03059 Risby Road Resheeting - 20 to 2490 Roads 149,000 149,000 40,945 84,964 125,909 23,091 C03060 McKenzies Road Resheeting - 27 to 2011 Roads - - 120,000 120,000 26,198 2,445 28,643 91,357 C03061 Krauses Road Resheeting - 10 to 2570 Roads - - 154,000 154,000 132 9,237 9,369 144,631

C90001 2017/18 Resealing Program Roads - 1,150,000 (1,150,000) - - - - - C01186 Coolamon Road Reseal Ch0-100 Roads - - - - 113 - 113 (113) C03046 Nierinna Road Resealing Roads - - 244,000 244,000 101,339 140,754 242,093 1,907 C03049 Roslyn Avenue Resealing - 1573 to 1805 Roads 54,000 54,000 56,680 5,589 62,270 (8,270) C03050 Summerleas Rd Resealing - 1071 to 1451 Roads 105,000 105,000 90,069 2,767 92,836 12,164 C03051 Redwood Road Resealing - 6 to 510 Roads - - 167,000 167,000 171,557 3,280 174,837 (7,837) C03052 Maddock Street Resealing - 1 to 10 Roads 4,000 4,000 - - - 4,000 C03053 Hiern Street Resealing - 0 to 567 Roads - - 141,000 141,000 126,652 3,707 130,359 10,641 C03054 Nansen Court Resealing - 0 to 138 Roads 35,000 35,000 30,748 - 30,748 4,252 C03055 Maranoa Road Resealing - Heavy Patching Roads 9,000 9,000 949 - 949 8,051 C03056 Denison Street Reasealing - Heavy Patching Roads 20,000 20,000 - - - 20,000 C03057 Browns Road Reasealing - Heavy Patching Roads ------C03058 Opal Drive Resealing - 16 to 22 Roads 20,000 20,000 - - - 20,000

3,665,108 4,749,000 200,000 - 8,614,108 3,380,156 1,819,750 5,199,906 3,414,202

C00693 Barretta Site Office Solid Waste - - - - 60 (86) (25) 25 C01604 BWTS Tip Shop Extension Solid Waste 27,277 - - 27,277 5,789 - 5,789 21,488 C01609 Barretta Landfill Gas Extraction Ext Solid Waste 218,049 - - 218,049 318 17,000 17,318 200,731 C01610 BWTS Re-Use Shop Fencing Solid Waste 77,426 - - 77,426 - - - 77,426 C01619 KWS Security Camera Upgrade Solid Waste - - - - 2,185 - 2,185 (2,185) C01620 KWS Green Waste Area Roadworks Solid Waste 8,000 - - 8,000 3,936 2,874 6,810 1,190 330,752 - - - 330,752 12,288 19,788 32,076 298,676

______

Page 225 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

Budget Actual Capital Carry Grants On costs IMG Commit- Description Department 2017/18 Total Actual Total Remaining Project No. Forward Received allocated Adjustments ments

