1. confirmation of minutes - brighton council · · 2015-11-06~ 2 ~ ordinary council meeting...

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL HELD

IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES OLD BEACH AT 5.30 P.M. ON TUESDAY,

21ST MAY 2013

PRESENT: Cr Foster (Mayor); Cr Taylor (Deputy Mayor); Cr Curran; Cr Garlick; Cr Geard; Cr Gray; Cr Jeffries; Cr Owen and Cr Williams.

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R Sanderson (General Manager); Mr G Davoren

(Deputy General Manager); Mr H Macpherson (Municipal Engineer); Mr J Dryburgh (Manager Strategic Planning) and Mrs J Banks (Manager Governance & Human Services)

Cr Curran moved, Cr Gray seconded that Items 10.1 to 10.5 on the Agenda be relocated under “11. Reports from Officers” and renumbered 11.1 etc, and that Item 10.6 be renumbered to 10.1 and be discussed under the provisions as the Planning Authority.

CARRIED VOTING RECORD

In favour Against Cr Curran Cr Foster Cr Garlick Cr Geard Cr Gray Cr Jeffries Cr Owen Cr Taylor Cr Williams

1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:

~ 2 ~

Ordinary Council Meeting 21/5/13

1.1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 16th APRIL 2013.

Cr Jeffries moved, Cr Garlick seconded that the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 16th April 2013, be confirmed.

CARRIED VOTING RECORD

In favour Against Cr Curran Cr Foster Cr Garlick Cr Geard Cr Gray Cr Jeffries Cr Owen Cr Taylor Cr Williams

2. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

All members were present.

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME AND DEPUTATIONS:

Dennis Crispin (Red Cross) addressed Council in relation to a Skate/Bike park at Bridgewater.

Trent Wilton addressed Council in relation to a Skate/Bike park at Bridgewater.

Tyler Thornton addressed Council in relation to a Skate/Bike park at Bridgewater.

Marcus Payne addressed Council in relation to a Skate/Bike park at Bridgewater.

4. DECLARATION OF INTEREST:

In accordance with Part 5, Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1993 , the Chairman of a meeting is to request Councillors to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have an interest in any item on the agenda; and

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

~ 3 ~


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

There were no declarations of interest.

5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILLORS:

5.1 MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS:

FILE REFERENCE: 0205-6

AUTHOR: Mayor (Cr T Foster)

The Mayor‟s communications were as follows:-.

May 02 Noeline and I were invited to the opening of Heather Kirkpatrick‟s Documentary “Mary meets Mohammed”. May 03 Meeting at Council with Acting General Manager Greg Davoren. May 03 Noeline and I attended an Investiture at Government House for recipients of Order of Australia Awards. Brighton citizen Mr Richard Giddings was awarded an OAM. May 06 Meeting at Council with SMT and General Manager to finalise draft budget for 2013-2014. May 07 Meeting in Hobart with Minister David O‟Byrne. May 07 Meeting in Moonah with Miles Hampton, Carolyn Pillans and new Taswater CEO Mike Brewster. May 09 Visit with Maurice Barwick at his home in Tea Tree. May 09 Meeting at Council with GM and James Dryburgh. May 09 Meeting with Rebecca White MHA May 13 Meeting at the Health Centre, Bridgewater with Robyn Bishop, Cathy Harper, James Dryburgh and Shirley Williams. May 13 Chaired a meeting of Southern Water Owner Representatives at Southern Water offices, Moonah.

~ 4 ~


May 14 Workshop at Council to look at Draft Budget for 2013-2014. May 16 Chaired a meeting in Launceston of the Taswater Selection Committee. May 16 Chaired a meeting in Launceston of Taswater Owner Representatives. New Taswater Board and new CEO in attendance. May 21 Ordinary Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Mayor‟s communications be received.

DECISION:

Cr Jeffries moved, Cr Taylor seconded that the report be received.

