council agenda · 2019-04-03 · council agenda notice is hereby given that an ordinary meeting of...

COUNCIL AGENDA

NOTICE is hereby given that an Ordinary meeting of the

Kingborough Council will be held in the Civic Centre, Kingston on

Monday, 8 April 2019 at 5.30pm

Cr Richard Atkinson, Cr Amanda Midgley, Cr Paula Wriedt, Deputy Mayor Jo Westwood, Mayor Dean Winter, Cr David Grace, Cr Flora Fox, Cr Sue Bastone, Cr Christian Street

Absent: Cr Steve Wass

PUBLIC AGENDA

This Agenda is provided for the

assistance and information of members

of the public.

QUALIFIED PERSONS In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, I confirm that the reports contained in Council Meeting Agenda No. 7 to be held on Monday, 8 April 2019 contain advice, information and recommendations given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendations.

Gary Arnold GENERAL MANAGER 2 April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Page No.

Open Session

Apologies 1 Confirmation of Minutes of 25 March 2019 1 Workshops held Since Last Council Meeting 2 Declarations of Interest 2 Transfer of Agenda Items 2 Questions on Notice from the Public 3 1 Bushfire Strategy 3 2 Climate Change Strategy 4 3 General Rate Exemption to Charitable Organisations 6 Questions Without Notice from the Public 6 Questions on Notice from Councillors 6 1 Bushfire Survival Plans 6 2 Graffiti 7 3 Carrying Amount of Assets Retired 7 4 Asset Management System 9 5 Parking Policy 9 6 Grant for Alonnah Hall 10 Questions Without Notice from Councillors 10 Motions of Which Notice has Been Given 11 Gun Control 11 Petitions Still Being Actioned 12 Petitions Received in Last Period 12 Officers Reports to Planning Authority 13 Delegated Authority for the Period 13 March 2019 to 26 March 2019 13 Request for Extension of Planning Permit – DAS-2014-30 – Subdivision of One Lot and Balance at 1 Golden Grove Drive, Blackmans Bay for Lark & Creese 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Item Page No.

Open Session

PSA-2018-4 – Planning Scheme Amendment Request – Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 – Rezoning of Community Purpose Zone to Environmental Management Zone and Introduce a Site Specific Qualification for the Land at 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona 21 Officers Reports to Council 45 Carols by Candlelight December 2019 45 Recreational Water Quality Strategy for Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach 51 Kingborough Sports Precinct Future Directions Plan 71 Information Reports 74 General Manager’s Diary for the Period 4 March 2019 to 29 March 2019 75 Current and Previous Minute Resolutions (Open Session) 76 Infrastructure Works Progress Report 79 Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 87

Agenda No. 7 Page 1 8 April 2019

AGENDA of an Ordinary Meeting of Council Kingborough Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston

Monday, 8 April 2019 at 5.30pm.

AUDIO RECORDING

The Chairperson is to direct commencement of the recording. The Chairperson will declare the 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 Chairperson acknowledges the traditional owners of this land and pays respects to them and their customs, and to their elders, past, present and future.

ATTENDEES

Councillors: Mayor Councillor D Winter Deputy Mayor Councillor J Westwood Councillor R Atkinson Councillor S Bastone Councillor F Fox Councillor D Grace Councillor A Midgley Councillor C Street Councillor S Wass Staff:

APOLOGIES

Cr Paula Wriedt

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF 25 MARCH 2019

MOVED SECONDED That the Minutes of the open session of Council Meeting No. 6 held on 25 March 2019 be confirmed as a true record.

For Against For Against

Cr Atkinson Cr Street

Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING

1 April - Kingborough Waste Services

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.

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 question to be asked by any member of the public. A question may either be in writing, or may be verbally asked at the meeting. You are reminded that the forum is designed to accommodate questions only. Neither the questions nor answers will be debated. A period of 15 minutes, if required, will be set aside and the Chairperson will endeavour to deal with as many questions as possible at each meeting. If a response to a question cannot be provided at the meeting a written response will be provided as soon as practicable. If time constraints do not permit all questions to be put, the Council will reply to any question that is put in writing. A Question must not relate to any matter that is listed on the agenda for the meeting. Questions in Writing – A member of the public may give written notice to the General Manager seven (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.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC

Mr John Maynard submitted the following questions on notice:

1 Bushfire Strategy

Given that “More than 90% of municipality is mapped as being ‘bushfire-prone’, the majority of Kingborough has not been subject to a significant bushfire event since the devastating 1967 Black Tuesday bushfire and that the likelihood of a major bushfire event in the municipality is now greater than ever”.

If recent expenditure has been $216,000 pa (P18) and the risk has escalated over this period to a stage where it is now “greater than ever”, how can the expenditure of $245,000 pa, or just $29,000 pa extra, turn the risk around & can the annual budget absorb this increase?

Officer’s Response:

Bushfire Risk for the Kingborough area (and Tasmania as a whole) has been assessed as being high to extreme for a number of years - since strategic risk assessments for emergency management planning and (more recently) bushfire risk modelling first came into use. Along with an increased understanding of the risk that this natural disaster poses to Tasmanian communities, has come an increased understanding of the fact that bushfire safety is a shared responsibility and an obligation for all land owners and managers.

The vast majority of land within the Kingborough municipality (approximately 60% or 45000ha) is held in private tenure. Council owns or manages approximately 650ha of bushland within its natural area reserves network. Although this represents only a small percentage (approximately 2%) of the total municipal area, Council recognises the need to fulfil its responsibilities as a land owner in relation to reducing bushfire risk in the community. Whilst on-ground mitigation activities are important in reducing risk from Council reserves, increased community safety can also be achieved through conducting ongoing community bushfire awareness campaigns in conjunction with the Tasmania Fire Service. Community education, awareness and engagement programs are interventions intended to increase people's perception of their risk of bushfire and to generate changes in behaviour to reduce their bushfire risk. Such programs do not necessarily require great financial investment.

Background to the Bushfire Program

In response to the recognition of its responsibilities as a land owner, Council engaged a Bushfire Management Officer to develop a program for the management of bushfire risk on Council owned or managed land.

The objectives of the initial 3 year bushfire management program were:

1) Identify the location and determine the level of bushfire risk on Council owned or managed land;

2) Development of a Bushfire Risk Reduction Strategy for Council owned or managed land;

3) Prioritise Council’s bushfire mitigation actions on the basis of risk;


4) Present recommendations to lessen the risk on Council land;

5) Develop and coordinate an integrated bushfire risk program for Council owned land – in cooperation with the Tasmania Fire Service;

6) Develop bushfire related policies, guidelines and procedures for Council operations.

2016 to 2019 – Establishment Phase of the Bushfire Program

The initial stages of the bushfire program (for the years 2016 to 2019) were anticipated to require the greatest amount of investment as Council worked through a ‘catch up’ phase associated with developing a new program. The budget for the establishment phase of the bushfire program was carefully costed and all the key activities (including baseline risk assessment of Council land, development of a strategy for managing bushfire risk and commencement of an on ground fuel reduction burning program) were delivered within budget.

2019 to 2023 – Implementation Phase of the Bushfire Program

The next phase of the program (2019 - 2023) has been costed using a realistic budget which is compatible with the resourcing available within the organisation. Estimates are based on the cost to implement a realistic number of bushfire risk mitigation activities over the next five years on Council land. The expenditure outlined in the budget will enable full implementation of the program.

Future bushfire mitigation actions have been prioritised and activities will not require a large amount of additional investment.

Council’s ongoing bushfire mitigation program will be more effectively targeted as a result of the completion of the risk assessment for Council owned land;

Annual fuel break maintenance is ongoing with little anticipated increase in costs;

The annual fire abatement program is ongoing with no anticipated increase in costs;

Community awareness campaigns in Kingborough’s most ‘at risk’ communities in conjunction with the Tasmania Fire Service will be delivered.

The majority of increased costs in the program are associated with the cost of specialist services; including threatened species surveys, specialist arborist services post fire and specialist heavy plant operators for fuel break and planned burn operations.

The Bushfire Risk Reduction Strategy for Council owned or managed land has been designed and budgeted to ensure ongoing mitigation actions are achieved over the next 5 years. The increase in budget allocation to the Bushfire Program over the next five years has been endorsed in principle by Council, but will be subject to approval as part of the annual budget cycle.

Meg Lorang - Bushfire Management Officer

2 Climate Change Strategy

1 The International Panel on Climate Change’s latest report (6th October 2018), produced after its 48th Session of Working Groups, held in Korea, compared the more severe impact of a 2oC increase in global temperature to a 1.5oC increase. Why has Council chosen 2oC, rather than the internationally recognised 1.5oC, as its target limit?


2 Key Priority Area KCA1 (Climate Change Adaption Planning & Research) (P67) states that climate change risk and adaptation planning projects are planned to be completed for Kingston Beach, Snug, Adventure Bay over the period from the end of 2020 to the end of 2023.Why aren’t other vulnerable areas, such as Blackmans Bay, included in these projects?

3 If Council plans to have Zero Net Emissions by 2050 (P67), what are Council’s current net emissions and what are the key methods by which they will be reduced to zero by 2050?

4 How does Council plan to include one of its key areas of responsibility ie. town planning and development, into its Climate Change Strategy?


1. A maximum 2oC increase in global temperature was identified with a view to reflecting the commitment contained in the Tasmanian Government Climate Action 21 document ie: Tasmania’s Climate Change Action Plan 2017 – 2021. This was linked to a commitment to zero net emissions by 2050 which is considered to be an actual and tangible target that council, as an entity, can strive to achieve. The Paris agreement aimed to keeping a global temperature rise this century to well below 2oC above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5oC. Practical progress towards this aim on a global scale is near impossible to ascertain.

2. KCA 1.1 highlights that Kingston Beach, Snug and Adventure Bay will be vulnerable community case study sites until the end of 2023. These localities were highlighted based on a coastal hazard assessment undertaken in 2014 by UTAS and a follow up priority coastal hazard adaptation response report undertaken by UTAS in 2016.

Each of these localities have modelled future climate change related impacts, due to inundation, that are potentially significant but with each having circumstances that make consideration of response and adaptation quite different. This is why they are being used as case studies in detailed risk modelling, adaption options evaluation and community interaction.

Blackmans Bay was not included at this stage as it was not identified as being as at significant risk in the UTAS reports for either coastal inundation and / or coastal erosion.

3. An audit of the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for Kingborough was undertaken in 2018 and this will form the basis of Kingborough Climate Change Plan actions KCS2.3.1 and KCE3.1.1 relating to the drafting of a Greenhouse and Energy Policy and a position paper on the practical implications of Kingborough striving to have Zero net emissions by 2050. Both of these actions are scheduled for completion prior to the end of 2019.

4. Action KCS2.4.1 identifies that a position paper evaluating the implications of the provisions of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme on climate change decisions and responses will be completed prior to the end of 2019.

Action KCS4.4.1 and KCS4.4.3 relate to the practical implications of climate change impacts on council’s asset management and infrastructure systems and procedures.

Jon Doole - Manager Environmental Services


3 General Rate Exemption to Charitable Organisations

Given that the High Court has declined to hear an appeal by the Kingborough Council (and others) against a decision handed down on 12th November 2018 by the Tasmanian Supreme Court, which determined that, under the Local Government Act Section 87(1)(d), land owned and occupied exclusively for charitable purposes were exempt from general rates, can the General Manager please advise;

1 Assuming all charitable organisations within the Kingborough municipality satisfied Section 87(1)(d) of the Local Government Act and thus qualified for general rate exemption, what would be the total annual amount of rate relief granted to these organisations? And,

2 The Mary Knoll property, located at 15 Home Avenue, Blackmans Bay, is proposed to be rezoned and subdivided with a reported 70 social housing units to be constructed and managed by CatholicCare. Assuming this development proceeds and each unit is valued at the average for similar developments in other parts of the municipality, how much rate relief would they be eligible for? And,

3 Will the quantum of rate exemption granted to charitable organisations have any material impact on the forecast annual rate increases recently approved in the Long- Term Financial Plan? And,

4 Is Council and/or the Local Government Association of Tasmania lobbying the Minister for Local Government to amend the Local Government Act to remove the inequity in rate payments which flows from the Supreme Court decision?


1 Approximately $464,000 per annum, which equates to a 2% general rate increase.

2 That will depend on the valuation of each house but there would be a total rates exemption of approximately $105,000.

3 That is a decision for Council but officers will now be recommending a 2% increase on top of the 3.5% increase in the Long Term Financial Plan for next financial year only.

4 Yes.

Gary Arnold - General Manager

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS

1 Bushfire Survival Plans

At the Council meeting on 25 March 2019, Cr Wass asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:


Who undertakes bushfire survival plans for individual property owners? What clearing is permitted within their home zone? What clearing can be undertaken in the surrounding buffer zone?


The Tasmania Fire Service produces extensive documentation relating to Bushfire Preparedness and these can be found at www.fire.tas.gov.au.The Bushfire Survival Plan requires people to decide whether they will be leaving their property early to avoid the danger, or whether they intend to make a plan and defend their home. Planning to stay and defend your home is a decision that should not be taken lightly and people should only stay if their dwelling and surrounding property are well prepared. A dwelling should be ember proofed and a defendable space created around the dwelling. Creating a defendable space involves vegetation modification and the removal of the most flammable material.

The TFS Bushfire Survival Guide sets out a defendable space guide based on the slope of the land and the type of vegetation, this includes distances for inner and outer zones and the document should be referred to for greater detail. This guide should be tailored for individual properties. The document also sets out that there is no need to remove most trees as they can be beneficial in trapping embers and reducing wind speeds and will not be involved in bushfire once fuels on the ground and the understorey have been modified.

The TFS have a list of accredited Bushfire Hazard Practitioners who can inspect sites and determine Bushfire Attack levels (BAL), determine suitable bushfire protection measures, prepare a bushfire hazard report and prepare and certify a bushfire hazard management plan (BHMP).

Belinda Loxley – Emergency Management Coordinator 2 Graffiti

At the Council meeting on 25 March 2019, Cr Midgley asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

Are we in discussion with the NBN regarding graffiti on their boxes?


Council will be contacting NBN in order to ascertain how this graffiti can be removed.

Carol Swards - Coordinator Community Services Cr Westwood submitted the following questions on notice: 3 Carrying Amount of Assets Retired

1. Can Council provide a breakdown by item, value and year acquired of the estimated $(1,000,000) attributed to Carrying Amount of Assets Retired, as included in the most recent Financial Report submitted to Council on 25 March 2019?

2. Why was this amount not identified earlier in the 2018-19 financial year?

3. Does Council undertake regular processing of outstanding work-in-progress and has this now been completed for 2018-19?

4. Has the recent write down of assets for 2018-19 been factored into the forecast underlying result for Council’s 2019-20 budget and out years? If not, when does

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/


Council intend to include the estimated impact of works-in-progress for inclusion in Council’s 2019-20 budget?

5. What processes has Council implemented to ensure large, unexpected write down of assets associated with capital works does not adversely impact the Net Operating Surplus of future budgets?


1

2 The write-off associated with the carrying amount of assets retired was identified during January and February 2019 when a significant amount of work-in-progress was capitalised into the asset register and calculations were undertaken on the amount to be written off.