C00509 Coffee Creek WSUD Treatment Stormwater - - - - 132 - 132 (132) C00540 Coningham Stormwater Pgrm-Stage 2 Stormwater - - - - 2,525 1,331 3,856 (3,856) C00561 Kingston Beach Flood Study Stormwater 7,945 - - 7,945 - 9,615 9,615 (1,670) C00580 4 Tanina Mews SW Design Stormwater 30,155 - - 30,155 - - - 30,155 C00584 Beach Rd Middleton SW Upgrade Stormwater 55,540 - - 55,540 92,336 3,770 96,106 (40,566) C00586 Pearsall Ave SW Upgrade Stormwater - - - - 66 - 66 (66) C00587 Taronga Rd SW Upgrade St 2 Stormwater 54,666 - - 54,666 31,095 18,413 49,508 5,158 C00589 Illawarra Rd SW Upgrade St 2 Stormwater 510,000 - - 510,000 4,502 506,548 511,050 (1,050) C00590 Flood Gauge Stormwater 64,360 - - 64,360 1,344 62,873 64,217 143 C00593 Tinderbox Reserve Master Plan S1 Stormwater 39,150 - - 39,150 500 7,660 8,160 30,990 C00595 Blackmans Bay MDS Stormwater - - - - 376 - 376 (376) C00597 Kingston Beach MDS Stormwater - - - - 1,846 - 1,846 (1,846) C00598 Snug Flood Study Stormwater 28,216 - - 28,216 34,546 12,000 46,546 (18,330) C01382 Margate Esplanade Coastal Erosion Stormwater - - - - 493 - 493 (493) C01500 Adventure Bay Flood Study Stormwater 10,000 - - 10,000 24 8,000 8,024 1,976 C02102 Margate Espl Rd Stabilisation Stormwater 291,818 - - 291,818 7,950 6,001 13,951 277,867 C02103 Nebraska Rd Stabilisation Stormwater - - - - 270 - 270 (270) C03022 Coffee Creek Channel Stabilisation - Stage 2 Stormwater - 101,600 - 101,600 2,877 - 2,877 98,723 C03023 Tyndall Beach Erosion Stabilisation Stormwater - 111,000 - 111,000 761 - 761 110,239 C03024 Blowhole Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 57,000 - 57,000 7,533 - 7,533 49,467 C03025 Aberys Road (Vic 7) Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 28,000 - 28,000 4,473 - 4,473 23,527 C03026 Algona Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 289,000 - 289,000 6,983 - 6,983 282,017 C03027 Andersons Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 36,000 - 36,000 13,978 9,822 23,800 12,200 C03028 Moodys Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 32,000 - 32,000 33,051 5,876 38,927 (6,927) C03029 Besters & Clarks Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 50,000 - 50,000 30,822 55 30,878 19,122 C03030 Channel Highway (vic HN 4515) Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 24,000 - 24,000 6,359 2,732 9,091 14,909 C03031 Hopfields Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 7,800 - 7,800 410 - 410 7,390 C03032 23 Combes Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 15,000 - 15,000 5,961 160 6,121 8,879 C03033 Kaoota Road Drainage Upgrade Stormwater - 65,000 - 65,000 42,665 3,345 46,011 18,989 C03034 Pelverata Road (vic HN240) Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 33,000 - 33,000 6,640 640 7,280 25,720 C03035 Kingston Village Dam Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 41,000 - 41,000 906 - 906 40,094 C03036 Frosts/Van Morey Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 34,000 - 34,000 1,613 - 1,613 32,387 C03037 Whitewater Creek Stabilisation Stormwater - 109,000 - 109,000 3,220 - 3,220 105,780 C03038 School Creek Inlet Works Stormwater - 41,000 - 41,000 448 - 448 40,552 C03039 Chandlers Road Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - 15,000 - 15,000 1,349 448 1,797 13,203 C03040 Nebraska Road Stabilisation Stormwater - 408,000 - 408,000 1,840 - 1,840 406,160 C03041 Drysdale Creek Channel Stabilisation Stormwater - 66,000 - 66,000 299 - 299 65,701 C03042 Culvert Improvements Adventure Bay Road Stormwater - 48,000 - 48,000 234 - 234 47,766 C90008 Stormwater Master Drainage Scheme Development Stormwater - 80,000 - 80,000 - - - 80,000 C90007 Works necessitated by development - Stormwater Stormwater - 50,000 (28,000) 22,000 - - - 22,000 C03078 Dallas Ave Stormwater Upgrade Stormwater - - 28,000 28,000 671 - 671 27,329 ______

Page 226 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

KINGBOROUGH COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO 30/11/2017

B00000 Capital Balancing Account Other (50,400) (50,400) (50,400) On costs on capital project 374,758 374,758 374,758

TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 6,527,941 18,181,908 221,000 - - 24,930,849 4,500,829 3,550,412 8,041,548 16,889,301

______

Page 227 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

AUTHOR : DAVID REEVE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES FILE NO : 25.13, 25.9 DATE : 23 NOVEMBER 2017

INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS PROGRESS REPORT

Works Department – Works Recently Completed (Mainland Kingborough)

1. Dave Burrows Walk – seat installation (see before and after photos below):

2. Allens Rivulet Track – track upgraded after being washed away in August by heavy rains (see before and after photos below):

3. Stubbings Street – three trees removed for off-street parking (see photo below):

______

Page 228 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

4. Redwood Road (Capital) – asphalt overlay works. Line-marking to be completed by mid-December (see photo below):

5. Hiern Road (Capital) – asphalt overlay works. Line-marking to be completed by mid-December (see photos below):

6. Summerleas Road (Capital) – asphalt overlay works. Line-marking to be completed by mid-December (see photo below):

7. Roslyn Avenue (Capital) – asphalt overlay works. Line-marking to be completed by mid-December (see photo below):

______

Page 229 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

8. Jindabyne Road – footpath maintenance (see photo below):

9. Coombes Road (Capital) – stormwater upgrade (see before and after photos below):

10. Woodbridge Hill Road – stormwater pit installation (before and after photos below):

______

Page 230 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

11. John Street – road repairs (see photos below):

Works Department – Works Recently Completed (Bruny Island)

12. North Bruny Island – maintenance grading on all major roads.

13. Victoria Avenue – drain and crossover repairs (see photos below):

14. Adventure Bay (Private Works Application) – re-sheeted road and carpark on behalf of the Department of Parks and Wildlife Services (funded by DPIWE) (see photos below):

______

Page 231 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

15. Nebraska Road – road failure repairs (see photos below):

16. Adventure Bay Road – road failures (see photos below):

Works Department – Works Underway / Planned (Mainland Kingborough)

17. Redwood Road to Willow Avenue and Pearl Place to Opal Drive (Capital) – footpath upgrade.

18. Risby Road (Capital) – gravel resheeting (see photo below):

19. Esplanade Road, Middleton – ag drain works (see photos below):

______

Page 232 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

20. The Esplanade, Middleton – major road pavement repairs.

21. Watson’s Road – asphalt shoulder work.

22. Channel Highway and Esplanade Middleton Intersection – stormwater upgrade.

23. Gordon to Woodbridge – gravel road drain cleaning.

24. Cleaning of boat ramps in various locations (see photos below):

25. Kaoota Road (Capital) – stormwater upgrade (see photos below):

______

Page 233 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Works Department – Works Underway / Planned (Bruny Island)

26. Adventure Bay Road – shoulder grading and repairs.

27. Main Road, Bruny Island – shoulder grading and repairs on behalf of the Department of State Growth.

28. Lighthouse Road – commencing the placement of culvert pipes in identified Black Spot areas (on-going).

29. Adventure Bay and Nebraska Road – road failures (on-going).

Other Capital Works Undertaken by Contract

Osborne Esplanade Upgrades, Kingston Beach

Construction works along the Osborne Esplanade foreshore and shopfronts being undertaken by Specialised Landscaping Services continue to take shape, with the anticipation that the majority of works will be mostly complete by the end of December.

Flow-on effects and additional material requirements arising from the deck re-design accommodating the large blue gum has delayed some aspects of delivery, however the resultant additional works have been approved and orders for the additional materials have been placed. The works methodology has been changed to reflect the revised design and construction processes.

Stakeholders and local residents are being kept advised of the delayed works schedule.

On site, deck construction is continuing to the southern end of the site and has recently started to envelope the base of the large blue gum. The dwarf concrete walls and glass panelling separating the roadway from the restaurant seating area is complete, and this area has returned to public usage. Many compliments from the local traders, residents and public users of this area have been received.

The exposed aggregate footpath is completed on the restaurant side of Osborne Esplanade and some of the seaward side is also completed. Within the next two weeks most of the exposed aggregate footpath works will be complete with landscaping and furniture installation to follow.