CARRIED

VOTING RECORD In favour Against Cr Curran Cr Foster Cr Garlick Cr Geard Cr Gray Cr Jeffries Cr Owen Cr Taylor Cr Williams

5.2 REPORTS FROM COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES WITH OTHER ORGANISATIONS:

FILE REFERENCE: 0205-6

Southern Waste Strategy Board Joint Authority – Cr Geard representative.

Cr Taylor advised that he attended the boxing at Pontville Hall earlier this month.

~ 5 ~


5.3 CORRESPONDENCE FROM SOUTHERN TASMANIAN COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (STCA), LGAT AND JOINT AUTHORITIES:

Correspondence and reports from the STCA, LGAT and Joint Authorities e.g. Southern Waste Authority are received periodically by Council.

If any Councillor wishes to view documents received contact should either be made with the Manager Governance and Human Services or General Manager.

6. NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL WORKSHOPS:

In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, it was reported that a budget workshop was held on Tuesday 14th May 2013.

(This includes workshop, seminar or meeting, other than a meeting that is conducted by or on behalf of the council for the councillors.)

7. NOTICE OF MOTION:

Councillor Owen had submitted a motion on notice to be considered as Item 7.1 in committee.

8. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA:

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

(a) the reason it was not possible to include the matter on the agenda, and

(b) that the matter is urgent, and

(c) that advice has been provided under Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

DECISION:

There were no supplementary agenda items.

~ 6 ~


9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES:

There were no Committee meetings held in May 2013.

10. COUNCIL ACTING AS PLANNING AUTHORITY:

In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 Regulation 25 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, the intention of the Council to act as a planning authority pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is to be noted. In accordance with Regulation 25, the Council will act as a planning authority in respect to those matters appearing under Item 10. on this agenda, inclusive of any supplementary items.

10.1 DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT: COMBINED AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION UNDER SECTION 43A OF THE ACT - TAYLOR CRESCENT, BRIDGEWATER, RECREATION TO RESIDENTIAL AND SUBDIVISION OF 32 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ASSOCIATED ROAD LOTS - SECTION 39 REPORT:

FILE REFERENCE: RZ 12/02

AUTHOR: Planning Officer (Mr D Allingham)

APPROVED: Manager Strategic Planning (Mr J Dryburgh)

Applicant: Brighton Industrial and Housing Corporation (BIHC)

Owner: Housing Tasmania (transfer to BIHC)

Location: Taylor Crescent, Bridgewater (Volume 35461 Folio 1 and Volume 30857 Folio 1762)

Application no.: RZ 12/02

Zoning: Recreation and Residential Zones

Date received: 24th December 2012

Date advertised: 6th April 2013

~ 7 ~


Decision required N/A

Background:

Council seeks to amend the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000 by means of rezoning lots Certificate of Title Volume 35464 Folio 1 and Volume 30857 Folio 1762, Bridgewater, from Recreation to Residential. The application is a combined rezoning and subdivision application under Section 43A of the Act. The first section of this report addresses the proposed draft amendment and the second section addresses the subdivision.

„Residential‟ development is rendered a „prohibited‟ use within the Recreation Zone. Therefore, the rezoning of these parcels to Residential will enable future residential development to be considered on a „permitted‟ or „discretionary‟ basis.

The Brighton Municipal Area Open Space Strategy 2012 (OSS) prepared by Inspiring Place identifies this site as “Priority Housing Project” land, stating that the site is a location for “infill residential development.” It clearly states that the subject land is not of community benefit as public open space or recreation land. The Strategy also states that design of future residential infill should incorporate quality footpaths and landscaping, which has been facilitated by both the rezoning plan and the subdivision plan. However, it has been identified within the OSS and by strategic and design work by Council staff that there is benefit both to the character of the area and its future residential amenity in maintaining linkages through the area and the development of a neighbourhood park. These areas will not need to be zoned Recreation to fulfil this aim – a park is Permitted within the Residential zone of the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000.

The Section 35 Report and associated documentation has been endorsed by Council and has now completed its period (6 weeks) of public exhibition. This report explains the results of public exhibition and any subsequent recommendations.

Figure 1: Zoning map of the subject area.

~ 8 ~


Figure 2: An aerial photograph of the subject sites and surrounding context.