3 Council has had issues over the past few years in regards to getting the work-in-progress into the asset register in a timely manner. Since the implementation of the new asset management system, Council commenced a concerted effort to get the assets into the system and this has now been achieved.

4 The write-off in 2018/19 is a one-off amount associated with getting the asset management system up to date and will not be repeated in future years.

5 As part of the capital budget process an analysis was undertaken on the potential write-off in assets associated with the projects that were put forward for budget consideration. A couple of projects were delayed to future years because they would have caused a substantial write-off of the replaced asset.

John Breen - Chief Financial Officer

CARRYING AMOUNT OF ASSETS RETIRED TO FEBRUARY 2019

Project No. Description Cost Accum Depr

%

Depreciated WDV Asset Acquisition Date

C03136 Redwood Road - 2273 to 2853 - resealing 286,107.63 43,318.19 15% 242,789.44 2015 All

C01158 Powell Rd - Footpath/Drainage Improvemen 430,668.68 211,120.39 49% 219,548.29 1965 (Base), 2002 (Surface)

C01173 Kunama Drive Upgrade vic19-49 496,904.55 304,189.96 61% 192,714.59 1971 (Base), 1991 (Surface)

C01082 Dru Point Seawall & Road Widening 825,271.00 657,084.66 80% 131,813.66- 1965 (Base), 2000 (Surface)

C00589 Illawarra Rd SW Upgrade St 2 207,373.61 100,645.52 49% 126,306.00 1971 (Base), 1999 (Surface)

C03050 Summerleas Rd Resealing - 1071 to 1451 152,267.93 56,251.95 37% 96,015.98 2007

C01174 Old Station Upgrade Ch0-418 279,316.18 212,466.89 76% 66,849.29 1965 (Base), 1999 (Surface)

C03139 Summerleas/Kingston View Drive Intersection-reseal 57,419.92 25,016.72 44% 32,403.20 2007

C03016 Blanche Avenue Reconstruction 53,723.59 26,716.45 50% 27,007.14 1965 (Base), 2003 (Surface)

C03021 Pelverata Road Upgrade 60,805.38 33,911.12 56% 26,894.26 1999

C01089 Summerleas Rd/Leslie Rd Junction Squarin 59,545.54 36,216.26 61% 23,329.28 1966 (Base), 1999 (Surface)

C03046 Nierinna Road Resealing 238,653.24 215,755.01 90% 22,898.23 2000

C00587 Taronga Rd SW Upgrade St 2 34,855.43 17,064.50 49% 17,790.93 2003

C03051 Redwood Road Resealing - 6 to 510 129,548.64 114,296.42 88% 15,252.22 1965

C03024 Blowhole Road Stormwater Upgrade 12,785.19 2,991.28 23% 9,793.91 2000

C03010 Kelvedon Avenue Turning Facility 17,820.98 9,705.56 54% 8,115.42 2005

C03018 Mountain Road Rehabilitation 53,011.49 45,748.40 86% 7,263.09 2000

C03013 Pearl Place to Opal Drive Footpath Upgrade 12,825.34 7,214.15 56% 5,611.19 1973

C03053 Hiern Street Resealing - 0 to 567 113,932.42 108,461.45 95% 5,470.97 1987

C03061 Krauses Road Resheeting - 10 to 2570 12,533.72 8,522.93 68% 4,010.79 1950

C03011 Redwood Road to Willow Avenue Lane Upgrade 6,813.36 3,321.77 49% 3,491.59 1979

C03033 Kaoota Road Drainage Upgrade 17,150.62 13,766.28 80% 3,384.34 1950

C00572 Channel Hwy/Cartright Res SW Upgrade 7,265.06 4,431.64 61% 2,833.42 1957

C03083 Huon Road Culvert Repair (vic 1122) 3,747.97 1,986.40 53% 1,761.57 1965

C03029 Besters & Clarks Road Stormwater Upgrade 5,335.62 3,628.22 68% 1,707.40 1950

C03145 Gumpits Road - resheeting 118,271.19 116,943.79 99% 1,327.40 1950

C02102 Margate Espl Rd Stabilisation 1,425.65 128.30 9% 1,297.35 2009

C03060 McKenzies Road Resheeting - 27 to 2011 34,446.67 33,426.63 97% 1,020.04 2009

C03028 Moodys Road Stormwater Upgrade 2,039.42 1,386.81 68% 652.61 1966

C03025 Aberys Road (Vic 7) Stormwater Upgrade 2,036.65 1,384.92 68% 651.73 1950

4,203,060.99 2,886,260.89 69% 1,036,378.01


4 Asset Management System

1 How much did Council’s new asset management system cost and when was this implemented?

2 Is this new system expected to improve accuracy in the estimation and recording of the written down value of assets beyond 2018-19?

3 How will Council’s asset management system be used to ensure asset write downs are accurately accounted for over the period of the recently adopted Long Term Financial Plan?

4 Is the estimation of written down values included as a standard process as part of the capital expenditure budget process?


1 The Asset Management System (AMS) has largely been implemented, there is some more work still to be undertaken on integration to the financial part of the system and work orders but this is underway. The system was purchased as part of the replacement of the financial system as well but an estimation of the apportioned costs to the assets aspect is $135K, which includes implementation costs.

2 The estimation of the written down value (WDV) is important for assets that may be affected by proposed projects that are submitted for capital improvements. Although, the scope of a project may change slightly from scoping and budgeting to full detailed design and construction it is possible to provide a good indication of what the likely effect on the WDV may be for any replacement/renewal projects. This is something that has been checked for capital projects in next year’s budget and this will continue for future budgets. This is not a process related directly to the AMS but rather a double check using data from the AMS to ensure the selected projects take the WDV into account.

3 The AMS has, as do most similar systems, a financial accounting module that accounts for all financial changes to assets.

4 Yes this is now part of the standard practice as mentioned above.

David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services Cr Bastone submitted the following questions on notice: 5 Parking Policy

Can we relook at our parking policy and length of time for parking at Blackmans Bay shopping centre? I have been approached by both the dentist and the doctor as occasionally their patients are forced to stay longer than the 1 hour limit (if it is a complicated appointment or appointments are running late) Recently a patient at the doctors received a parking ticket (over staying by 15 minutes) while she was receiving a cancer diagnosis and discussions on treatment. Despite both she and the doctor applying for consideration in waving the fine she was refused. She just doesn’t feel up to continuing to fight the fine. How can we remedy this situation?


The Blackmans Bay Shopping Centre (Bayview Market) time restrictions and periods of parking are determined by the land owner. Council Officers have previously brought community concerns of this nature to the attention of the land owner.


Applications to withdraw traffic infringement notices are assessed against the provisions of the Road Rules 2009 and pertinent Council policies. On review this traffic infringement notice has been withdrawn.

Scott Basham - Acting Executive Manager Governance & Community Services

6 Grant for Alonnah Hall

There was a grant awarded to the Alonnah Hall of $150,000 last year.

1 Who actually applied for the grant?

2 As the Hall is Council property is the money held by the Council while work is done? If not, who holds the money?

3 Do we know who has jurisdiction over the money and who are they accountable to?

4 Are all groups who used the Hall able to have input into the use of the money?

5 Do we know how much money has been spent to date, on what and by whom?


1 Mr Fagan and Mr Adams (Alonnah Hall committee members), applied for the grant.

2 Yes, Council is holding the money.

3 Council has jurisdiction over the money and will work with the hall committee concerning the impletion of any projects.

4 The only other stake holder is the Bruny Island community Library. It is expected that the library and the Hall Committee will liaise concerning any implementation.

5 The following expenditure has occurred:

$15k spent of moveable walls for the Bruny 18 (committee);

$23k on acoustic panels (committee); and

$5k to Mrs Caroline Rannersberger (Alonnah Hall committee member) for consultation with the community and project management.

Michelle Allen – Liaison Officer Governance & Property

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

The following Notice of Motion was submitted by Cr Atkinson :

Gun Control MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED That Council: 1 Writes to the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier affirming the council’s position for

strong gun control laws, 2. Writes to the leaders of national and state political parties urging them to stand firm against

efforts to weaken gun control laws and to reject any donations from the gun lobby, and 3. Moves at the July 2019 Local Government Association (LGAT) General Meeting that LGAT

lobby the State Government to ensure any amendments to the Tasmanian Firearms Act 1996 and associated regulations further align Tasmanian law with the National Firearms Agreement.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley

Background Gun control laws have been discussed recently, not only because of the tragedy in New Zealand and the documentary about the US National Rifle Association and their connections to One Nation, but also around the March 2018 Tasmanian election when it was revealed that the state government was considering making changes to the Tasmanian Fireams Act. Some of these proposed changes would have moved the Tasmanian legislation further away from the National Firearms Agreement that came into place following the murders at Port Arthur in 1996. Access to firearms is of primary concern to local government. The Local Government Act 1993 lists as the first function of a council ‘to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community’. Any weakening of gun control laws would compromise community safety. The Australian National Firearms Agreement has clearly reduced the incidence of gun violence in Australia and increased community safety. It is acknowledged that there are sectors of the community who have a reasonable expectation to have access to a limited range of guns, and this is taken into account in current legislation. Gun control in Tasmanian is under the jurisdiction of the State Government. As council has no direct legislative role in this area, it is through lobbying of state and federal political parties that we can ensure that community safety is not compromised by weakening firearm control legislation. As well as ensuring a ‘safe, active and healthy community’ (1.3), Kingborough Council’s Strategic Plan 2015-2025 states that Council shall ‘maintain an active involvement at regional and state government levels in order to influence further decisions’ (5.2.1). It is entirely within the agreed role of council to lobby other levels of government to achieve our goals. The Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) is the peak body of local government in Tasmania and it is often the body approached by other level of government when they consult with


local government. To amplify our position on gun control it is appropriate to seek to work through LGAT to ensure that gun control laws in Tasmania or not weakened and that we strive to conform to the National Firearms Agreement. Officer’s Response: Council decision required.

Gary Arnold - General Manager

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 ADJOURNS


PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION Planning Authority commenced at

OFFICERS REPORTS TO PLANNING AUTHORITY

FILE NO 17.170

DATE 26 MARCH 2019

OFFICER TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 13 MARCH 2019 TO 26 MARCH 2019

The following are matters that have received delegated approval from the Manager – Development Services for the period 13 March 2019 to 26 March 2019.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT/USE

DA-2019-75 Duerinckx Enterprises P/L 1699 Channel Highway MARGATE

Signage

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY DEVELOPMENT/USE

DA-2018-61 Ms E L Duffy Lot 2 Roberts Road KAOOTA

Dwelling and outbuilding (shed)

DA-2018-302 Jaws Architects 34 Roberts Point Court NORTH BRUNY

Dwelling


Dwelling


Dwelling


Dwelling


Dwelling

DA-2018-544 Wilson Homes Tasmania P/L 8 Turquoise Way KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2018-575 Maveric Builders P/L 13 Swift Place KINGSTON

Two multiple dwellings (one existing)


DA-2018-610 Mr M E Way 33 Daly Road SANDFLY

Dwelling and extension to outbuilding (shed)

DA-2018-668 Mr K A Nugent 223 Nebraska Road DENNES POINT

Extension to dwelling

DA-2019-8 Ronald Young & Co Builders P/L 6 Dolphin Drive KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2019-9 Telstra Corporation Lot 1 Jindabyne Road KINGSTON BEACH

Telecommunications facility

DA-2019-10 Mr J Smith & Ms A Webb 3 Perch Court KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2019-16 Mr E Cutlan & Ms J Stones 2958 Channel Highway KETTERING

Dwelling and outbuilding (shed)

DA-2019-32 P & J Sheds 47 Diamond Drive BLACKMANS BAY

Outbuilding (carport and entertainment area)

DA-2019-35 Mr S Walton & Mrs K Walton 18 King View Court KINGSTON

Outbuilding (shed)

DA-2019-41 P & J Sheds Unit 1/16 Wells Parade BLACKMANS BAY

Outbuilding (carport)

DA-2019-43 Smeekes Drafting P/L 73 Suncoast Drive BLACKMANS BAY

Partial demolition, alterations and extensions to dwelling

DA-2019-47 Mr K A Paul 18 Guthrie Street KINGSTON

Dwelling

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

STG-2018-1/A Mr R A Wilkins 7-9 Maranoa Road KINGSTON

Variation to staged development scheme – minor amendment to boundary on master plan

STR-2018-24 Terrace Strata Management Unit 1 & 2, 171 Roslyn Avenue BLACKMANS BAY

Amend common ground – common property to be attached to each lot

DAS-2018-34 Brooks, Lark & Carrick Surveyors 14 Hutchins Street KINGSTON

Subdivision of one additional lot

DAS-2019-3 Peter Binny Surveys 15 Oxleys Road KETTERING

Boundary adjustment


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT

DA-2012-85 Mr M D Nichols 41 Wells Parade BLACKMANS BAY

Three units (one existing) – amendment to floor levels, deck area, cladding, added door and minimum setbacks

DAS-2018-23 G Bull 33 Hillview Drive MARGATE

Subdivision of one lot and balance – amendment to alter access strip and create shared driveway

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR NO PERMIT REQUIRED

DA-2019-59 Maveric Builders P/L 17 Perch Court KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2019-61 Wilson Homes Tasmania P/L 61 Apolline Drive KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2019-68 Mr A C Hofman 15 Perch Court KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2019-71 Mr B Schollum & Mrs T Schollum 12 Reeves Crescent KINGSTON

Dwelling

DA-2019-98 Mr D Cantwell 4 Kelp Street KINGSTON

Extension to dwelling

RECOMMENDATION MOVED SECONDED That the report be noted.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


FILE NO DAS-2014-30

DATE 29 MARCH 2019

OFFICER MELISSA STEVENSON – COORDINATOR STATUTORY PLANNING

ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PLANNING PERMIT – DAS-2014-30 – SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT AND BALANCE AT 1 GOLDEN GROVE DRIVE, BLACKMANS BAY FOR LARK & CREESE

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider a request to extend a planning permit in accordance with section 53(5B) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act).

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 An application for a planning permit for the subdivision of one lot and balance at 1 Golden Grove Drive, Blackmans Bay was submitted to Council in September 2014 (DAS-2014-30). The application was assessed under section 58 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and as such was not advertised for public comment. The development was approved and a permit issued under Delegated Authority on 15 October 2014.

2.2 At the time the original permit was granted, the subject land was zoned Residential under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 (KPS2000) and the proposal was compliant with the subdivision provisions of this Scheme.

2.3 The subject land is now zoned Low Density Residential (Area B) under the current Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (KIPS2015) (the scheme under which the extension of time to the permit is being sought). A portion of the site is also subject to the Scenic Landscapes Code (Code E14.0).

2.4 The Permit was previously extended for a period of two (2) years in accordance with section 53(5) of the Act on 10 March 2017 and the Permit expired on 15 October 2018.