Powell Road, Blackmans Bay – Stormwater Upgrades

Vegetation clearing and service adjustments on this project have been predominantly completed, and the pipe drainage installation works associated with this project are progressing. The upgrades in Blowhole Road have been completed, aside from road reinstatement, and the Powell Road stormwater pipework is also approaching completion. Additional time has been incurred with the Powell Road pipelines due to extensive rock outcrops throughout the area. Pipeline levels have been adjusted where possible to reduce these impacts.

______

Page 234 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

As pipeworks approach completion on the western end of Powell Road, preparation and pouring of kerb and gutter and footpath works will commence at the east.

Commencement of the project has been delayed initially due to contractor commitments elsewhere, and further slowed by rock excavation. As such, the original construction window will stretch into the New Year. Despite these delays, feedback has typically been positive with residents appreciative to see these upgrade works occurring.

Gymnasium Light Upgrades, Kingborough Sports Centre

Light replacement at the Kingborough gymnastics centre has been completed, with new energy efficient LED lights being installed throughout the facility. New high-bay lights were installed to replace the problematic light fittings originally in place; and the remaining fluoro light fittings within the office and administration area have also been replaced.

Before After

Due to access difficulty and issues associated with accessing the high-bay lights above the foam pits and timber covered below-floor storage areas, all lights fittings above this area have been fitted with remote controlled lowering winches.

Much of this upfront cost of this upgrade has been met by external contributions and grant funding, but the works will result in significant operational savings to the facility and Council.

Lighting Upgrades at Kingston Beach Oval

A contract for the design and construction of upgraded lighting at Kingston Beach Oval has been awarded to Contact Electrical, who has commenced on the survey and design concept stage for development approval phase. The facility is intended to be lit to a 100 Lux standard to facilitate general training activities and permit junior-level competition. ______

Page 235 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Lightwood Park Upgrades

Works are underway on the playing surface extension at Lightwood Park, with this component of work being performed by Total Turf Pty Ltd. Stripping of the existing turf thatch and topsoil has been completed, with earthworks to extend the usable surface area underway.

The funding arrangements for the oval lighting has also been confirmed with the Soccer Club, and a contract for that work has been awarded to RBD Electrical, as previously reported to Council.

As a key user and joint funding partner for these ground upgrades, Council staff have been in regular contact with the soccer club to discuss and consider additional upgrade activities to be undertaken through their received grant funding. Some of these, primarily related to earthwork activities and general power supply around the ground, can be incorporated under the current contracts to achieve synergies and efficiencies. Delivery of other works will be managed separately by the club, in consultation with Council staff.

Beach Road Coastal Stabilisation, Margate

Design and tendering documentation to undertake rock protection works along the Beach Road foreshore, south of Esplanade, are almost complete, with tenders for this work likely to be invited over December to mid-January. Similar protection works at Dennes Point are also nearing design finalisation, in preparation for tendering.

Beach Road and Esplanade Reconstruction, Margate

Practical Completion has recently been awarded on the recent reconstruction of the Margate Esplanade and Beach Road (east of Bundalla). Minor finishing is still required on a few items, which will be completed by the contractor (Bullock Civil) during the defect liability period.

Beach Road Reconstruction - Stage 2

Separate to the above works in Beach Road, Council has also recently awarded a further contract, to Duggans Pty Ltd, to undertake the final ‘Stage 2’ reconstruction along Beach Road. This follows the conclusion of TasWater’s mains upgrade along this street. Final dates for commencement of this work are being negotiated, and residents will be kept informed accordingly. Planning of this work will also need to be mindful of the pending coastal stabilisation works (with associated rock haulage requirements) mentioned above.

Upcoming Works

Tenders are currently being invited for the construction of Blanche Avenue, Blackmans Bay, along with the provision of a turning head cul-de-sac at Kelvedon Avenue, Taroona. Awarding of these works should occur during December allowing them to proceed early in the New Year.