Consultation:

The Draft Amendment was exhibited in accordance with Section 38 of the Act and Section 6 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act Regulations 2004 between Saturday 6th April 2013 and Sunday 12th May 2013.

No representations were received in relation to the draft planning scheme amendment.

Other issues:

Section 39(2) of the Act provides that a Planning Authority (Council) must, within 35 days after the public notification period has closed, forward to the Tasmanian Planning Commission this report on representations received to the draft amendment.

The report is required to provide a statement on each representation and such recommendations in relation to the draft amendment as the authority considers necessary, or state that no representations were received.

The report may include any recommendations concerning the exhibited draft amendment the Council considers necessary, including any other information in support of its recommendations.

Assessment:

No representations were received. As such no additional issues have been raised regarding the draft amendment.

~ 9 ~


The Tasmanian Planning Commission is required to ensure that the draft amendment meets the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS) and State polices. These objectives were addressed in the original report to Council on the certification of the draft amendment.

It is recommended that no changes be made to the Section 43A combined Draft Amendment and subdivision.

Options:

1. To adopt the recommendation; or

2. To adopt an alternative recommendation, with a full statement of reasons as determined by Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

That in accordance with Section 39 (2) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 Council resolves to:

A. Advise the Tasmanian Planning Commission that no representations were received following exhibition of draft amendment RZ 12/02 to the Brighton Planning Scheme 2000; and

B. Advise the Tasmanian Planning Commission that no modifications to draft amendment RZ 12/02 are considered necessary.

DECISION:

Cr Geard moved, Cr Garlick seconded that the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


~ 10 ~


11. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS:

11.1 SALE OF SURPLUS LAND – LOT 101 ROSLYN COURT, BRIGHTON:

FILE REFERENCE: ROSLYN/Lot 101

AUTHOR: Manager Strategic Planning (Mr J Dryburgh)

Background:

As part of the process of reviewing Council-owned land to determine the most appropriate uses, both currently and strategically for the longer term, Lot 101 Roslyn Court, Brighton, has been identified for Council consideration.

Councillors have expressed an interest to sell surplus land and to use the proceeds to further public benefit projects, including developing strategically sound areas of recreation and open space, throughout the municipality.

Consultation:

Consultation has occurred internally between Council‟s Manager Strategic Planning, General Manager, Deputy General Manager, Senior Technical Officer and others. External consultation has occurred between Council‟s Deputy General Manager and one of the adjoining neighbours.

Risk Implications:

There are no significant risk implications regarding subdividing and selling the land as two large residential lots.

Financial Implications:

Surplus land requires regular maintenance and may attract land tax. The 2 proposed lots would likely have a combined total sale value of $150.000 - $200,000.

Other Issues:

Nil

Figure 1: Subject site and surrounding area.

~ 11 ~


Figure 2: Subject site and immediate area.

Figure 3: Zoning map.

Assessment:

Lot 101 Roslyn Court, Brighton is considered unsuitable for development as an active public open space asset. The site has two poor narrow accesses, which is known to make open space and parks less desirable to potential users. The location of the site between the end of two cul-de-sacs and the Midlands Highway is also unconducive to use as a park.

The location of the site on the fringe of the urban residential area also makes it less likely to be an attractive park for surrounding residents. The site would not benefit from being on a through street or providing a pedestrian linkage, making it highly likely it would be under-utilised if developed as a park or recreation area.

The residents near the subject site are at worst only approximately 500 metres from the recreation area and pathway along the Jordan River, which is considered to be a reasonable distance for accessing a local park and recreation area.

~ 12 ~


For the reasons above, the site is not of public benefit as recreation or open space. As such, the land should be considered for residential infill, which is the most appropriate alternative use.

The Brighton Municipal Area Open Space Strategy 2012 in Table 4.2 states that the subject site is “sloping land with poor access,” and recommends that Council “consider subdividing for residential infill.” This is considered the only viable option for the site. The narrow access strips to the site mean that it cannot be subdivided into more than two lots nor can multiple dwellings be developed. As such, two large residential lots are proposed.