3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Section 53(5) of the Act provides that “if a use or development in respect of which a permit was granted is not substantially commenced, the permit lapses –

(a) at the end of a period of 2 years from –

(i) the date on which the permit was granted; or

(ii) if an appeal has been instituted against the planning authority's decision to grant the permit, the date of the determination or abandonment of the appeal; or

(b) if the planning authority has granted an extension under subsection (5A), at the end of a further period of 2 years from the end of the relevant period referred to in paragraph (a); or

(c) if the planning authority has granted a further extension under subsection (5B), at the end of a further period of 2 years from the end of the further period of 2 years for which the permit was extended under subsection (5A).

https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-070#GS53@Gs5A@EN

https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-070#GS53@Gs5@Hpa@EN

https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-070#GS53@Gs5B@EN



3.2 Section 53(5A) of the Act states:

“If the use or development in respect of which a permit was granted is not, or is unlikely to be, substantially commenced before the permit would otherwise lapse under subsection (5)(a), the planning authority may grant (once only) a further extension of the period during which that use or development must be substantially commenced.”

3.3 Section 53(5B) of the Act provides that:

“If the use or development in respect of which a permit was granted is not, or is unlikely to be, substantially commenced before the permit would otherwise lapse under subsection (5)(b) , the planning authority may grant (once only) a further extension of the period during which that use or development must be substantially commenced.”

3.4 Section 53(5C) of the Act provides that:

“An application may be made under subsection (5A) or (5B), for an extension of a period during which a use or development in respect of which a permit was granted must be substantially commenced, at any time before the end of the period of 6 months from the day on which the permit has lapsed and, if the extension is granted, the permit is to be taken to not have lapsed on that day.”

3.5 The Planning Permit for DAS-2014-30 was issued on 15 October 2014. On 12 September 2016 a request to extend the Permit was submitted to Council. On 10 March 2017 the extension was approved under delegated authority in accordance with section 53(5A) with the Permit therefore due to lapse on 15 October 2018. In accordance with section 53(5C), an application under section 53(5B) for a further extension of the Permit may be made up until 15 April 2019. The current application was submitted to Council on 11 September 2018. The application has therefore been made within the relevant time period.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 The subdivision application for one lot and balance was approved by Council under Delegated Authority in accordance with the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000.

4.2 On 1 July 2015 the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 came into effect. The subject land is zoned Low Density Residential (Area B) with a Scenic Landscapes overlay under the KIPS2015 (see Plate 1 below).

Plate 1 – Map showing subject land, zoning and overlays under Kingborough Interim Planning

Scheme 2015

https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-070#GS53@Gs5@Hpb@EN


https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1993-070#GS53@Gs5B@EN


4.3 Under the Acceptable Solution of Clause 12.5.1(A1) the standard for subdivision in the Low Density Residential (Area B) zone is a minimum lot size of 5000m2 and there is no associated Performance Criteria. The approved subdivision is to create two lots with areas of 1550m2 (Lot 1) and 1000m2 (Lot 2).

4.4 The total area of the subject land is 2550m2 which is under the current minimum lot size for the Low Density Residential (Area B) zone. Accordingly, the subdivision proposed in DAS-2014-30 would be prohibited under the provisions of the KIPS2015.

4.5 The legislation does not set any parameters for Council when determining whether to approve an extension to a planning permit, however the section of the Act says that Council “may” grant the extension. Council therefore has the discretion to approve or refuse the requested extension. Officers have sought advice from Council's legal adviser, Mr Don Armstrong, as to whether a change in planning scheme would be a relevant matter to consider when determining such a request. The following advice was provided by Mr Armstrong:

“Extensions of time are discretionary and the Council must take into account all relevant circumstances.

A very relevant matter is a change of law such that what is proposed is now prohibited.

I cannot think of a better reason to refuse an extension of time, although other factors such as whether the applicant has done anything significant towards implementing the permit should also be taken into account.”

4.6 No information was submitted with the application for the extension of time detailing what work (if any) has occurred to date. There is nothing within Council’s records which indicates that any works have commenced. Council has already granted one extension of time for this development, so in effect the developer has had four (4) years to commence the subdivision works. As the proposal would now be prohibited under the KIPS2015, it is recommended that a further extension of time not be granted as the proposal is not consistent with Council’s current planning scheme and strategic direction.

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 The approved subdivision was consistent with the KPS2000 when it was approved in 2014. However, since the approval of the subdivision, a new planning scheme has come into effect. Under the KIPS2015, the proposed subdivision would now be prohibited.

5.2 The subdivision is no longer consistent with Council's strategic direction for this part of Blackmans Bay as indicated by the current land zoning within the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The developer has had four (4) years to act on the permit that was issued, and it is not considered appropriate to grant a further extension to the permit as it is contrary to the provisions of the current planning scheme.

6 RECOMMENDATION MOVED SECONDED That the request for a further extension to the Planning Permit issued for DAS-2014-30 – subdivision of one lot and balance at 1 Golden Grove Drive, Blackmans Bay under section 53(5B) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 be refused on the basis that it is


not consistent with the current subdivision standards of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and that the developer has had four (4) years to act on the Permit.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


Attachment: (1) Approved Subdivision Plan for DAS-2014-30


FILE NO PSA-2018-4

DATE 8 APRIL 2019

OFFICER DUSTIN MOORE – STRATEGIC PLANNER

ENDORSED BY TASHA TYLER-MOORE – MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

PSA-2018-4 – PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT REQUEST – KINGBOROUGH INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 – REZONING OF COMMUNITY PURPOSE ZONE TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ZONE AND INTRODUCE A SITE SPECIFIC QUALIFICATION FOR THE LAND AT 31 & 41 NUBEENA CRESCENT, TAROONA

Application Number: PSA-2018-4

Applicant: Ireneinc Planning and Urban Design

Owner: University of Tasmania

Proposal in brief: The proposed amendment seeks to:

rezone a portion of the site from Community Purpose Zone to Environmental Management Zone.

correct errors to title references in existing site specific qualifications

introduce local area objectives to the Community Purpose Zone

introduce an additional discretionary use to the Community Purpose Zone.

No. of Representations: This report is pre-public exhibition, and therefore the proposed amendment has not been advertised yet. Draft amendments are advertised for a minimum period of 28 days for public comment following initiation by the Planning Authority.

Recommendation: Initiate and certify the proposed amendment in accordance with section 11 of this report.

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the application made for a planning scheme amendment at 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona (see Figure 1).

1.2 The proposal is an application to amend the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (KIPS 2015) in accordance with section 33(1) of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). The application is made by Ireneinc Planning and Urban Design on behalf of the University of Tasmania, and is accompanied by a planning submission in support of the proposal.


Figure 1: Land affected by this planning scheme amendment (subject land boundary in yellow)

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 This report considers a proposed amendment to KIPS 2015 for the land at 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent.

2.2 The assessment takes into account the following matters:

the ability of the subject land to facilitate development to a standard required by KIPS 2015;

environmental and landscape values;

strategic justification for the rezoning;

consistency with the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy;

consistency with the Kingborough Land Use Strategy;

consistency with the Kingborough Council Strategic Plan 2015-2025; and

compliance with the requirements of the former provisions of LUPAA.

2.3 Listed above are the core issues assessed in order to determine whether the proposed amendment is strategically justified.

2.4 The following comprehensive assessment of the relevant strategic matters provides sufficient evidence on which to base a decision on whether to initiate and certify the


amendment as suitable for public exhibition. As a result of the assessment, it is considered there is sufficient strategic justification for the proposed amendment.

The proposal

2.5 The application to amend KIPS 2015 seeks to:

rezone a portion of land at 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent from Community Purpose Zone to Environmental Management Zone (see Figure 2);

correct errors to title references in existing site specific qualifications;

introduce local area objectives to the Community Purpose Zone; and

introduce an additional discretionary use to the Community Purpose Zone.

Figure 2: Proposed rezoning – blue circle shows land proposed to be zoned to Environmental Management (boundary of zone to match survey plan)


Site details

2.6 The subject land is a private landholding located in Taroona at Crayfish Point. The land comprises two land titles as follows:

Address Certificate of Title

31 Nubeena Crescent CT 171435/2

41 Nubeena Crescent CT 175969/1

2.7 The site area is approximately 5.55 hectares, and is irregularly shaped. The site has a frontage to Nubeena Crescent to the north. The strip of land owned by Crown Land Services separates the site from the Derwent River to the south and east.

2.8 The lot at 31 Nubeena Crescent has previously been used by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) for its endangered species programs, principally Orange Bellied Parrots (OBP) and Tasmanian Devils. The parrots are currently still on site, but will be removed after the current breeding season in April 2019. This land has also been used by DPIPWE’s Marine Conservation Branch, mainly for storage of boats and other equipment. The lot relies on vehicular access across the neighbouring parcel of land. The University has reached an agreement with the State on the purchase of this land with lease-back arrangements to 30 April 2019 allow continuation of the OBP program.

2.9 The lot at 41 Nubeena Crescent is currently used by the University for the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies and is central to their fisheries and aquaculture program, including an experimental aquaculture facility.

2.10 To assist in the continued operation of the University’s aquaculture activities the University is currently upgrading pump infrastructure that is located across Crown land for access to sea water. This land parcel includes the coastal edge of the land and is used as a foreshore walking track.

2.11 The north east corner of 41 Nubeena Crescent has previously been used by TasWater as a sewerage treatment plant, which has now been decommissioned. The University has acquired this land, with TasWater retaining the adjacent parcel, CT171411/1, for a waste water pumping station.

Location

Context

2.12 The site is located in Taroona at Crayfish Point (see Figure 3). Taroona is an established residential area, and Crayfish Point has been utilised for research purpose for a significant amount of time.


Figure 3: Site context (subject land boundary in yellow)

Surrounding development

2.13 The site is located adjacent to the Derwent River to the south and east. The area to the north and west is a mix of recreational and residential uses and development.

South And East

2.14 To the immediate south and east is the Derwent River.

2.15 An existing public walking track is located along the foreshore providing access to Taroona Beach, beginning from Melinga Place, opposite the Taroona High School to the north.

North

2.16 To the immediate north of the site is Kelvedon Park Soccer Ground.

Northwest

2.17 To the northwest of the site is Nubeena Crescent. On the other side of Nubeena Crescent is a mix of single and two-storey low density residential dwellings.

to Hobart

Kingston


West

2.18 To the west of the site is Taroona Park and Taroona Apex Park, including the Taroona Bowls & Tennis Club. Taroona Park contains a playground, skate park, a small hall for use by the Taroona Scouts Group, Taroona Community Garden and an area of remnant native vegetation managed as a bushland reserve. The Park also includes the Taroona Beach foreshore area, including a playground, recreation space, barbecue facilities and amenities building.

Existing planning controls

2.19 KIPS 2015 contains the zoning and development standards for the site.

2.20 The site is zoned Community Purpose.

2.21 KIPS 2015 does not contain any local area objectives for the Community Purpose Zone.

2.22 17.2 Use Table in Part D of KIPS 2015 specifies:

‘Research and Development’ use is discretionary at 31-47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona and is title specific.

2.23 Zoning can be seen at Figure 4.

Figure 4: Zoning map, Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (subject land in yellow)


2.24 The site is affected by the following overlays:

Bushfire-Prone Area;

Landslide Hazard Area;

Biodiversity Protection Area;

Waterway and Coastal Protection Area;

Coastal Erosion Hazard Area;

Inundation Prone Area (see Figure 5)

Figure 5: Overlays, Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (subject land boundary in yellow)

2.25 These overlays and their effect on the site are discussed further below in section 4 of this report.

Request to amend the planning scheme

2.26 In August 2018, the proponent submitted a planning scheme amendment request to Council. The application became valid in February 2019 once Crown consent and the transfer of land from Crown Land Services to the University was completed.

2.27 The request seeks to amend Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015, comprising four components:

rezone approximately 0.88 hectares of the site from Community Purpose Zone to Environmental Management Zone (NOTE: final area is subject to a final survey plan);

correct errors to title references in existing site specific qualifications;


introduce local area objectives to the Community Purpose Zone to facilitate the integration of commercial aquaculture for predominantly research purposes (i.e. a pilot scale lobster hatchery) ; and

introduce an additional discretionary use to the Community Purpose Zone to enable research and development that is inclusive of a component of commercial aquaculture.


Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

3.1 Amendments to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) came into effect on 17 December 2015. Section 3(2)(b) of Schedule 6 of LUPAA provides for a planning scheme amendment application to the planning instrument (i.e. Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (KIPS 2015)) to be considered under the former provisions of LUPAA.

3.2 Pursuant to section 33(1) of the former provisions of LUPAA, a person may request a planning authority to amend a planning scheme administered by it.

3.3 This report considers a proposed amendment request to KIPS 2015.

3.4 Pursuant to section 33(2B) of the former provisions of LUPAA, before making a decision as to whether or not to initiate an amendment of the planning scheme, the planning authority must consider –

(a) whether the requested amendment is consistent with the requirements of section 32; and

(ab) any representation made under s30I, and any statements in any report under section 30J as to the merit of the representation, that may be relevant to the amendment; and

(b) any advice referred to in section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993 received by it.

3.5 The above initiation requirements for the proposed scheme amendment have been assessed and are detailed below.

4 DISCUSSION

Existing planning scheme provisions

4.1 The subject land is zoned Community Purpose under KIPS 2015.

4.2 The zone purpose statements for the Community Purpose Zone under section 17.1 of KIPS 2015 are to:

17.1.1.1 To provide for key community facilities and services where those facilities and services are not appropriate for inclusion as an associated activity within another zone.

17.1.1.2 To ensure land required for future public use is protected from inappropriate use or development.

17.1.1.3 To encourage multi-purpose, flexible and adaptable social infrastructure to respond to changing and emerging community needs.


4.3 There are no Local Area Objectives or Desired Future Character Statements for the Community Purpose Zone. There is however an additional discretionary use specified for the subject land which allows for Research and Development uses.

Proposal

4.4 The proposal seeks to rezone a portion of the land at 31 & 41 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona from Community Purpose Zone to Environmental Management Zone (see Figure 6). This rezoning ensures the portion of the site containing significant biodiversity values is not subject to the additional discretionary use qualifications and the remnant native vegetation will be retained into the future. The land that is proposed to be zoned Environmental Management Zone is intended to be gifted to Kingborough Council and the Taroona community. The University, the community and the Council recognise the significant environmental values of the land, particularly as potential habitat for the endangered Swift Parrot. The land also abuts other Council managed open space. Council agreed to accept the transfer of this land at its meeting dated 25 March 2019. A subdivision application will be lodged in the near future to facilitate this transfer.

Figure 6: Proposed change to zone map in KIPS 2015

4.5 The proposal also seeks to overcome anomalies within KIPS 2015, recognise existing

activities on the site, to facilitate the future development of a fully self-enclosed, pilot scale lobster hatchery on the site. This is to occur through :

correcting errors to title references in existing site specific qualifications;

introducing local area objectives to the Community Purpose Zone; and

introducing an additional discretionary use to the Community Purpose Zone.

4.6 To correct errors in KIPS 2015, a map is proposed to be inserted in the Community Purpose Zone to clarify the extent of the area in which the existing discretionary use is applicable (see Figure 7). This will correct the errors in that KIPS 2015 will reference the figure/map in 17.2 Use Table rather than the incorrect title references (see Table 1).