______

Page 236 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

CURRENT AND PREVIOUS MINUTE RESOLUTIONS

CURRENT RESOLUTIONS

Resolution Title: Bruny Island Advisory Committee Nominations Meeting Date: 27 November 2017 Minute No.: C660/25-17 Status: Complete Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: Nominees notified Anticipated Date of Completion: Complete Resolution Title: Bruny Island Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 27 November 2017 Minute No.: C661/25-17 Status: Complete Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: Committee notified Anticipated Date of Completion: Complete Resolution Title: Alum Cliffs Track Shared Use Trial Meeting Date: 27 November 2017 Minute No.: C664/25-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: Trial to be conducted from March 2018 Anticipated Date of Completion: June 2018 Resolution Title: Sale of Council Land Meeting Date: 27 November 2017 Minute No.: C665/25-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: Policy to be developed Anticipated Date of Completion: February 2018

______

Page 237 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED

Resolution Title: Smoke Free Areas Meeting Date: 9 October 2017 Minute No.: C517/22-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Senior Environmental Health Officer Officers Comments: Report prepared for Council agenda Anticipated Date of Completion: November 2018 Resolution Title: Bruny Island Liveability Study Meeting Date: 9 October 2017 Minute No.: C522/22-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Deputy General Manager Officers Comments: Mathew Fagan appointed to conduct study. Investigations and community consultation commenced. BIAC will also discuss this at its meeting on 14/12/2017. Anticipated Date of Completion: April 2018 Resolution Title: Tassal Community Advisory Group Meeting Date: 11 September 2017 Minute No.: C460/20-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Manager Environmental Services Officers Comments: Follow-up report prepared for Council Agenda. Anticipated Date of Completion: November 2018 Resolution Title: Sale of Council Land Policy Meeting Date: 25 September 2017 Minute No.: C488/21-17 Status: Complete Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: Report provided to 27 November Council meeting. Anticipated Date of Completion: Completed Resolution Title: Laptops for Council Meetings Meeting Date: 28 August 2017 Minute No.: C423/18-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Information Services Officers Comments: Two systems demonstrated to staff to better manage creation and distribution of Council papers. Quotes have obtained. Currently investigating potential funding sources to enable implementation this financial year. Anticipated Date of Completion:

______

Page 238 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Resolution Title: Osborne Esplanade, Kingston Beach Traffic Trial Meeting Date: 28 August 2017 Minute No.: C426/18-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Engineering Services Officers Comments: Preliminary investigation has been undertaken and this will be discussed at a Council workshop on the 6 November 2017, before seeking a Council resolution Anticipated Date of Completion: December 2017 Resolution Title: Intensive Study and Strategic Direction Outcomes for Recycling and Waste Meeting Date: 28 August 2017 Minute No.: C425/18-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: General Manager Officers Comments: To be raised at next LGAT general meeting Anticipated Date of Completion: November 2017 Resolution Title: Petition - Waste Collection for Kettering Meeting Date: 28 August 2017 Minute No.: C431/18-17 Status: Completed Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Engineering Services Officers Comments: Any changes to waste collection in Kettering will only be considered after consultation with residents Anticipated Date of Completion: Completed Resolution Title: 25A Osborne Esplanade, Kingston Beach and Kingston Beach Surf Life Saving Club Meeting Date: 24 July 2017 Minute No.: C368/16-17 Status: In Progress Responsible Officer: Deputy General Manager Officers Comments: Site plan and design of new toilet block has been prepared and will now be costed prior to a report being presented to Council. The Surf Club will be submitting their DA soon. Anticipated Date of Completion: January 2018 Resolution Title: Draft Dog Management Policy Meeting Date: 13 June 2017 Minute No.: C278/13-17 Status: On Hold Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: On hold pending enactment of amendments to Dog Control Act Anticipated Date of Completion: March 2018