There is a demonstrated demand for vacant residential land within Brighton.

The large area of the proposed lots is not considered out of character in the area. Some of the adjoining residentially zoned lots are well in excess of 1000m2 and the site adjoins an area of Rural Residential Zone where lot sizes are significantly larger again. In addition, the site adjoins the highway and as such larger lots will allow for greater landscape buffering of future dwellings from the highway.

If recommended for sale, the land will be first offered to the adjoining property owners.

Options:

1. As per the recommendation.

2. Do not sell Lot 101 Roslyn Court, Brighton

RECOMMENDATION:

Council resolves to:

Approve in principle the subdivision of 2 lots at Lot 101 Roslyn Court, Brighton; and

Authorise the sale of Lot 101 Roslyn Court, Brighton in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

DECISION:

Cr Geard moved, Cr Curran seconded that the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED

VOTING RECORD In favour Against Cr Curran Cr Foster Cr Garlick Cr Geard Cr Gray Cr Jeffries Cr Owen

~ 13 ~


Cr Taylor Cr Williams

11.2 REDEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE – 25 AND 42 DOLLERY COURT, BRIGHTON:

FILE REFERENCE: DOLLER/25 & DOLLER/42


Background:

As part of the process of reviewing Council-owned land to determine the most appropriate use, both currently and strategically for the longer term, 25 and 42 Dollery Court, Brighton, have been identified for Council consideration.


Like the concept for Melissa Street and Phemie Court, this proposal can be viewed as a small local strategy that fits in well with the broader strategy for Brighton as a whole. Rather than facilitating access to the Jordan River Reserve, as in the case of Melissa/Phemie, this concept encourages people into the former Parade Ground site.

The concept manages to maintain the key functions and attributes of the existing open space: linkages; amenity; and mature trees, whilst establishing a plan for the longer term aim of facilitating access to the former parade ground site. The development of the parade ground as an iconic public space will require significant investment and planning, and it will be vital that ease of access to the site is maximised for as many residents and visitors as possible.

Consultation:

Consultation has occurred internally between Council staff and Inspiring Place.

Risk Implications:

There are no significant risk implications regarding subdivision of the proposed six (6) residential lots, their subsequent sale and the open space redevelopment.


Surplus land requires regular maintenance and may attract land tax. Each lot would have a value of approximately $90,000. As such, the combined value of the six lots would likely be in the vicinity of $540,000. Significant expenditure would be required for the subdivision, subdivision works and redeveloped public open space infrastructure.

~ 14 ~


Other Issues:

Nil




~ 15 ~


Assessment:

It is proposed to subdivide 6 residential lots and significantly modify the existing open space from the two lots owned by Council, known as 25 and 42 Dollery Court.

The approximate land parcel where the play group currently operates would create two residential lots of approximately 650m2 each. It is envisaged that there are better sites for the play group to move to in the longer term, such as the old hospital building on the Army Camp site.

Four other residential lots, all of approximately 540m2 in area would be created in the southern section of the land, two gaining access from the end of Dollery Court and two from Melaluka Court.

The proposed layout enables a large proportion of the open space to be kept, in particular the key function and attributes are retained. Access ways are wide enough (12m on average) to perform both the role of safe and attractive access and that of a place to stop and enjoy. The layout allows the existing mature trees that provide amenity and beauty to the site to also be retained. A valuable new wide access will be developed to provide access into the Army Camp site, which is to become the area‟s iconic area of open space and a place for community events.

Existing pathways, sealed sections and landscaping can be utilised in the redevelopment of the areas to remain open space, which will save money, maintain preferred and established routes, and assist in creating a positive character for the site.

Approximately one third of the existing total area of the two lots will continue to be public open space land. Approximately a quarter of the existing site is not used as open space at present as it is utilised by the child care centre. The areas of the site proposed to remain open space allow access to and from Butler Street, Melaluka Court, Dollery Court, from the internal shared access area of Dollery Court and the Parade Ground area of the former Army Camp site.