Figure 7: specific extent of discretionary uses at Nubeena Crescent (figure x)

Table 1: Proposed changes to 17.2 Use Table – Community Purpose Zone (NOTE: Text that is struckthrough is proposed to be deleted and text that is underlined is proposed as new.)

Discretionary Use

Use Class Qualification

Research and Development Only if at 31-47 Nubeena Crescent, Taroona, (folios of the Register volume 111935 folio 1, volume 203333 folio 1 and volume 171411 folio 2)

Only if within area shown in figure x

Resource Development Only if within area shown in figure x, and only for aquaculture where integral to research and development.

4.7 In order to facilitate the integration of commercial research at a pilot scale, as stated in the planning submission by Ireneinc, the amendment proposes to include Local Area Objectives for Nubeena Crescent (see Table 2), insert an additional discretionary use in 17.2 Use Table (see Table 1) and modify and add to 17.3.5 Discretionary Use (see Table 3).


Table 2: Proposed Local Area Objectives for the Community Purpose Zone (NOTE: Text that is underlined is proposed as new.)

17.1.2 Local Area Objectives

Local Area Objectives Implementation Strategy

NUBEENA CRESCENT (as shown in figure x)

(a) The local area objectives for Nubeena Crescent are to protect public land intended for community use.

Development is to:

a) to recognise the existing use of the land as a tertiary education and research facility;

b) to facilitate the integration of commercial and research uses which are reliant on the coastal location;

c) to recognise and provide for emerging commercial use or development integral to research undertaken in the area; and

d) to protect neighbouring land from unreasonable loss of residential amenity.

Table 3: Proposed changes to 17.3.5 Discretionary Use (NOTE: Text that is underlined is proposed as new.)

17.3.5 Discretionary Use

Objective:

To avoid the commercialisation and privatisation of public land intended for community use.

Acceptable Solutions Performance Criteria

A1

No Acceptable Solution

P1

Discretionary use, except if located within figure x, must complement and enhance the use of the land for community purposes by providing for facilities and services that augment and support Permitted use or No Permit Required use.

A2

No Acceptable Solution

P2

Discretionary use, if located within figure x, is to be in accordance with 17.1.2.1 Local Area Objectives, and if for Resource Development use, must not cause unreasonable impacts on amenity of residential land use within 100m of the site boundary with regard to:

(i) noise and odour;

(ii) operational characteristics of the activity;

(iii) scale and intensity of the activity; and

(iv) measures to eliminate, mitigate or manage impacts.


4.8 The following describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment.

Consideration of environmental impacts

Codes

4.9 The relevant codes which affect the site are as follows:

E1.0 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code;

E3.0 Landslide Code;

E10.0 Biodiversity Code; and

E11.0 Waterway and Coastal Protection Code;

E15.0 Inundation Prone Areas Code; and

E16.0 Coastal Erosion Hazard Code.

Bushfire risk

4.10 The subject land is considered bushfire-prone, and therefore the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code applies.

4.11 As discussed above, the University intends to gift a part of the subject site with high biodiversity values to Council. In order to complete the transfer, the University will need to lodge a subdivision application to separate the lower section for transfer to Council, at the University’s cost. This subdivision application will require a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) as required by KIPS 2015.

4.12 This BHMP will consider the bushfire risk of this section of land proposed to be transferred to Council to the existing and future development of the balance land.

4.13 Initial assessments suggest that no formal hazard management measures will be required as a result of the subdivision.

4.14 It is therefore considered that the proposed amendment to KIPS 2015 does not increase the risk from the bushfire-prone area.

Landslide risk

4.15 Much of the subject site is within a low landslide hazard area. Research and Development is considered to be a hazardous use if a dangerous substance is used on the site.

4.16 Use associated with Education and Occasional Care would be considered Vulnerable Use and would be required to be assessed against the Use Standards under KIPS 2015. Any vulnerable use may require a Landslide Hazard Assessment in order to determine the risks to users on the site.

4.17 The Use Standards under E3.0 Landslide Code relate to Vulnerable and Hazardous use. Any new Education and Occasional Care use within a Landslide Hazard Area would be required to be assessed against the provisions of the code. In addition to this, the development standards under the code would need to be addressed for any new buildings or works, including minor extensions and major works.


4.18 The subject land does not contain any medium or high risk landslide areas. However, depending on the future works or development proposed, compliance may need to be demonstrated during a Development Application process.

4.19 It is considered that the proposed amendment does not increase the landslide hazard to existing or future users of the site. Additionally, under the future Tasmanian Planning Scheme, a Landslide Hazard Report will be required as the Use Standards and Development Standards under C15.0 Landslip Hazard Code of the State Planning Provisions do not provide for any acceptable solutions.

Environmental values

4.20 The conservation values of the land proposed to be rezoned to Environmental Management are significant both at a Tasmanian and national level. The land contains a patch of dry Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus) dominated forest on the main slope. There is also an area of woodland at the base of the slope where the trees thin out and grassland and weeds dominate. The forest is generally open in nature with a native grass understorey. The site also contains Black Gum (Eucalyptus ovata) and White Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis). The forest is in generally good condition with good evidence of recruitment, structure and diversity.

4.21 Blue Gum, and to a less extent Black Gum, are key foraging resources for the critically endangered Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor), which utilises the coastal forests and hills of Taroona for foraging. The site has a mix of large foraging trees and potential nesting habitat in the older hollow-bearing trees. Five locations for the Swift Parrot are known within the land. Therefore, this vegetation is classified as significant habitat for the Swift Parrot, giving the vegetation a high priority biodiversity value under KIPS 2015.

4.22 ‘Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland’ is listed as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. This forest type is also considered as having a high priority biodiversity value under KIPS 2015. The patch of forest is contiguous with a larger area of Blue Gum forest to the west in Taroona Park, adding to its conservation significance.

4.23 A recent ecological assessment of the site (Wapstra 2018) found that no plant species were detected which are listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) nor the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.

4.24 Wapstra (2018) also states that the Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Perameles gunnii), listed as vulnerable under EPBCA, has been anecdotally reported on the site, and potential habitat is present.

4.25 The forest has been disturbed by human activities through time and as a result has a range of declared and environmental weed species through the understorey. The weeds form a fairly consistent low cover from the top of the slope, through the bushland and down to the coastal track. The weeds include exotic grasses, blackberry, briar rose, boneseed, mirror bush, cotoneaster and wild carrot. Volunteers from the Taroona Environmental Network have worked to control the weeds over the last decade. In the past, the lower slopes have been periodically slashed. Whilst the species of weeds present have the ability to dominate bushland, in this case they are frequent and widespread, but are not dominating the native species.

4.26 Reflecting on the above, it is considered that the proposed amendment to rezone this portion of the site from Community Purpose to Environmental Management and exclude it from the additional discretionary uses will contribute to the protection of the threatened ‘Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland’ and significant habitat for the Swift Parrot.


Coastal Management

4.27 The foreshore surrounding the site is within the Waterway and Coastal Protection area, and is class 1. Therefore, a buffer zone of 40m from the foreshore is in place. Any development within the Waterway and Coastal Protection Area would be subject to the code unless the development does not involve the clearing of vegetation or soil disturbance.

4.28 It is considered that the proposed amendments do not increase the risk to sustainable waterway and/or coastal management.

Inundation Risks

4.29 A small portion of 41 Nubeena Crescent (CT 175969/1) is located within a coastal inundation hazard area, which runs along the entire length of the coastal edge. This area is identified as a low hazard area.

4.30 Any future development application would require assessment against the development standards for development dependent on a coastal location and development in coastal inundation low hazard areas.

4.31 It is considered that the proposed amendment does not increase the coastal inundation hazard to existing or future users of the site.

Coastal Erosion Risks

4.32 A small portion of 41 Nubeena Crescent (CT 175969/1) is located within a coastal erosion hazard area, which runs along the entire length of the coastal edge. This area is identified as a low hazard area.

4.33 Any future development application would require assessment against the development standards for development dependent on a coastal location and development in coastal erosion low hazard areas.

4.34 It is considered that the proposed amendment does not increase the coastal erosion hazard to existing or future users of the site.

Strategic alignment – Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy

4.35 The Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy (STRLUS) has been implemented to provide guidance and direction for future development and use in the southern region. Section 30O of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that a proposed amendment must be consistent with the STRLUS.

4.36 The STRLUS contains a number of regional policies that are in place to support strategic directions for the southern region. The following strategic directions are considered the most relevant to the proposed amendment.

SD5 - Supporting our Productive Resources

Supporting productive industries through appropriate land use planning responses is important for maintaining the vitality of these individual communities as well as protecting those landscape characteristics, which make Southern Tasmania an attractive place to live and visit.

SD9 - Making the Region Nationally and Internationally Competitive

Ensuring that Southern Tasmania remains competitive for national and international investment is a significant element in strengthening our long term economic health and increasing gross regional product.


4.37 In the explanations for these strategic directions aquaculture is recognised as a key contributor to Tasmania’s primary production resources. Furthermore, building on marine research in key locations is identified in assisting regional, national, and international competitiveness.

4.38 The STRLUS identifies the following as key economic opportunities:

A place of research excellence and learning – The region is host to a number of world class research institutions and tertiary education facilities. It is also Australia’s base for Antarctic exploration and research. These provide significant economic benefits to the region with opportunities to capitalise upon existing facilities through the construction of key research institutes including the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Science (IMAS), redevelopment of Domain House and the expansion of the Menzies Research Centre.

4.39 Further to this is recognition of Tasmania as the ‘Antarctic and Southern Ocean Gateway’:

SEO 1 Support and protect strategic economic opportunities for Southern Tasmania.

4.40 While not identified as a key site within the STRLUS the land at Nubeena is critical to the University as it is located with access to the coastal edge and within an urban environment, integrated with existing substantial investment into research infrastructure.

4.41 The STRLUS provides the following discussion regarding the importance of aquaculture and the need to protect areas that provide opportunities for shore-based facilities:

While marine farming falls outside the land use planning system in a similar fashion to forestry activities, associated shore-based facilities, do not. Ports and other key marine facilities for both the farmed and wild fisheries must be identified and protected, taking into account future needs. In addition the planning system needs to ensure that appropriate coastal locations for such facilities are identified and protected from inappropriate use and development and land use conflict.

4.42 It is noted that the University would like to enable the expansion of innovative aquaculture facilities, in conjunction with related research, development and education undertaken by IMAS. The activities at the hatchery would be an integration of industry and research. The STRLUS includes the following policies related specifically to industry:

PR 4 - Support the aquaculture industry.

PR 4.1 Ensure appropriately zoned land on the coast is provided in strategic locations, and in accordance with The Coast Regional Polices, for shore based aquaculture facilities necessary to support marine farming.

PR 4.2 Identify key marine farming areas within planning scheme to assist in reducing potential land use conflicts from an increasingly industrialised industry.

4.43 The proposed amendment would facilitate an integration of research and development policies and productive resources. A future lobster hatchery, as suggested by the applicant and the landowner, has the potential to deliver the one the world’s first commercial rock lobster hatchery, while being dependent on ongoing research to be viable.


Strategic Alignment – Kingborough Land Use Strategy

4.44 The Kingborough Land Use Strategy (KLUS) has been prepared to examine the local needs and direction in more detail than the STRLUS is able to provide. In particular, KLUS identifies several land uses which land use planning can help ameliorate at the local level, these are discussed in relation to the proposed amendment below.

Proposed Rezoning

4.45 The proposed rezoning of a portion of the site from Community Purpose Zone to Environmental Management Zone will assist in satisfying regional policies in the STRLUS, notably managing and protecting significant vegetation by ensuring zones that provide for intensive use or development are not applied to areas that retain biodiversity values that are to be recognised and protected by Planning Schemes (BNV1.1). The proposed rezoning also addresses issues identified within KLUS, specifically in relation to environmental values, coastal management and community and cultural values.

4.46 As discussed in the sections above, the University intends to gift a part of the subject site with high biodiversity values to Council and Council agreed to accept the transfer of this land at its meeting dated 25 March 2019. A subdivision application will be lodged in the near future to facilitate this transfer. This land is the land which is proposed to be rezoned to Environmental Management.

4.47 The zone purpose statements for the Environmental Management Zone under section 29.1 of KIPS 2015 are to:

29.1.1.1 To provide for the protection, conservation and management of areas with significant ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic value, or with a significant likelihood of risk from a natural hazard.

29.1.1.2 To only allow for complementary use or development where consistent with any strategies for protection and management.

29.1.1.3 To facilitate passive recreational opportunities which are consistent with the protection of natural values in bushland and foreshore areas.

29.1.1.4 To recognise and protect highly significant natural values on private land.

29.1.1.5 To protect natural values in un-developed areas of the coast.

4.48 The proposed rezoning is consistent with the zone purpose and will protect the local area’s natural setting, both environmental significance and coastal processes, from inappropriate development and increase local open space and recreational linkages.

Correction of errors, introduction of Local Area Objectives, introduction of additional discretionary use

4.49 While KLUS discusses industrial development, it does not specifically relate to this amendment in that the issues of industrial development focuses on ensuring there is sufficient industrial land zoned within the municipality.

4.50 The proposed amendment does however still relate to future economic opportunities. It is noted that the University would like to enable the expansion of innovative aquaculture facilities, in conjunction with related research, development and education undertaken by IMAS.

4.51 The correction of the site specific qualifications within KIPS 2015, the recognition of existing activities on the site, and the proposed additional discretionary use will facilitate the future development of a niche industry. The integration of industry and


research provides the rationale for the additional discretionary use as proposed by the amendment.

Strategic alignment – Kingborough Council Strategic Plan 2015-2025

4.52 The Kingborough Council Strategic Plan 2015-2025 (the Strategic Plan) includes a number of Strategic Outcomes that are listed under six Key Priority Areas. The Key Priority Area relevant to this proposed amendment is:

4.0 Key Priority Area A vibrant local economy.

4.53 Of particular relevance is Strategic Outcome 4.1 which includes the below strategy.

Key Priority Area 4.0 A vibrant local economy

Strategic Outcome 4.1 A dynamic and prosperous economy that is attractive for business investment.

Strategy 4.1.2 Encourage and support the establishment of creative and innovative businesses and industries.

4.54 The assessment of the proposed amendment against the STRLUS provides similar justification to how the proposed amendment assists in achieving strategy 4.1.2 from the Strategic Plan.

4.55 The existing and anticipated uses of the subject land are recognised as creative, innovative and important for education and business development within the municipality and the region.

4.56 It is therefore considered that the proposed amendment is aligned with the Strategic Plan.

5 STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

Section 32 of LUPAA

5.1 Pursuant to section 32(1) of the former provisions of LUPAA, a draft amendment of a planning scheme, and an amendment of a planning scheme, in the opinion of the relevant decision-maker within the meaning of section 20(2A) -

(a) ……..

(b) ……..

(c) ……..

(d) ……..

(e) must, as far as practicable, avoid the potential for land use conflicts with use and development permissible under the planning scheme applying to the adjacent area; and

(ea) must not conflict with the requirements of section 30O; and

(f) must have regard to the impact the use and development permissible under the amendment will have on the use and development of the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms.