______

Page 239 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Resolution Title: Waste Management Strategy Meeting Date: 13 June 2017 Minute No.: C280/13-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Engineering Services Officers Comments: Readjusting draft strategy to take into account community feedback to be further workshopped with Council following this. Anticipated Date of Completion: December 2017 Resolution Title: Petition – North Roslyn Avenue Precinct Meeting Date: 26 June 2017 Minute No.: C317/14-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Engineering Services Officers Comments: Traffic counts completed but further analysis may be required. Further meeting with residents undertaken. Report to Council in January. Anticipated Date of Completion: January 2018 Resolution Title: Local Government Reform Meeting Date: 24 April 2017 Minute No.: C182/8-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: General Manager Officers Comments: Correspondence sent to Minister for Local Government Anticipated Date of Completion: August 2017 Resolution Title: Kingston Park Community Hub Café Meeting Date: 27 February 2017 Minute No.: C85/4-17 Status: On hold Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: Advertising of further expressions of interest to be delayed. Anticipated Date of Completion: Unknown

Resolution Title: Recyclables at Events Meeting Date: 9 January 2017 Minute No.: C12/1-17 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Engineering Services Officers Comments: Draft policy developed. Anticipated Date of Completion: January 2018

______

Page 240 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

Resolution Title: Recreational Vehicle Camping Strategy Meeting Date: 24 October 2016 Minute No.: C446/21-16 Status: Completed Responsible Officer: Deputy General Manager Officers Comments: Report considered by Council Anticipated Date of Completion: Completed

Resolution Title: Bruny Island SES Unit Complex Meeting Date: 14 June 2016 Minute No.: C239/11-16 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Manager Governance & Property Services Officers Comments: SES has advised project proceeding and Council will be invoiced for their contribution shortly. Anticipated Date of Completion: Jan 2018

Resolution Title: Abel Tasman Anniversary Meeting Date: 14 June 2016 Minute No.: C150/7-16 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Manager Community Services Officers Comments: Civic reception to be held on 11 December Anticipated Date of Completion: December 2017 Resolution Title: Relocation of Council’s Works Depot Meeting Date: September 2015 Minute No.: C320/12-15 Status: On hold Responsible Officer: Deputy General Manager Officers Comments: Additional investigations are yet to commence – requiring geotechnical feasibility of possible Barretta site. Anticipated Date of Completion: Unknown – requires Capex allocation Resolution Title: Online Petitions Meeting Date: September 2015 Minute No.: C285/11-15 Status: In progress Responsible Officer: Executive Manager Information Services Officers Comments: Web developer finalising specification for sign-off Anticipated Date of Completion: November 2017

______

Page 241 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

AUTHOR : AMANDA MORTON - EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FILE NO : 12.20 DATE : 4 DECEMBER 2017

NOTICES OF MOTION MOVED AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 2 DECEMBER 2017

The following Notice of Motion was received by the public at the Annual General Meeting held on 2 December 2017:

Mr John McDonald of 95 Cades Drive, Kingston moved the following Notice of Motion:

MOVED John McDonald SECONDED Mervyn Reed

(a) All delegations to Council staff for expenditure be revoked (b) Council approves new delegations for senior staff to a maximum of $5000 in each instance. (c) That the Council take notice of the final report of the Glenorchy City Council board of enquiry, with particular regard to apparent financial malfeasance and the lack of statutory compliance.

Carried

______

Page 242 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION

MOVED SECONDED

That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 the following items are to be dealt with in Closed Session.

Local Government (Meeting Matter Procedures) Regulations 2015 Reference Applications for Leave of Absence 15(2)(h) Waste and Recycling Contract 15(2)(c) Current and Previous Minute Resolutions 15(2)(c)

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

CLOSED SESSION

MOVED SECONDED

That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 that Council move into Closed Session.

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

In accordance with the Kingborough Council Meetings Audio Recording Guidelines Policy, recording of the open session of the meeting will now cease.

Open Session of Council adjourned at

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

______

Page 243 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

Open Session of Council resumed at

MOVED SECONDED

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

Subject Decisions/Documents

Applications for Leave of Absence

Waste and Recycling Contract

Current and Previous Minute Resolutions

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

CLOSURE

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

...... (Confirmed) (Date)

______

Page 244 Agenda No. 26 13 December 2017