The reduction in scale of this area of open space would not be advisable were it not for pending development of the former parade ground area of the Army Camp. This area will become a large quality area of open space. The proposed design will allow safe, attractive access into the parade ground area, whilst maintaining its own role as a smaller local parkland area. There would still be sufficient area for the reduced open space area to include BBQ facilities, tables, seats or infrastructure for children to interact with.

The design, which utilises delineated shared private access driveways, will soften the interface between public and private land and in sections can utilise some existing sealed areas.

In summary, this proposal is seen to represent „a best of both worlds‟ scenario. On the one hand, the proposal keeps the most important elements of the existing park (access routes, mature trees and a peaceful place to spend time), on the other hand it facilitates quality access routes to and from the parade ground and should generate significant revenue that can be used to help turn that area into an iconic public space.

~ 16 ~


The proposal is also clearly consistent with strategies to encourage appropriate residential infill opportunities around activity centres.

Options:


2. Do nothing.

RECOMMENDATION:


Approve in principle the subdivision of six (6) residential lots and redevelopment of revised open space in accordance with Concept Plan for 25 and 42 Dollery Court, Brighton; and

Authorise the sale of the six (6) residential lots created from the subdivision of 25 and 42 Dollery Court, Brighton in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Any sale relating to the playgroup will not go ahead prior to the users of the site to be relocated to suitable premises to the satisfaction of Council.

DECISION:

Cr Curran moved, Cr Gray seconded that the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED


~ 17 ~


11.3 SALE OF SURPLUS LAND – 7 COLLIS COURT, BRIGHTON:

FILE REFERENCE: COLLIS/7


Background:

As part of the process of reviewing Council-owned land to determine the most appropriate use, both currently and strategically for the longer term, 7 Collis Court, Brighton, has been identified as needing Council consideration.


7 Collis Court is broadly identified as not currently serving a significant role within the public open space network and not having the qualities of location to make it likely to perform this role in the future.

Consultation:

Consultation has occurred internally between Council‟s Senior Management Team and Technical Officers.

Risk Implications:

There are no significant risk implications regarding the subdivision of 7 Collis Court, Brighton, and subsequent selling of the two resultant residential lots.


Surplus land requires regular maintenance and may attract land tax. Each lot would have a value of approximately $100,000. As such, the combined value of the two lots would likely be in the vicinity of $200,000.

Other Issues:

Nil


~ 18 ~




Assessment:

The attached plan proposes the subdivision of two residential lots, both of insufficient dimensions for unit development, but of good size and shape for single dwelling development. One lot is 594m2 and the other is 869m2 in area. The attached plan shows an access way being modified and maintained through the site.

The Brighton Municipal Area Open Space Strategy 2012 identifies the site as a “linear and linkage” open space asset. This categorisation recognises the role the land plays as a linkage from one street to another, whilst recognising it has limited opportunity to provide a quality park.

The issue of whether or not it is desirable to keep and maintain the walkway through the centre of the lot has been thoroughly considered. The walkway provides a more direct and efficient pedestrian and cycle access from Collis Court to Brooke Street and from some dwellings would shorten a walking journey toward the east by up to 400 metres.

~ 19 ~


However, the design of the walkway is not ideal. Access to Brooke Street relies on a relatively narrow strip of land with high side fences, which is similar to the style of access-way that is causing social and safety problems elsewhere in the municipality. It is also not possible to create an access through the site that would allow users to see from one end to the other and thus, improve the security. The width is greater than many of the internal laneways in Bridgewater however, and there are not some of the other compounding social issues such as trail bikes, large residential catchment utilising the lane and proximity to a large activity centre.

If the access-way is kept, its alignment would need to be adjusted and then maintained by Council with an associated cost. There is an argument that this money could be better spent upgrading access-ways in the area to ensure as many residents as possible have a safe and attractive non-car dependent access to park and recreation areas, such as Seymour Street. For example, a wide, well landscaped foot and cycle way could be developed from Collis Court, down Burrows Avenue or Racecourse Road, to the Seymour Street recreation area. This would benefit more residents in the broader area than the existing access-way and would ultimately provide a net open space/recreation benefit for the Collis Court residents.