5.2 The proposed amendment is assessed against section 32(1) of the former provisions of LUPAA 1993 below.


Potential land use conflicts

5.3 Section 32(e) of the former provisions of LUPPA requires that planning scheme amendments must avoid the potential for land use conflicts in adjacent planning scheme areas.

5.4 The proposed amendment would result in an additional discretionary use within the Community Purpose Zone. This discretionary use does have the potential for use and development of aquaculture activities to conflict with surrounding residential dwellings, as identified in the Attenuation Code of the State Planning Provisions. However, the proposed amendment includes provisions, and through the introduction of Local Area Objectives, to ensure that the introduction of the Resource Development use does not impact on residential amenity. Any future proposed Resource Development use will be subject to a planning application and approval.

5.5 It is considered that the size of the land and topographical separation will be capable of providing adequate separation to mitigate any potential impacts and facilitate development into the future.

Section 30O

5.6 Section 32(ea) of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that planning scheme amendments must not conflict with the requirements of section 30O of the former provisions of LUPAA.

5.7 Section 30O of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that an amendment to an interim planning scheme is as far as practicable, consistent with the regional land use strategy.

5.8 Strategic alignment, with the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy is addressed in section 4 of this report.

5.9 It is considered that the proposed amendment is consistent with the regional land use strategy and local land use strategy, and therefore meets the requirements of section 30O of LUPAA.

Impact on the use and development of the region

5.10 Section 32(f) of the former provisions of LUPAA require that planning scheme amendments must have regard to the impact that the use and development permissible under the amendment will have on the use and development of the region as an entity in environmental, economic and social terms.

5.11 It is considered the proposed amendment will have a positive impact on use and development in the region, and therefore meets the requirements of section 32(f) of the former provisions of LUPAA. Rationale is provided in section 4 of this report.

Sections 30I and 30J of LUPAA

5.12 Section 33(2B)(ab) of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that any representations made under section 30I of the former provisions of LUPAA, and any statements in a report under section 30J of the former provisions of LUPAA as to the merit of a representation, that may be relevant to the amendment application, must be considered.

5.13 Under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 the site was zoned residential and research and development was discretionary. With the introduction of KIPS 2015 a representation was made on behalf of the University that recommended that Research and Development be added to the Permitted use classes in the Community Purpose


Zone to allow for the existing approved development on the land. In addition to this, the representation recommended adding Education and Occasional Care to the Permitted use classes in the Environmental Management Zone.

5.14 The purpose of the representation was to ensure the viability of potential future expansion of Research and Development use across the sites. This expansion was anticipated to include Education and Occasional Care, which would be ancillary to the primary use of the site. The use qualifications under the existing Community Purpose Zone would prohibit further research and development uses if not part of an educational use

5.15 As a result of that representation, Research and Development was added as a discretionary use within the Community Purpose Zone, specific to the titles contained within this site. Education and Occasional Care was also given discretionary status in the zone with the qualification including specific title reference. These titles subsequently changed, and therefore the qualifications are now obsolete and require revision.

5.16 As the intention of the previous representation is similar to the proposed amendment, it is considered that the requirements of sections 32(2B)(ab) have been satisfied.

Section 65 Local Government Act 1993

5.17 Pursuant to section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council must take into account the advice provided by a person with the necessary qualifications and experience necessary to give such advice.

5.18 This report is prepared by such persons and provides the appropriate advice and recommendations.

Objectives of Schedule 1 of LUPAA

5.19 LUPAA requires that planning scheme amendments must seek to further the objectives of Schedule 1 of the former provisions of LUPAA.

5.20 The objectives of the former provisions of LUPAA require use and development to occur in a fair, orderly and sustainable manner and for the planning process to facilitate economic development in accordance with the other Schedule 1 objectives.

5.21 The following table assesses the proposed amendment against the objectives of Schedule 1 of the former provisions of LUPAA.

Table 4: Assessment against Schedule 1 of the former provisions of LUPAA

Objectives of Schedule 1 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Part 1 Objectives

Objective Proponent response Comment

(a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity

The amendment proposed will allow an application to be made and assessed on its merits against all the relevant standards of the planning scheme and thereby provide for the sustainable development of land. It will also provide substantially greater

The objective has been satisfactorily addressed.


understanding of existing natural resources.

(b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water

The proposed amendment will correct errors within the existing planning scheme and will consolidate existing land uses within an appropriate location.


It is also noted that the proposed zoning of a portion of the site to Environmental Management provides for a sustainable use of the land, acknowledging the high environmental values of the land.

(c) to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning

University delegates have communicated with the community through the media, public meeting, and discussions with community groups. Further public involvement is available through the planning process.


(d) to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)

The proposal is aimed at facilitating economic development through education resources and productive resources integrated with existing land uses and development.


(e) to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government, the community and industry in the State

The assessment process promotes the involvement of the pubic as well as local and state government.


Part 2 Objectives

Objective Proponent response Comment

(a) to require sound strategic planning and co-ordinated action by State and Local Government

The amendment has been prepared with respect to relevant strategic outcomes of the state and local government.


(b) to establish a system of planning instruments to be the principal way of setting objectives, policies and controls for the use, development and protection of land

The proposal is seeking to amend the planning scheme standards and has been prepared with respect to the existing provisions and those of the State Planning Provisions, to achieve the strategic intents consistent with relevant objectives and policies.


(c) to ensure that the effects on the environment are considered and provide for explicit consideration of social and economic effects when decisions are made about the use and development of land

The amendment will enable the economic development of the site. There is current development on the site which is consistent with the type of development proposed.



(d) to require land use and development planning and policy to be easily integrated with environmental, social, economic, conservation and resource management policies at State, regional and municipal levels;

Not directly applicable to the proposed amendment.

Agreed.

(e) to provide for the consolidation of approvals for land use or development and related matters and to co-ordinate planning approvals with related approvals

Not directly applicable to the proposed amendment.

Agreed.

(f) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Tasmanians and visitors to Tasmania

The proposed amendment will support a pleasant, efficient and safe working environment, consistent with that existing on the site. The collaboration of research at tertiary level and industry has benefits to both sectors.


(g) to conserve those buildings, areas or other places which are scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value

The proposal intends to conserve any buildings of historic interest, and historic heritage will be considered through the development application process.


(h) to protect public infrastructure and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community

Matters related to the specific infrastructure requirements are able to be considered through the development application process.


It is also noted that the portion of land proposed to be zoned Environmental Management is intended to be gifted to Kingborough Council and the Taroona community.

(i) to provide a planning framework which fully considers land capability

The land is not considered to have any agricultural potential and land capability will not be effected by future use and development.


State Policies

5.22 The former provisions of LUPAA require that planning scheme amendments must be prepared in accordance with State Policies.

5.23 State Policies are made under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (SPPA). As specified by section 13C of SPPA, the Council is bound by State Policies and under section 13(1), if a Planning Scheme is inconsistent with a State Policy; the Planning Scheme is void to the extent of that inconsistency. The proposed amendment is assessed against the provisions of the relevant State Policies as follows:


State Coastal Policy 1996

5.24 The State Coastal Policy 1996 applies to the proposal in relation to all of the subject properties as they are located within 1km of the coast. This policy seeks to protect natural and cultural values of the coastal zone, ensure the sustainable development of coastal areas and resources and share responsibility for integrated management of coastal areas and resources. The subject sites are wholly located within 1km of the coast and accordingly assessment against this policy is required.

5.25 There are three main principles that guide Tasmania’s State Coastal Policy 1996. The following table assesses the proposed amendment against these principles.

Table 5: Assessment against State Coastal Policy 1996

Principle Proponent response Comment

Natural and cultural values of the coast shall be protected.

The proposed amendment will not result in changes to planning provisions that protect the natural and cultural values of the coast.

In agreement.

The coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner.

The use of the land depends on the coastal connection; the existing Crown reserve and biodiversity controls will minimise impacts from any future development on the coastal edge.

In agreement.

Additionally, the proposed rezoning of a portion of land from Community Purpose to Environmental Management Zone will further this principle.

Integrated management and protection of the coastal zone is a shared responsibility.

Development or use on the coastal edge would require consent from the Crown as the landowner. No changes are proposed to provisions that are in place that would protect the coastal zone as managed by the state and local government.

In agreement.

5.26 It is considered that the proposed amendment is in accordance with the State Coastal Policy 1996.

State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

5.27 There are provisions contained within specific codes under KIPS 2015 to mitigate any detrimental issues associated with wastewater disposal and the protection of water quality. The subject land is located within an area serviced by reticulated infrastructure.

5.28 The proposed amendment does not alter any provision which relates to or will have any impact on water quality. The necessary licences for the proposed water pumping area already in place.

5.29 It is considered there are sufficient provisions contained within KIPS 2015 to manage the impacts on water quality, and accordingly the proposed amendment is consistent with the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009

5.30 The existing zoning of the subject land (i.e. Community Purpose Zone) effectively acknowledges there is no agricultural potential for the site. It is therefore considered the proposed amendment does not have any implications under the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009.


National Environmental Protection Measures

5.31 There are no National Environmental Protection Measures relevant to the assessment of the draft amendment.

6 FINANCE

6.1 The planning scheme amendment itself does not have any current or future financial implications for Council. However, it is noted that the land proposed to be gifted to Council will incur costs to Council through maintenance of the land, as discussed during the Council meeting on 25 March 2019.

7 ENVIRONMENT

7.1 The environmental implications are discussed in section 4 of this report.

8 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

8.1 If Council initiates the proposed amendment, it must also certify the draft amendment in accordance with section 35 of the former provisions of LUPAA. Section 38 of the former provisions of LUPAA requires that the proposal be advertised for a period of between 3 weeks and 2 months, as determined by the planning authority.

8.2 It is proposed to publicly exhibit the planning scheme amendment for a minimum period of 28 days with notification:

(a) on the Kingborough Council website;

(b) twice in a newspaper circulating in the area, with one notice to be on a Saturday; and

(c) in writing to owners and occupiers for the property and adjoining properties.

8.3 A full package of exhibition material will be made available for viewing on the Kingborough Council website and at Customer Service at the Civic Centre in Kingston. This packages will include:

Attachment A: Planning submission: PSA-2018-3;

Attachment B: draft Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015: PSA-2018-4; and

Attachment C: Instrument of Certification: PSA-2018-4.

8.4 All attachments have been provided to Council as additional information to this report.

8.5 Council will review all submissions to the planning scheme amendment and report them to the Tasmanian Planning Commission (the Commission). The report would include the planning authority’s views on the merit of each representation, whether the amendment should be modified and the impact of the representation on the amendment as a whole.

8.6 It is noted that the University has undertaken informal consultation with the community prior to finalising the proposed amendment. A number of changes to the proposed amendment have been made in response to these communications with the community, as well as with Council staff.


9 CRITICAL DATES / TIME FRAMES

9.1 If Council supports the amendment and initiates and certifies the amendment for public exhibition, it must advise the Commission within seven days.

9.2 Post-public exhibition, Council has 35 days from the close of the notification period to forward its report to the Commission. The Commission may grant an extension of time if requested.

9.3 The Commission must complete its consideration and decision process within three months of receiving Council’s report on the representations, unless an extension of time has been agreed by the Minister.

9.4 If the Commission approves the amendment, the amendment takes effect seven days after being signed by the Commission, unless a date is specified.

10 CONCLUSION

10.1 The above assessment demonstrates that the proposed amendment meets all statutory requirements and is a logical amendment to reflect the approved development of the land and future intention of the land.

11 RECOMMENDATION MOVED SECONDED That Council resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that:

(a) Pursuant to section 34(1) (b) of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, Council resolve to initiate Amendment PSA-2018-4 to the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015;

(b) Pursuant to section 35 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, Council certify that Amendment PSA-2018-4 to the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 meets the requirements of section 32 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and authorise the General Manager to sign the Instrument of Certification;

(c) Pursuant to section 56S of the Water and Sewer Industry Act 2008, Council refers Amendment PSA-2018-4 to TasWater; and

(d) Pursuant to section 38 of the former provisions of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, Council place Amendment PSA-2018-4 to the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days following certification.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley

PLANNING AUTHORITY SESSION ADJOURNS


OPEN SESSION RESUMES Open Session of Council resumed at

OFFICERS REPORTS TO COUNCIL

FILE NO 5.477 DATE 13 MARCH 2019 OFFICER ROBERT RULE - COMMUNITY HUB COORDINATOR ENDORSED BY DANIEL SMEE - EXECUTIVE MANAGER GOVERNANCE & COMMUNITY

SERVICES

CAROLS BY CANDLELIGHT DECEMBER 2019

1 PURPOSE

Strategic Plan Reference

Key Priority Area 1.0 A safe, healthy and supportive community

Strategic Outcome 1.5 A community that celebrates its arts, culture and place

Strategy 1.5.1 Provide services and built facilities so that the community is able to participate in a diverse range of social, cultural, and recreational activities.

1.5.3 Encourage, facilitate and support community events that celebrate living in Kingborough

1.1 The purpose of this report is in response to the following decision made at the Council meeting on 29 January 2019 (Minute C79/2-19 refers):

Can council please provide a report on options for hosting a cost neutral Kingborough Carols by Candlelight event at Kingston Park in December 2019?

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Kingborough Council hasn’t traditionally run a Christmas Carols event nor provided financial or in-kind support to Christmas events run in the municipality.


3.1 Council will need to comply with all Place of Assembly requirements that relate to the operation of this building. The Hub is licensed to hold events for up to 1,000 patrons.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Attached is a list of Carols events held across greater Hobart in 2018 that were promoted on-line. Three of these were held by Kingborough churches that were free events and open to the public. They were at Kingston (14 and 15 December), Huntingfield (15 December) and Taroona (16 December). Other churches held their own Carols events for their own congregations. One commercial Carols event was run by ExitLeft in their studio at Channel Court (22 December).

4.2 It is expected that the Carols events in the Kingborough municipality that are run by churches will still be run regardless of a Council-run event. It is however important that


a date clash is avoided so that people have an alternate event option rather than a competing option.

4.3 Hobart and Clarence councils have moved away from hosting and funding one large Christmas Carols event in their area. They have instead moved to a model where they spread financial and in-kind support across numerous smaller events which are run by community organisations. These smaller events have a greater reach in terms of audience compared to the traditional large scale format Carols events that both councils used to run, and more widely reflect the diversity of the community.

4.4 The ideal location for a Carols event at Kingston Park needs to be considered:

(i) Community Hub

The Place of Assembly approval for the Community Hub site is for 1000 patrons. An audience size for the inaugural Carols event is likely to be 600-800. The public open spaces area at the northern end of Hub will be unavailable in December 2019 due to construction activity (due to playground construction). There is no capacity for the Carols event to expand out into this area. The Hub also owns limited production equipment, so this will need to be sourced externally to supplement what is available. There is suitable access to 3-phase power and toilets at the Hub. There is also suitable lighting for the safe movement of patrons and space to park food-vans around the Hub.

(ii) Open Space Site

A potentially larger audience could attend a Carols event if it is held on the existing lower grassed area, however there is no guaranteed access by December 2019 as it may be adversely affected by the construction activities surrounding it. All elements needed by the event would need to be brought in, including production equipment, generator for power, portable toilets, temporary fencing and safety lighting for the movement of patrons.