A key factor in this investigation is the presence of a high voltage line under the existing walkway. Council officers have requested further information from Aurora and a quote for the removal or relocation of the line, which is a several month process. It is considered that if the removal or relocation of the line is particularly problematic or expensive then this would tip the argument in favour of keeping a realigned access way through the site. If the removal of the line is inexpensive and simple then neighbours could be consulted as to their interest in having the laneway closed and the eastern section of the laneway adhered to their properties.

Part of the overall strategy for this area should be facilitating the ease and safety of pedestrian and cycle access to the excellent park at Seymour Street and the associated sports grounds. This could potentially include the widening of footpaths, cycle lanes or new pathways within existing road reserves, potentially with rest seating en route. This approach is recommended as a priority to be considered on Page 77 of the Open Space Strategy 2012.

It is considered that the land should be subdivided and sold as two residential lots and that the issue of whether or not to keep the laneway should be determined once all the information regarding the high voltage underground line is known.

Options:


2. Do nothing.

~ 20 ~


RECOMMENDATION:


Approve in principle the subdivision into two residential lots of 7 Collis Court, Brighton; and

Authorise the sale of the two lots created from the subdivision of 7 Collis Court, Brighton in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

Consult with residents in relation to the future of the walkway.

DECISION:

Cr Garlick moved, Cr Jeffries seconded that the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED


11.4 SALE OF SURPLUS LAND – LOT 101 MELISSA STREET AND LOT 102 PHEMIE COURT, BRIGHTON:

FILE REFERENCE: MELISS/Lot 101 & PHEMIE/Lot 102


Background:

At its March meeting, Council approved the purchase of 21 Melissa Street as part of a local open space strategy to provide better open space areas and linkages through this part of Brighton (see Attachment 1). This local strategy identified a portion of Lot 102 Phemie Court and the entire area of Lot 101 Melissa Street as surplus.


~ 21 ~


At the March meeting Councillors discussed the potential to sell these surplus areas of land and potentially reinvest the proceeds into further improvements to the local open space network, including the Jordan River area, the area proposed between Phemie Court and Melissa Street and on municipal open space more broadly.

Consultation:

Consultation has occurred internally between Council‟s Senior Management Team, Councillors and the owner of 85 William Street.

Risk Implications:

There are no significant risk implications regarding the subdivision of proposed Lot 1 and the selling of both proposed Lot 1 and Lot 101 Melissa Street.


Surplus land requires regular maintenance and may attract land tax. Proposed Lot 1 would likely have a value of approximately $80,000. Lot 101 Melissa Street would be worth approximately $175,000. As such, the combined value of the two lots would likely be in the vicinity of $250,000.

Other Issues:

Nil


~ 22 ~




Assessment:

Proposed Lot 1 – Phemie Court, Brighton

Proposed Lot 1 would require a subdivision of Lot 102 Phemie Court, effectively cutting the existing lot in half. The result would be the creation of a Residential lot of approximately 500m2 in area and a balance lot of similar area to be retained as future open space/parkland/pedestrian linkage.

The lot to be subdivided and sold would be adequate for the development of a single dwelling, but not adequate for development of multiple dwelling (ie. two units). The proposed lot does not have any significant site constraints or easements that would restrict future development. The proposed lot size and shape is consistent with surrounding lots. The proposed shape of the lot maximises the functionality and future amenity of the proposed adjoining open space area.

~ 23 ~


Whilst the Brighton Municipal Area Open Space Strategy 2012 does not provide a specific recommendation for Lot 102 Phemie Court, it does comment on page 76, that none of the areas of Council-owned open space on the eastern side of Brighton (other than the Jordan River reserve) are particularly desirable for the development of a park, recommending that Council consider attempting to gain a good site for a local park during the future subdivision of one of the larger remaining residential infill lots.

Lot 101 Melissa Street, Brighton

The Brighton Municipal Area Open Space Strategy 2012 recommends on page 77 that the selling of Lot 101 Melissa Street be considered as it has limited open space value. The reasons it has limited open space value are because the site is steep, has relatively poor access, cannot be easily redesigned to provide a linkage and it is an irregular shape.

The lot cannot be subdivided. Under the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous) Act 1993 a lot must have a frontage of 3.6m. Lot 101 Melissa Street has a frontage of approximately 6.5m, meaning two legal frontages cannot be created. As such, if sold the lot is likely to be utilised for multiple dwelling development. Given the shape and gradient of the lot, it is unlikely more than four dwellings would be accommodated on site.

The land has no significant value as open space, but does have value as a site for residential infill. As such, it is considered this is the best use of the land.

General

Part of the overall plan to be facilitated by this project is the creation of a local park and improved linkage through this area. This will be a local open space asset and will improve accessibility to the Jordan River reserve. The lots are located less than 400m from the Jordan River reserve, which less than the maximum distance often considered by landscape architects as an appropriate distance from public open space.

If recommended for sale, the land will be first offered to the adjoining property owners.

Options:


2. Do nothing.

3. Only sell Lot 101 Melissa Street, Brighton.

4. Only subdivide and sell proposed Lot 1 in Phemie Court, Brighton.

~ 24 ~


RECOMMENDATION:


Approve in principle the subdivision of proposed Lot 1 within Lot 102 Phemie Court, Brighton; and

Authorise the sale of Lot 101 Melissa Street and proposed Lot 1 in Phemie Court, Brighton in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

DECISION:

Cr Geard moved, Cr Owen seconded that the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


11.5 STRATEGY FOR COUNCIL OWNED LAND – INTERNAL WALKWAYS, BRIDGEWATER:

FILE REFERENCE: Bridgewater Internal Walkways


Background:

For some time Council have received complaints and concern regarding a series of internal laneways and associated open space in Bridgewater. There are two key areas. The areas have been designed in line with the Radburn Model, which could be argued to have failed in many parts of Australia, not just in Bridgewater.

These areas have become a major concern for public safety and amenity, with several residents living in constant fear. They have become a haven for dangerous and antisocial behaviour. They are also a maintenance and liability burden to Council.

A strategy to deal with the issues caused by these areas of land is needed, which may include boundary adjustments, land sales, track closures, fencing and other measures. The attached report summarises the key issues and outlines the work required to develop appropriate solutions.

~ 25 ~


Consultation:

Consultation has occurred internally between many of Council‟s staff and informally with several of the area‟s residents.

Risk Implications:

There are no significant risk implications regarding the investigation of solutions to current problems on these laneways. There are risks to Council in not attempting to deal these very serious problems occurring on its land.


Depending on what options are developed to address these areas of POS, there could be significant costs to Council, including the cost of fencing, surveying and subdivision costs. There may also be scope for adjoining owners in the area to bear some of these costs. There may also be scope for Council to rezone, subdivide and sell some appropriate parcels of this land to fund solutions.

Other Issues:

Nil

Figure 1: Subject sites

Figure 2: Zoning plan

~ 26 ~


Assessment:

See Attachment 1 – Bridgewater Internal Walking Track Investigation for a detailed assessment of the land and associated issues.

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to begin actively investigating the options for these parcels of land to facilitate a better long term outcome for the local residents.

Options:


2. Do nothing.

RECOMMENDATION:


Endorse Council staff to investigate options for resolving the dysfunctional nature of Bridgewater‟s Council-owned internal laneways and associated open space.

DECISION:

Cr Williams moved, Cr Owen seconded that the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


~ 27 ~


11.6 BUDGET 2013 – 2014:

FILE REFERENCE: 0100

AUTHOR: Deputy General Manager (Mr G R Davoren)

Background: The draft 2013-2014 budget and Fees & Charges Register has been provided to all Councillors. A review of the budget was undertaken at a workshop held on Tuesday 14th May 2013. Adjustments to the draft budget have been completed in accordance with Councillors demands and it is now ready to be adopted in principle.

Consultation: Councillors, Senior Management, Ratepayers and other stakeholders.

Risk Implications:

Nil

Financial Implications: As per the budget.

Other Issues:

Nil

Assessment: In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the budget may not be adopted more than one month before the start of that financial year. It is intended that the Budget be adopted in principle only.