5 FINANCE

5.1 In order to pay for the event (acknowledging the Council’s desire for this to be a cost neutral event, as per Minute C79/2-19), the options are:

(a) funding raised through the charge of an admission fee; or

(b) for sufficient sponsorship to be obtained that enables free entry; or

(c) a combination of both.

5.2 However, Council-run Carols events around Australia are traditionally run as a free community event. If there is a fee such as gold coin entry, it is usually donated to a nominated charity for the event so that they can continue their work in the community, instead of used to off-set council costs. The Carols events run by the churches in Kingborough are all free admission.

5.3 The anticipated costs for hosting a Christmas Carols public event include:

(a) Production (sound, lighting, staging) a quote from GK Productions Australia for this event is $7,092, plus an additional $1,320 for staffing if the event is held on a Sunday due to penalty rates.

(b) Overtime payments for Council staff, with actual hours to be determined.

(c) Fees for the performers which will vary based on who they are.


(d) Additional infrastructure that is not already available on site (eg rubbish bins and Christmas Decorations), particularly if it is an outdoor event.

(e) Auslan Interpreters so that hearing impaired patrons can also experience a Carols event.

(f) Security Services (if/as required)

5.4 Although all of the detailed costs have not been accurately calculated, they are estimated to vary from about $10,000 (if held within the Hub) up to $50,000 (if held outdoors on an alternate site in Kingston Park).

5.5 If there is an entrance fee then this would need to be at least $20 per person if Council is to ensure the event is cost neutral at the Community Hub, based upon 500 patrons and a $10,000 event.

5.6 The cost of an entry fee could be reduced if sponsorships are obtained. A concerted effort has not been made to seek out whether local businesses would sponsor such an event. It may well be that such businesses might prefer to sponsor the existing church run events or the churches may feel that Council is taking potential sponsors away from them.

5.7 It does appear that a cost neutral Carols event may be too difficult for Council to achieve and that some funding allowance in the upcoming budget would be needed. Nevertheless further investigations are needed before this can be confirmed.

6 ENVIRONMENT

6.1 There are no environmental impacts associated with such an event.

7 COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION

7.1 The 2018 Our Say survey conducted by Council for the Hub development received multiple comments about holding a Carols event at Kingston Park (https://oursay.org/kingstonpark/your-community-hub).

8 RISK

8.1 There is a risk that the local churches will see a Council-run event as being encroaching into their “territory” and potentially reducing the attendance at their Carols events. There is also a risk of the date of a Council-run event clashing or being too close to other Carols events in Kingborough, though this should be able to be avoided.

8.2 There is a risk that more people turn up compared to what the venue is licenced for and patrons then must be turned away. This may also create a risk that the actual costs will exceed the original expectations.

8.3 Alternatively, the fact that Council would need to impose an entry fee (in order to satisfy the cost neutral criteria), might be seen by the public as a barrier to attending and less people attend than expected. There may be a public expectation that Council should have budgeted for such an event.

8.4 If there is a reliance on obtaining sponsorships, then there is a risk that there would be little interest shown (see 5.5 above).

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 The Kingborough Community Hub would be a suitable location for a Carols event in 2019. It would need to be a ticketed event enabling Council to keep track of numbers

https://oursay.org/kingstonpark/your-community-hub


and plan accordingly. It is envisaged that it would be run for about 90-120 minutes. It could also be seen to be a precursor of future events that are able to expand out on to the lawn areas alongside the Hub.

9.2 For this event to be cost neutral for Council it will need to be funded by a combination of paid entry fees and sponsorships. The practicalities of these funding sources need to be further investigated and Council’s approval, in principle, is required prior to any further investigations being carried out.

10 RECOMMENDATION MOVED SECONDED That Council proceed to plan in detail for a Christmas Carols event in December 2019 at the Kingborough Community Hub with all costs to be paid for by a combination of entry fees and sponsorships. A further report will be provided following further investigations into actual costs and potential sponsorships.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


Supporting Document 2018 Carols Services in Kingborough and Greater Hobart

Kingborough

Note: There were potentially more than four Carols events held in Kingborough in 2018, however, there were only references online to the following three events.

Friday 14 and Saturday 15 December 2018 Family Carols Time: 6.00pm Friday, 7.00pm Saturday Venue: Christian Reformed Church of Kingston Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: Christian Reformed Church of Kingston Free Admission

Saturday 15 December 2018 Carols on the Carpet Time: 5.00pm – 8.00pm Venue: Kingborough Family Church, Huntingfield Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: Kingborough Family Church Free Admission

Sunday 16 December 2018 Carols on the Lawn Venue: St Luke’s Anglican Church, Taroona Time: 5.00pm – 7.15pm Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: St Luke’s Anglican Church, Taroona Free Admission https://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/event/carols-on-the-lawn/

Saturday 22 December 2018 ExitLeft: A festive season of Christmas Carols Venue: ExitLeft Studios, Kingston Saturday 22 December 2018, 3:00pm–4:00pm Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: ExitLeft Tickets: Adult/Concession: $12.00, Child - 2–18 Years: $6.00

Hobart

Saturday 9 December 2018 2018 Christmas at C3 Time: 3.30pm - 4.30pm Venue: C3 Church Hobart Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: C3 Church Hobart HCC support: no Free Admission

Friday 14 December 2018 Carols Together, under the steeple Time: 7.30pm - 9.30pm Venue: Korean Full Gospel Church Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: Korean Full Gospel Church in Hobart Inc. HCC support: $4,715 cash Free Admission Sponsorship: Yes

Friday 14 December 2018 West Hobart Community Carols by Candlelight Time: 6.00pm - 9.00pm Venue: Oval, Lansdowne Crescent Primary School Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Run by: Lansdowne Crescent Primary School SCA HCC support: $13,820 cash Sponsorship: Yes

Saturday 15 December 2018 Carols at John Turnbull Time: 4.00pm - 6.00pm: Family Entertainment, 6pm – 8.30pm: Carols Venue: John Turnbull Park, Lenah Valley Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor HCC support: $15,000 ($14,200 cash, $800 in-kind) Sponsorship: Yes

Sunday 16 December 2018 Christmas Carols Venue: Ogilvie High School, New Town Time: 6.00pm - 8.00pm Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Presented by: New Town Community Association Inc Gold Coin Donation HCC support: $15,000 cash

Sunday 16 December 2018 Christmas Carols in Mount Stuart Time: 5.30pm - 9.00pm Venue: Mount Stuart Memorial Hall Indoor / Outdoor: Indoor Run by: Mount Stuart Residents Inc. HCC support: $10,250 ($8,250 cash, $2,000 in-kind) Free Admission

https://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/event/carols-on-the-lawn/

https://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/event/carols-on-the-lawn/


Saturday 15 December 2018 (original date) Saturday 22 December 2018 (rescheduled date) Carols on the Hill

Time: 6.00pm - 9.00pm Venue: GYC Hobart Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Run by: Catholic Archdiocese of Hobart HCC support: $15,000 cash Sponsorship: Yes Carols on the Hill is a free, traditional outdoor carols event specifically designed for families to share in the joyful spirit of Christmas.

ExitLeft Venue: Rooftop, ExitLeft Studios, Hobart Wed 12, Mon 17 –Fri 21 Dec 2018, 7:30pm–8:30pm, and Sat 22 Dec 2018, 2:00pm–3:00pm Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Run by: ExitLeft HCC support: no Tickets: Adult/Concession: $12.00, Child - 2–18 Years: $6.00 Sponsorship: No

Glenorchy

Saturday 8 December 2018 Glenorchy Carols – A Not So Silent Night Venue: Tolosa Park Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Run by: Glenorchy City Council Free Admission Sponsorship: Yes

Clarence

Saturday 15 December 2018 (original date) Saturday 22 December 2018 (rescheduled date) Carols Under The Stars Venue: Lauderdale Primary School Oval Run by: Abundant Life Church Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Free Admission Attendance: 6,000 patrons – Tasmania’s largest Carol’s event in 2018 Sponsorship: Yes

Saturday 8 December 2018 Celebrate the Christmas spirit with carols in Bellerive Time: 5.00pm - 7.00pm Venue: Bellerive Beach Park Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor Run by: St Mark's Anglican/Citywide Baptists (Clarence City Council)

Monday 24 December 2018 (Christmas Eve) Tassal Tasmanian Salmon Family Christmas Carols Venue: Blundstone Arena, Bellerive Indoor / Outdoor: Outdoor


FILE NO 36.48 DATE 1 APRIL 2019 OFFICER JON DOOLE - MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ENDORSED BY TONY FERRIER - DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY STRATEGY FOR KINGSTON BEACH AND BLACKMANS BAY BEACH

1 PURPOSE


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 3.1.1 Undertake proactive measures in order to identify and improve the condition of local water quality resources

1.1 To present the Recreational Water Quality Management Strategy for Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach (Strategy) for endorsement.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Kingborough is one of six Councils involved in the Derwent Estuary Recreational Water Quality Program. The Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) is a regional partnership between local governments, the Tasmanian State Government, businesses, scientists, and community-based groups to restore and promote the Derwent Estuary.

2.2 Due to ongoing water quality issues at Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach it has been necessary to undertake intensive sampling for most of the summer season that has focussed on key recreational localities as well as stormwater discharge points.

2.3 The Strategy has been developed in an attempt to plot a meaningful way forward in identifying and rectifying contamination sources.


3.1 The Tasmanian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines 2007 and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water 2008 are the key legislative requirements relating to the monitoring and management of recreational beaches by local government in Tasmania.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Under the DEP Beach Watch program recreational water at beaches is graded as Good, Fair or Poor. A grading of Poor indicates that recreational water is considered to be a threat to public health in the event of primary contact during recreation (e.g. swimming, surfing, snorkelling).

4.2 Recreational water beaches graded as Poor are required under legislation to be “closed”.

4.3 For the past summer season the beach at Blackmans Bay south has be “closed” due to periodically high bacterial contamination results over preceding years.

4.4 Kingston Beach south is currently rated as “fair” and has occasionally elevated bacterial testing results.


5 FINANCE

5.1 Implementation of the Strategy and actions identified will be reliant on appropriate resourcing which will be the subject of consideration as part of the 2019 / 2020 budget deliberations.

6 ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay beaches are regionally significant recreational locations with a critical reliance on good water quality.


7.1 A key component of the Strategy identifies the critical need for public notification and community awareness regarding water quality testing programs and results as well as community awareness for minimising the contamination of stormwater from catchments.

8 RISK

8.1 Water quality monitoring at Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach has indicated that significant contamination is periodically occurring leading to the beaches being unsuitable for primary recreational usage.

8.2 Since the source of contamination has not been categorically identified there is a significant potential risk to public health.

8.3 Not endorsing the Strategy and committing resources to its implementation may be placing the health and safety of users of these key sites at risk.

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 Council has developed the Recreational Water Quality Strategy – Blackmans Bay Beach and Kingston Beach that adds additional elements to Council’s current recreational water quality / stormwater management program. The Strategy takes an integrated management approach to achieve beneficial outcomes for recreational water at these beaches.

9.2 The Strategy will initially focus on Blackmans Bay Beach and Kingston Beach, which are currently identified as priority areas.

10 RECOMMENDATION MOVED SECONDED That Council endorses the Recreational Water Quality Management Strategy for Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach with the resourcing of its implementation subject to budget estimate deliberations.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


Recreational Water Quality Management Strategy Kingston Beach & Blackmans Bay Beach Kingborough Council (2019)


Authorised and published by Kingborough Council. 15 Channel Highway Kingston Tasmania. Prepared in consultation with TasWater, Department of Health and Human Services, Derwent Estuary Program. Images by Rowena Duncan, Kingborough Council Accessibility If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone kingborough Council’s Customer Service Centre on (03) 6211 8247, email: [email protected] document is also available on the internet at www.kingborough.tas.gov.au Disclaimer Kingborough Council and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error,

loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.


1 Executive Summary

The Recreational Water Quality Management Strategy – Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach provides

a framework for Council and the community to improve Recreational Water Quality at these beaches.

Improving and maintaining good quality recreational water at the beaches will ensure that this resource

continues to provide environmental, social, cultural and economic values for residents and visitors of our

municipality, now and for future generations.

The Strategy framework aligns with the Tasmanian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines 2007 and the

National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water 2008.

The Strategy represents a proactive integrated management approach by Council towards improving and

maintaining acceptable recreational water quality within the municipality of Kingborough for the

enjoyment of current and future generations.

Gary Arnold

General Manager


Contents

1 Executive Summary 2

2 Introduction 4

3 Recreational Water 4

3.1 Contaminants to Recreational Water & Impacts 5

3.2 Stormwater Catchments 6

3.3 Marine Environment 8

3.4 Water Quality - Government Framework 8

4 Strategy Methodology 11

4.1 Surveillance, Investigation, Public Notification and Actions 12

5 Conclusion 14


2 Introduction The Recreational Water Quality Strategy - Kingston Beach

and Blackmans Bay Beach (the Strategy) was developed

with the aim of improving recreational water quality

(RWQ) at these beaches.

The RWQ at the southern end of Kingston Beach is

currently graded1 as ‘Fair’ and at the time of writing this

Strategy the RWQ at the southern end of Blackmans Bay

Beach is graded ‘Poor’. This has resulted in the

installation of warning signs advising the public not to

swim at the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach.

Over the past two decades Council has carried out investigations and implemented management controls

to ensure recreational water quality has remained ‘Good’, or at least ‘Fair’. However the recent

downgrading of Blackmans Bay Beach (South) from “Fair” to “Poor” has called for a new direction.

The Strategy will enhance Council’s approach towards RWQ by employing current accepted methodology

aimed at improving RWQ contaminant preventative measures, stakeholder consultation and investigation

capability.

The Strategy takes an integrated approach by engaging key stakeholders including the community,

Taswater and State Government agencies to improve RWQ. Council remains committed to leading the

journey towards improving RWQ through implementation of this strategy, but acknowledges the

importance of engaging key stakeholders to bolster investigative capabilities, particularly where complex

environmental factors may be present.

3 Recreational Water

Recreational water bodies include any public coastal,

estuarine or freshwater areas where a significant number of

people use the water for recreation.

Recreational water use includes all activities relating to sport,

pleasure and relaxation that depend on water resources (e.g.

sunbathing, swimming, snorkeling, boating, fishing or

surfing).2

Kingborough Council has a number of recreational beaches with the most prominent being : Taroona

Beach, Hinsby Beach, Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach.

1 Refer to Section 4.1 of this Strategy for an explanation of Recreational water quality grading. 2 Extract from the National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water 2008.Guidelines for Managing

Risks in Recreational Water 2008 (p. 15)


Our beaches provide significant natural, cultural, social and economic values for the community. The

southern end Blackmans Bay Beach and Kingston Beach are particularly valued as they are more sheltered

and attractive for families with smaller children and the elderly.

Users of recreational water bodies can be detrimentally impacted by the following hazards3:

sun, heat and cold temperature;

unsafe swimming conditions;

harmful bacteria;

dangerous aquatic organisms (sharks, jelly fish etc);

chemical hazards (trade waste, chemical dumps from residential properties or commercial

activities);

Contact with contaminated recreational water via accidental ingestion (for example whilst swimming) can

cause gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory illnesses, eye, nose, throat infections and skin disorders.