Options:


2. Review the budget and make further changes prior to adoption in principle

RECOMMENDATION:

That the 2013-2014 budget finalised on Tuesday 14 May 2013 be adopted in principle.

DECISION: Cr Garlick moved, Cr Williams seconded that the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

~ 28 ~



11.7 PROPOSED REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR NUMBERS:

FILE REFERENCE: 0037

AUTHOR: General Manager (Mr R Sanderson)

Background:

The Minister of Local Government has requested the Local Government Board to undertake a review into the number of councillors elected to Tasmanian councils. This followed the specific request from the Southern Midlands Council. The Local Government Board has invited other councils to be included in this review.

Last year seven Tasmanian councils were reviewed and so far Southern Midlands, Launceston City, Dorset and Derwent Valley Councils have requested to be included in the current review.

The attachment outlined the terms of reference of the review.

The review will be finalised by the end of October. If the proposed legislation to move the elections from 2013 to 2014 is passed through parliament, the new numbers would be used for an all-in election at that time. If the legislation is not passed, an election will be held in 2013 and the existing number of councillors will remain for that election. The new number would apply to the following election.

Consultation:

A straw poll was taken by the author in April with seven councillors agreeing to have a review and two councillors wanting to stay with nine councillors. As a result of this poll the Mayor requested that the matter be put to Council.

Risk Implications:

None identified.


A reduction in councillor numbers would have minimal impact on council‟s budget.

~ 29 ~


Other Issues:

Brighton Council would need a compelling reason not to join its neighbouring councils in having a review of the number of councillors elected to council.

Assessment:

This is a matter to be determined by the elected councillors. It should be noted, however, that many other Tasmanian Councils have decided to have a review. Accordingly, there is some implied pressure on all councils to participate in a review. This is reinforced with Brighton having such a small physical area when compared to large rural councils.

With concerted pressure from special interest groups for council amalgamations it may be prudent to review councillor numbers to demonstrate a desire to be as efficient as possible.

Options:

1. Do nothing

2. Adopt the recommendation

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council request the Minister of Local Government to include Brighton Council as part of the review into the number of councillors elected to Tasmanian councils being undertaken by the Local Government Board.

DECISION:

Cr Owen moved, Cr Gray seconded that the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED


~ 30 ~


11.8 LEASE OF PREMISES AT 84 JETTY ROAD, OLD BEACH

FILE REFERENCE: 84 JETTY

AUTHOR: General Manager (Mr R Sanderson)

Background:

Council has recently purchased the property 84 Jetty Road, Old Beach with a view to develop the site to improve facilities and services for the local residents.

Council staff have identified an opportunity to lease two of the buildings on a short term basis with the interested party wanting to take occupancy in July.

Further details will be provided at the meeting.

Staff are requesting authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement to lease these buildings for a period of between one and two years; possibly on a one plus one basis.

Consultation:

Only senior staff at this time as the opportunity has only just been discovered.

Risk Implications:

Council might miss the opportunity to lease the buildings if staff cannot act quickly.


Significant rental income could be realised over the term of the lease. More details will be given at the meeting.

Other Issues:

This would tie up the buildings so they couldn‟t be used for something else.

Assessment:

It will take some time to determine an appropriate long term use for this property; probably in excess of one year before a proper plan would be in place and ready to implement.

It is therefore appropriate in the short term to take advantage of this opportunity to raise some income and to have the buildings occupied rather than remaining vacant.

Options:

1. Do nothing

2. Adopt the recommendation

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorise the General Manager to negotiate and enter into an agreement to lease buildings at 84 Jetty Road, Old Beach on a short term basis while plans are developed for the long term usage of the property.

~ 31 ~


DECISION:

Cr Taylor moved, Cr Owen seconded that the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED


12. QUESTION ON NOTICE:

There were no questions on notice.

The meeting closed at 7.25 pm.

Confirmed: (Mayor) Date: 18th June 2013

1. confirmation of minutes - brighton council · · 2015-11-06~ 2 ~ ordinary council meeting...

Documents