3.1 Contaminants to Recreational Water & Impacts

Activities that discharge contaminants to stormwater or the marine environment can result in

contamination of recreational water. Causes of stormwater contamination in Council stormwater mains

include the following:

misconnection of private sewerage lines to Council stormwater infrastructure;

first flush of contaminants in the catchment after rainfall;

contaminated groundwater infiltration to stormwater mains;

sewage water from compromised sewer mains (i.e. resulting from ground subsidence or accidental

damage);

illegal discharge of contaminated water;

trade waste;

roads; and

wildlife.

Potential sources of contamination directly to the marine environment (ie. other than via stormwater) can

include:

boats dumping sewage/bilge waste;

human activity;

wildlife - mammalian and marine organisms;

direct discharge of treated / untreated sewage;

contaminated stormwater; and

trade waste.

The table below provides a summary of the impacts of contaminants in stormwater and marine water.

3 Australian Government (2008), Guideline for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. National Health and Medical Research Council, p 4-5.


Pollutants Sources Impacts

Suspended Solids Erosion

Construction sites

Road/footpath wear

Smother ecosystems

Block sunlight

Cause respiratory problems

in fish

Metals Vehicle wear & emissions

Atmospheric deposition

Illegal/accidental discharges

Trade waste discharges

Toxicity to aquatic organisms

Bioaccumulation through the food chain

Nutrients Detergents

Decaying organic matter

Fertilizers

Sewage leaks & overflows

Encourage riparian and

aquatic weeds

Encourage algal growth

Increase potential for

eutrophication

Pathogens Sewage overflows

Illegal connections

Animal faeces

Causes disease in humans

and livestock

Reduce recreational

amenity

Hydrocarbons/Chemicals Vehicle wear and

emissions

Spills / Illegal discharges

Toxicity to aquatic

organisms

Loss of aesthetic amenity

3.2 Stormwater Catchments

Kingborough Council is responsible for monitoring recreational water quality at its recreational beaches and

reporting monitoring results to the State Government. Council manages stormwater infrastructure

throughout the Kingston and Blackmans Bay area. Council is one of many stakeholders whose activities can

have a detrimental impact on recreational water quality (RWQ).

Unfortunately, given the extent and complexity of the

stormwater infrastructure, it is not always a simple exercise

to identify contaminant sources to stormwater.

Rainwater and ground water in the Kingston and Blackmans

Bay areas that is collected by hard surfaces (roofs, roads &

footpaths) is channelled to the stormwater mains network

and is transported to stormwater discharge points on rivers

and beaches.

Contaminants that enter the stormwater from the above


sources can be carried by stormwater to recreational water sites at beaches and rivers. Both the Kingston

Beach and Blackmans Bay stormwater catchments contain the following activities that have the potential to

impact on stormwater quality and recreational water quality (RWQ):

residential;

commercial;

wildlife;

domestic animal keeping;

mains sewage infrastructure; and

private sewage infrastructure.

Early detection of contaminants in stormwater is usually the only mechanism to prevent continued

contamination of RWQ occurring.

Developing a deeper understanding of the activities that have the potential to impact on the stormwater

network and the sewer network in the Blackmans Bay and Kingston areas is important. This will enable

Council to better understand the threat of contaminants entering mains infrastructure.

Blackmans Bay Catchment

The extent of the Blackmans Bay stormwater catchment is depicted in Map 1 (Attachment 1). It comprises

all land contained within the red line.

The stormwater network within the catchment comprises five sub-catchments (annotated as zones BBZ1 to

BBZ5 on Map 1). Each zone drains to a separate stormwater outlet on Blackmans Bay beach.

There are four main stormwater outfalls at Blackmans Bay beach, as shown on Map 1. One outfall

discharges at the northern end of the beach and three outfalls discharge at the southern end of the beach,

where the beach water grading is rated as ‘poor’.

Kingston Beach Catchment

The extent of the Kingston Beach stormwater catchment is depicted by the red line on Map 2 (Attachment

1). It comprises four stormwater sub-catchments (KBCZ 1 to KBCZ4 on Map 2). Each one of these

catchments has stormwater outfalls onto Kingston Beach.

Map 2 also shows the stormwater sub-catchments that drain into Browns River (KBCZ5 to KBCZ8).

Browns River

Browns River flows into the northern region of Kingston Beach. Water sampling at Browns River mouth has

identified periodic (and historic) poor water quality. Signage has been erected at the river advising that

swimming is not recommended.

The catchment for Browns River is extensive and contains multiple potential contaminant generating

activities.

The nature of how water from Browns River impacts on the RWQ of Kingston Beach is not clearly

understood. It is recommended that a separate management Strategy be established for the Browns River

catchment providing a Management Strategy that reflects its varied assets and pressures including for

recreational water quality at its mouth.


3.3 Marine Environment

The Derwent Estuary contains natural, commercial and industrial activities that are complex and far

reaching throughout the estuary. These activities have the potential to have detrimental impact on

recreational water. Much of these activities are regulated by Tasmanian State Government agencies such

as the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

Although Council’s influence over the marine environment is limited, due to the cross jurisdictional nature

of the activities in the Derwent Estuary, Council is willing to continue to work with regulating bodies where

possible to achieve beneficial outcomes for the marine environment. Such benefits could equate to

improvements in recreational water throughout the Derwent Estuary.

3.4 Water Quality - Government Framework

National

The National Water Quality Strategy provides a nation wide approach to improving water quality in

Australia’s waterways.

Through the National Water Initiative Agreement, Tasmania along with all other states and territories are

committed to conduct reform to improve water quality.

State

The State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (SPWQM) sets the overall surface water and ground

water quality objectives for Tasmania (this includes stormwater)4.

The Tasmanian State Stormwater Strategy (Dec 2010) provides a means by which policy directions in the

SPWQM can be converted to strategies. Examples of this are particularly relevant to run off from land

disturbance and urban run-off5.

The Strategy has been developed in line with the direction of national and state policy and strategy relating

to stormwater management.

Council

The Kingborough Strategic Plan 2015-2025 (the Plan) provides the necessary direction for the future

delivery of services by Kingborough Council.

The Strategy is considered to align with Council’s objectives as it aims to reduce contaminant level

discharge to the stormwater network and the environment.

Strategic Outcome 3.1 of the Plan is to ensure the values of the natural environment are protected and

enhanced through strategic and coordinated natural resource management. Key Priority area 3.0 of

Council’s Strategic Plan is to promote a healthy natural environment.

Implementation of the Strategy will seek to reduce the level of contaminants entering Council’s stormwater

system and ultimately a reduction in contaminants entering the marine environment. This will be achieved

4 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997. 5 Department of Primary Industries, Parks and Environment, Tasmanian State Stormwater Strategy, pp 3-4.


through a proactive, coordinated and integrated management approach. As such, the Strategy is

considered to align with Key Priority area 3.0 and Strategic Outcome 3.1 by promoting a healthy

environment.

The Public Health Act 1997 and the Recreational Water Quality Guidelines 2007 contain the principal

legislative requirements for monitoring and reporting recreational water quality, and necessary actions

where water quality poses a threat to public health.

Improvements to stormwater quality will equate to a reduction of risk to RWQ. Similarly, the sharing of

Council investigation outcomes with external stakeholders including State Government Agencies, will assist

with investigations into potential marine contaminant sources.


4 Strategy Methodology

Key Elements of the Strategy

The Strategy is designed to broadly align with the intent of

the NHMRC which recommends implementation of a

monitoring program for recreational waters based on the

following primary elements:

Surveillance & Investigation;

Public Notification; and

Action.

The primary elements of the Strategy are dependent on

each other and inform management approaches to RWQ

when applied in accordance with Figure 1.

Strategy Aims

The aims of the Strategy are to:

Improve RWQ at Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay

Beach;

Increase community awareness in factors that can

influence RWQ;

Develop and implement actions that will improve

and maintain good RWQ; and

Develop and maintain effective joint stakeholder RWQ investigation capability.

Figure 1 - Methodology


4.1 Surveillance, Investigation, Public Notification and Actions

Surveillance

Kingborough Council conducts regular RWQ monitoring at seven sites across four beaches in the Derwent

Estuary during summer months (December – March) in accordance with State Government legislation.

Water samples are collected and analysed weekly for the presence of the faecal indicator bacteria –

enterococci. The seven monitored sites in the Kingborough Council municipal area are listed below:

Taroona Beach;

Hinsby Beach;

Kingston Beach North;

Kingston Beach Middle;

Kingston Beach South;

Blackmans Bay Beach North; and

Blackmans Bay Beach South.

Recreational water quality monitoring results collected by Council and collated by the Derwent Estuary

Program (DEP) as part of their Recreational Water Monitoring Program. The results of this sampling informs

the long term grading of recreational water at beaches.

In addition to the statutory RWQ sampling, Council will conducted an 8 week off-season sampling regime

commencing August until September each year of stormwater outfalls and RWQ sites to ensure continuity

of water quality data throughout the year. Subject to resourcing monitoring may also be undertaken

during the winter months to build on data.

Environmental observations will also continue to be recorded concurrently with water sampling.

Stormwater catchments will be investigated if and when elevated faecal bacteria levels are observed in the

stormwater outfalls.

Investigation

Stormwater

Stormwater sub-catchments that appear to be contaminated will be investigated as issues are highlighted

during the surveillance phase. The Strategy’s emphasis will be to work in consultation with stakeholders

such as TasWater or landowners to seek assistance with investigations or conduct joint investigations

should the need arise. This will increase investigation capability and maximise investigation outcomes.

Derwent Estuary

In the marine environment, Council can only take a limited stewardship role by monitoring recreational

water quality and reducing impacts of stormwater to the marine environment.

Given the nature of the activities performed in the Derwent Estuary, many of which extend across

jurisdictions, Council’s sphere of control is limited. Notwithstanding, under the Strategy Council will use its

influence where possible to raise awareness of potential issues in the marine environment that impact

RWQ. This may extend to assisting organisations endowed with cross jurisdictional powers to investigate


contaminant causes in the broader Derwent Estuary. Council will share surveillance data and investigation

findings to assist such investigations where possible.

Investigation outcomes under the Strategy can include identification of the following:

contaminant sources;

information gaps;

feasible actions to close gaps;

issues requiring compliance action; and

feasible preventative measures to improve and maintain good RWQ.

A Council RWQ Investigation Protocol (the Protocol) has been developed that coordinates representatives

across Council’s departments. Under the Protocol an investigation planning group would be assembled to

establish required resourcing for RWQ investigations, as well as to determine any required external

stakeholder involvement in investigations.

Pre-determined sub-catchment stormwater sampling locations at junction nodes for sub-catchments will

be established by Council that can greatly reduce investigation timeframes.

Improved planning and effective communication with key stakeholders such as TasWater will increase

investigation capability and improved response times to locating contaminant sources.

Public Notification

Public Warning

Weekly sample results are published by the DEP (during summer) to provide the public with up-to-date

information on beach water quality. Weekly results are also collated over a five year period to form long-

term gradings for each beach.

Recreational water quality signs that display current beach recreational water quality are installed at all

seven sampling locations at Kingborough’s declared swimming beach locations and give a representation of

the long-term water quality grading at each site.

Recreational water quality monitoring results are collated by the Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) as part of

their Recreational Water Monitoring Program.

Recreational water quality (RWQ) is graded in accordance with the Tasmanian Recreational Water Quality

Guidelines 2007 as follows:

Conditions safe for swimming

Water may be subject to short-term advisories e.g. to avoid whole body contact for several

days after heavy rainfall. Rolling five year 95th hazen percentile value <200 enterococci

MPN per 100ml;

Moderate Water Quality

Conditions generally safe for swimming, however consistent intermittent failures are

noted. Further follow up is required to investigate the causes of elevated bacterial levels.

The water may be subject to short-term advisories eg to avoid whole body contact for

several days after heavy rainfall. Rolling five year 95th hazen percentile value within 200 -

500 enterococci MPN per 100ml;

GOOD

FAIR


Poor Water Quality

Possible risk of illness if you ingest the water. The water body is considered to be

unsuitable for whole-body contact eg: swimming etc. There is the expectation for the

relevant Council to investigate causes behind elevated bacterial levels. Rolling five year 95th

hazen percentile value >500 enterococci MPN per 100ml.

In accordance with the Tasmanian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines 2007, when a recreational water

body receives a long-term grading of ‘Poor’, the water body is considered a potential threat to the health of

persons using the water for ‘whole body contact’ activities such as bathing, surfing, snorkelling etc

In accordance with the Tasmanian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines 2007, once a controlling authority

becomes aware that a water body under its control is a threat to public health, it must take action as soon

as practicable to prevent or minimise the threat to health. This includes conducting sanitary inspections in

accordance with Section 5.4.1 of the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research

Council’s Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water6 (NHMRC). When the long-term grading at

Blackmans Bay Beach South was downgraded to “Poor” Council immediately installed advisory signs at all

access points to the beach advising the public that the water quality was not suitable for swimming. These

signs are currently still in place.

Sanitary surveys have been conducted, with possible contaminant sources identified as outlined in section

3.

Community Awareness

Council is committed to work with stakeholders to ensure recreational water quality is improved and

maintained, however, we need the support and commitment of the community to protect our recreational

water from being impacted by contaminants.

The activities that can impact on recreational water are varied and complex. This makes investigations into

locating the causes a costly use of the community’s money. Prevention is an important focus of the

Strategy, with Council employing measures through its communications channels to raise community

awareness of activities that can be harmful for recreational water.

RWQ can be impacted directly by the decisions and subsequent actions of individual community members.

Deciding not to wash animal waste down the storm water mains and washing the car on the lawn are

examples where harmful contaminants can be prevented from entering our stormwater mains and

ultimately contribute to contamination of recreational water at the beach.

Rainwater in the Kingston and Blackmans Bay areas is collected by roads, building roofs, concreted areas

and outbuildings and then channelled to Council stormwater mains, which in turn, is then discharged direct

to the recreational water sites at the beach.

Actions

Compliance

Development controls such as conditions on planning, building and plumbing permits as well as developer

education opportunities provide an effective mechanism for preventing contaminants from entering

stormwater and recreational water. Examples of this are as follows:

6 Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council’s Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water, pp 125-126

POOR


Application of development sediment control measures to planning, building and plumbing

permits; and

Compulsory drainage inspections of all sewer connections in these catchments.

Investigations may identify matters, such as illegal sewer connections or dumping to stormwater mains.

These matters will be actioned in accordance with Council’s Compliance Policy to address poor work

practices. Examples of this are as follows:

Building Act 2016 – Emergency Orders to cease causing a threat to public health and safety; and

Application of Infringement Notices (under Building Act 2016).

Potential contamination via external sources

This will primarily focus on investigations into seagull numbers and behaviour at Blackmans Bay Beach.

Monitoring to attempt to quantify the link between high bacterial counts and seagull numbers will

continue.

Research and trials of works to reduce seagull numbers will be undertaken ongoing with reference to

relevant ecological experts.

Infrastructure Maintenance / Augmentation

Investigations may identify opportunities that are feasible to implement such as:

Maintenance approach improvements to stormwater and sewer mains infrastructure that can

reduce risk of impacts to RWQ; and

Infrastructure augmentation opportunities to improve RWQ.

Investigation outcomes involving compliance and infrastructure maintenance recommendations are

directed to relevant departments for consideration, and if deemed satisfactory, they are implemented.

It should be noted that under the Strategy the preference is always to achieve cleaner, lower contaminant

levels in stormwater systems. This is the first priority under the Strategy. However, as a worst case

scenario, the introduction of other capital investment options for stormwater treatment may need to be

considered as possible options to arrest contaminants from entering stormwater systems.

5 Conclusion Through the development and implementation of this Strategy, Council is striving to improve recreational

water quality at Blackmans Bay Beach and Kingston Beach for current and future generations.

Prevention through education is a key management option under the Strategy rather than using

community resources to conduct expensive source investigations to try and locate RWQ contaminant

causes after they have occurred.

The experiences of other water/stormwater utility operators show that the journey towards identifying

contaminants in water can be complex and time consuming.

Council has and will continue to invest resources into improving and ultimately maintaining good

recreational water quality by raising stakeholder awareness and continuing to develop and employ an


effective investigation capability. Equally important is that other stakeholders in the community do their

part to protect RWQ.

The Strategy uses an integrated management approach based on established recreational water quality

methodology to provide a flexible and consultative management approach to RWQ.

Council looks forward to working collaboratively with all stakeholders to improve and maintain good

recreational water quality at Kingston and Blackmans Bay beaches for the enjoyment of our community and

for future generations to come.

For more information on the activities that can impact on recreational water quality please refer to the

Kingborough Council website or contact Council on (03) 6211 8200.


Attachment 1 – Map 1 – Blackmans Bay Stormwater Network and Sub-Catchments

BBZ 1

BBZ2

BBZ3

BBZ4

BBZ5


Attachment 2 – Map 2: Kingston Beach Stormwater Network and Sub-Catchments


FILE NO 22.247, 3202222 DATE 2 APRIL 2019 OFFICER SCOTT WADE - KINGBOROUGH SPORTS PRECINCT- OPERATIONS

MANAGER ENDORSED BY GARY ARNOLD - GENERAL MANAGER

KINGBOROUGH SPORTS PRECINCT FUTURE DIRECTIONS PLAN

1 PURPOSE


Key Priority Area 2.0 Sustainable land use and infrastructure management

Strategic Outcome 2.2 Community infrastructure is enhanced, replaced and maintained

Strategy 2.6 Review future needs, plus maintain and develop recreational and sporting facilities

1.1 The purpose of this report is for Council to consider undertaking a feasibility assessment for a community swimming pool at the Kingborough Sports Precinct.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Almost a decade ago in 2010, Inspiring Place Pty Ltd presented the Council with a master planning document titled Kingborough Sports Centre Site Master Plan. This document did not specifically outline all of the long term infrastructure development priorities for the Kingborough Sports Precinct; however, it did reinforce the need for the development of what is now the Twin Ovals AFL and Cricket complex (within the Kingborough Sports Precinct). It also accommodated the relocation of the Kingston High School which occurred in 2011.

2.2 The Kingborough Sports Precinct (KSP) includes all of the Council owned land bounded by Summerleas Road, Kingston View Drive and Gormley Drive

2.3 Inspiring Place Pty Ltd has now commenced a review of the 2010 Sports Centre Master Plan. This will provide a Future Directions Plan for the KSP.


3.1 There are no statutory requirements relating to this matter.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 It is anticipated that the difference between the existing 2010 Master Plan and the proposed 2019/2020 KSP Future Directions Plan will be significant.

4.2 The KSP Future Directions Plan will:

(a) Start with a long-term vision for the KSP that is big, bold and visionary.

(b) Encompass clear and decisive short (next 5 years), medium (next 10 to 15 years) and longer term (20 to 25 years) precinct infrastructure development priorities, i.e. what is the appropriate order for the small and larger priorities for the KSP over the next 25 years?


4.3 A swimming pool for Kingborough was identified in the 2010 Master Plan and should form part of the medium to long-term priorities for the KSP Future Directions Plan.

4.4 It is already evident from discussions with Inspiring Place Pty Ltd, industry experts and other project key stakeholders that:

No value exists in Council owning or operating a swimming pool, i.e. the most successful and realistic model is for community swimming pools to be operated by commercial entities or business operators who specialise in the industry and specifically in learn to swim and education based swimming programs;

The KSP is considered to be the ideal location for a swimming pool in Kingborough, particularly because of the potential benefits of being co-located in a major community sports precinct that includes the Fitness Centre, a number of different sporting organisations and Kinston High School.

It is envisaged that a 25metre indoor swimming pool with associated hydro therapy pool is the type of facility that would best fit the needs of Kingborough.

4.5 Council may be able to facilitate an indoor swimming pool at the Sports Precinct by providing the land footprint and going through an open expression of interest process seeking a commercial operator to construct, own and operate the facility.

4.6 A feasibility study confirming the suitability of the site (including a footprint on within the Sports Precinct) and business case is required to advance this proposal. Such a study would examine the financial implications, the relationship with other KSP users, a suitable location, the likely demand, a possible design and optimum location with the KSP. This would form the basis of any subsequent EOI process.

5 FINANCE

5.1 The cost of a feasibility study and business case for an indoor swimming pool is expected to be in the vicinity of $50,000.

6 ENVIRONMENT

6.1 No environmental issues have been identified in relation to this report.


7.1 Community consultation will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s community engagement framework.

8 RISK

8.1 There is a risk that the endorsement of this report will create an expectation that Council will be able to actually facilitate the construction of a swimming pool. This will, however, depend on the results of the proposed feasibility study.

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 Council may be able to facilitate an indoor swimming pool at the Sports Precinct by providing the land footprint and going through an open expression of interest process seeking a commercial operator to construct, own and operate the facility.

9.2 A feasibility study confirming the suitability of the site (a footprint on the Sports Precinct) and business case is required to advance this proposal.


10 RECOMMENDATION MOVED SECONDED That funding for a feasibility study for an indoor swimming pool at the Kingborough Sports Precinct be considered by Council as part of the 2019/20 budget process.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


INFORMATION REPORTS

MOVED SECONDED That the following information reports be noted: 1 General Manager’s Diary. 2 Current and Previous Minute Resolutions.

3 Infrastructure Works Progress Report.



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley


GENERAL MANAGER’S DIARY FOR THE PERIOD 4 MARCH 2019 TO 29 MARCH 2019

During the period 4 March 2019 to 29 March 2019 the General Manager’s diary records:

4 March In company with the Mayor, met with Mr Alex Heroys

Attended Councillor Workshop

5 March Attended Water Quality information session

6 March Attended Audit Panel training in company with Cr Fox

7 March In company with the Mayor, met with Kit Darko, Greens Candidate for Franklin

In company with the Mayor, met with Mr Dean Ewington

In company with the Mayor, attended Copping Joint Authority meeting

8 March In company with the Mayor, met with Nic Street

12 March In company with the Mayor, attended Hobart City Deal meeting

Presented to the State Grants Commission

Attended Council meeting

13 March In company with the Mayor, met with Julie Collins and Senator Catryna Bilyk

In company with the Mayor, met with Senator Eric Abetz and Dean Young

15 March In company with the Mayor, met with the John Street Medical Centre doctors

18 March Attended a special STCA Board Meeting

Attended Councillor Workshop

19 March In company with the Mayor, met with Mr Neil Shepard to discuss development matters

21 March In company with the Mayor, met with Mr Jarrod Key

22 March Attended Hobart City Deal meeting

25 March Attended Council meeting

26 March Met with Mr Alex Lutterall to discuss RACT mobility study

29 March In company with the Mayor, attended LGAT General Meeting


CURRENT AND PREVIOUS MINUTE RESOLUTIONS (OPEN SESSION)

CURRENT

Resolution Title Kingborough Dog Park

Meeting Date 12 March 2019

Minute No. C202/5-19

Status In progress

Responsible Officer Executive Manager Governance & Community Services

Officers Comments Report to be provided.

Anticipated Date of Completion May 2019

Resolution Title Graffiti Reduction



Status In progress


Officers Comments Report to be provided.


Resolution Title Proposed Transfer of Land Owned by UTAS to Council at Taroona Beach



Status In progress


Officers Comments Awaiting sub division by UTAS

Anticipated Date of Completion June 2019

STILL BEING ACTIONED

Resolution Title Carols by Candlelight December 2019

Meeting Date 29 January 2019

Minute No. C79/2-19

Status In progress


Officers Comments Report to be provided to 25 March Council meeting

Anticipated Date of Completion March 2019

Resolution Title The Bruny 2020


Minute No. C85/2-19

Status In progress


Officers Comments Awaiting workshop and adoption of arts strategy.



Resolution Title Petition – Fencing Blackmans Bay Playground

Meeting Date 26 November 2018


Status In progress

Responsible Officer Executive Manager Engineering Services

Officers Comments Awaiting a final date for installation from contractor

Anticipated Date of Completion April 2019

Resolution Title Bruny Island Airstrip

Meeting Date 9 July 2018


Status In Progress

Responsible Officer Deputy General Manager

Officers Comments Final lease agreement and arrangements with adjoining owner to be negotiated.


Resolution Title Blackmans Bay Coastal Land Tenure


Minute No. C42/2-18

Status In progress


Officers Comments Awaiting decision on land transfer from descendants of original owners.

Anticipated Date of Completion Unknown

Resolution Title Tassal Community Advisory Group

Meeting Date 11 September 2017


Status In progress

Responsible Officer Manager Environmental Services

Officers Comments Tassal advised that they are committed to community engagement and currently remodelling their community advisory group. Awaiting invitation to participate in the new stakeholder group.

Anticipated Date of Completion March 2019

Resolution Title Petition – North Roslyn Avenue Precinct

Meeting Date 26 June 2017


Status In progress

Responsible Officer Executive Manager Engineering Services

Officers Comments GHD part way through study



Resolution Title Kingston Park Community Hub Café

Meeting Date 27 February 2017

Minute No. C85/4-17

Status On hold


Officers Comments Advertising of further expressions of interest to be delayed until after the facility is open and the site commercially viable.

Anticipated Date of Completion December 2019


AUTHOR : DAVID REEVE – EXECUTIVE MANAGER ENGINEERING SERVICES

FILE NO : CAPITAL WORKS

DATE : 1 APRIL 2019

INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS PROGRESS REPORT

Works Department – Works Recently Completed (Mainland Kingborough)

1. Pelverata Road (Capital) – lime stabilisation with the reclaimer:

2. Pelverata Road (Capital) – sealing of upgraded section of road:

3. Charlton Street (Capital) – new asphalt (Reconophalt) material laid by Council. This is the first time it has been used in Tasmania:


4. Whittons Road – maintenance grading:

5. Kingston Beach – wave wall reinstated after being damaged in the May 2018 storms (before and after photos below):

6. Baynton Street (Capital) – access ramp:


7. Huntingfield Avenue – pit lid replacement and repaired trip hazards by replacing concrete bays:

8. Whitewater Crescent – repaired trip hazards by replacing concrete bays:

9. Fire Break Mowing – Dayspring Drive and Kingston Park:

10. Whitewater Creek – bridge replaced after the May 2018 storms:


11. New Snug to Margate Cycleway (Capital) – three new picnic tables and four new seats installed along cycleway:

12. Denison Street and Birch Street – fire reduction:

13. Kingston View Drive Mountain Bike Track (Capital) – tracks completed by contractor:


14. Blackmans Bay Beach (Capital) – ten seats replaced:

15. Blackmans Bay Skate Park – graffiti removed by contractor:

Works Department – Works Recently Completed (Bruny Island)

16. Adventure Bay Playground – upgraded play equipment installed:

17. Grading of road shoulders and roads on behalf of the Department of State Growth.

18. Grading of 90% Council owned roads.

19. Adventure Bay Road – repairs to surface defects.

20. Cemetery Road and Davis Road – trimmed trees.


21. Great Bay Boat Ramp – finished off carpark:

Works Department – Works Underway / Planned (Mainland Kingborough)

22. Summerleas Road – resheeting.

23. Woodbridge Hill Road – reseal.

24. Frost Street – asphalt overlay.

25. Beach Road, Middleton – stormwater upgrade.

26. Aldinga Street and Howden Road – reseal preparation.

27. Barnes Bay Jetty – fender damage repairs.

Works Department – Works Underway / Planned (Bruny Island)

28. Lighthouse Road – maintenance grading.

29. Dennes Point Road (PWA) – culvert upgrades on behalf of the Department of State Growth.

30. Richie Street, Alonnah (Capital) – stormwater upgrade.

31. Cloudy Bay Road and Adventure Bay Road – road surface repairs.

32. Alonnah Foreshore (Boat Shed) – bank erosion control.

33. Dennes Point – drain cleaning.

Contracted Capital Projects

34. Kingston Beach toilets


35. Back-up generator – Emergency Evacuation Centre

The new permanent site generator has now been commissioned, ensuring a reliable power supply to the site during operation of the centre in the event of a mains power outage.

36. Barretta gas collection system extension

The extension of the gas collection system, to extract and reduce the migration of methane gas from the closed Barretta Landfill, has commenced. New wells have been installed, and the collection pipework to transport the gas to the on-site flare will be proceeding over coming weeks

37. Great Bay Boat Ramp

The Boat ramp improvements have recently been undertaken by MAST, with associated car park upgrades and improvements by Council staff

38. Bruny Cat Management Facility

The eagerly anticipated cat management facility has recently been delivered to Bruny Island, where final fitout will occur.


39. Storm Damage Projects

Tenders for the Huon Road landslip repairs, Whitewater Creek embankment armouring, and dam wall reinstatement at Redwood Village dam have all recently been invited, and are expected to be awarded and proceed over the coming weeks.

40. Other Upcoming Works

Beach Road Stormwater upgrades, Kingston - construction

Snug Play space - construction

Conningham Beach Toilet - construction

Parish Lane Margate - construction

Kingston Beach Cricket net replacement - construction

John Street upgrades - tender


CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION

MOVED SECONDED That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 Council, by absolute majority, move into closed session to consider the following items:

Item Regulation

Confirmation of Minutes 34(6)

Applications for Leave of Absence 15(2)(h)

Current and Previous Minute Resolutions 15(2)(c)



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley

In accordance with the Kingborough Council Meetings Audio Recording Guidelines Policy, recording of the open session of the meeting will now cease. Open Session of Council adjourned at

OPEN SESSION ADJOURNS


OPEN SESSION RESUMES Open Session of Council resumed at MOVED SECONDED The Closed Session of Council having met and dealt with its business resolves to report that it has determined the following:

Item Decision

Confirmation of Minutes

Applications for Leave of Absence

Current and Previous Minute Resolutions



Cr Bastone Cr Wass

Cr Fox Cr Westwood

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Cr Midgley

CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at

…………………………………… …………………………………… (Confirmed) (Date)

council agenda · 2019-04-03 · council agenda notice is hereby given that an ordinary meeting of...

Documents