minutes - kingborough council · 2018-10-28 · minutes no. 23 page 3 22 october 2018 questions on...

MINUTES

22 October 2018

Back (L – R): Cr Paul Chatterton, Cr Mike Percey, Cr Sue Bastone, Cr Dean Winter, Cr Richard Atkinson

Front (L – R): Cr Dr Graham Bury, Cr Flora Fox, Mayor Cr Steve Wass, Deputy Mayor Cr Paula Wriedt, Cr David Grace

PUBLIC MINUTES

These Minutes are provided for the

assistance and information of members

of the public.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Minute No. Agenda

Page No. Minute

Page No.

Apologies 1 2 C719/23-18 Confirmation of Minutes of 8 October 2018 2 2 Workshops Held Since Last Council Meeting 2 2 C720/23-18 Declarations of Interest 2 2 Transfer of Agenda Items 2 2 Questions on Notice From the Public 3 3 C721/23-18 1 Variations 3 3 Questions Without Notice From the Public 3 3 C722/23-18 1 North Roslyn Avenue Traffic, Pedestrian and Parking Safety 3 C723/23-18 2 Water Quality, Blackmans Bay Beach 4 Questions on Notice From Councillors 4 5 C724/23-18 1 Rates 4 5 C725/23-18 2 Development Application for Widening of Road 4 5 C726/23-18 3 Night Running of Ferries to Bruny Island 5 6 C727/23-18 4 Trucks Queuing for Ferry 5 6 C728/23-18 5 Kingston Beach Water Quality 5 7 C72923-18 6 Requests for Alternate Planning Recommendations 6 8 C730/23-18 7 Stormwater Approvals and Policies 7 9 Questions Without Notice From Councillors 8 10 C731/23-18 1 Bruny Island Advisory Committee 10 C732/23-18 2 Dogs at Taroona Beach 10 C733/23-18 3 Request for Alternate Motions by Councillors 11 C734/23-18 4 Public Question Time Policy 12 C735/23-18 5 Kingston Beach Masterplan 12 C736/23-18 6 O’Brien’s Road, Snug 13 C737/23-18 7 Snug Playground 13 Motions of Which Notice has Been Given 8 14 C738/23-18 1 Council Committees and Special Committees 8 14 C739/23-18 2 Council Workshops 10 14 Petitions Still Being Actioned 11 15 Petitions Received in Last Period 11 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Minute No. Agenda

Page No. Minute

Page No.

Officers Reports to Planning Authority 12 16 C740/23-18 Delegated Authority for the Period 26 September 2018 to 9 October 2018 12 16 C741/23-18 DAS-2018-18 - Development Application for Subdivision of Two Lots and Balance at 388 and 366 Howden Road, Howden for PDA Surveyors 15 16 C742/23-18 Information Reports 42 26 Financial Report for the Period 1 July 2018 to 30 September 2018 43 Infrastructure Works Progress Report 96 C743/23-18 Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 107 26

______________________________________________________________________________

Minutes No. 23 Page 1 22 October 2018

MINUTES of an Ordinary Meeting of Council held at the Kingborough Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston on Monday, 22 October 2018 at 5.30pm.

AUDIO RECORDING

The Chairperson declared the meeting open at 5.30pm, welcomed 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 Mayor paid respect to the traditional and original owners of this land the muwinina people, paid respect to those that have passed before us and acknowledged today’s Tasmanian Aboriginal community who are the custodians of this land.

ATTENDEES

Councillors:

Mayor Cr S Wass Deputy Mayor Cr P Wriedt Councillor R Atkinson Councillor S Bastone Councillor Dr G Bury Councillor P Chatterton Councillor F Fox Councillor D Grace Councillor M Percey Councillor D Winter (arrived at 5.35pm) Staff: General Manager Mr Gary Arnold Deputy General Manager Mr Tony Ferrier Chief Financial Officer Mr John Breen Executive Manager Organisational Development Ms Pene Hughes Executive Manager Engineering Services Mr David Reeve Executive Manager Governance & Community Services Mr Daniel Smee Manager Development Services Ms Tasha Tyler-Moore Operations Manager – Kingborough Sports Centre Mr Scott Wade Media & Communications Officer Ms Sarah Wilcox Executive Assistant Mrs Amanda Morton

______________________________________________________________________________


APOLOGIES

There were no apologies

C719/23-18 (Commences at ± 2 minutes of audio recording)

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF 8 OCTOBER 2018

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Chatterton That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 22 (open session) held on 8 October 2018 be confirmed as a true record. FOR

Cr Atkinson Cr Bastone Cr Bury Cr Chatterton Cr Fox

Cr Grace Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Wriedt

Carried Unanimously

WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING

15 October - Public Open Space Strategy


DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cr Chatterton declared an interest in the report ‘Manor Gardens Property Tenure’ in closed session. Cr Percey declared an interest in the report ‘Manor Gardens Property Tenure’ in closed session. Cr Bastone declared an interest in the report ‘Manor Gardens Property Tenure’ in closed session. Cr Fox declared an interest in the report ‘DA- 2018-18 - Development Application for Subdivision of Two Lots and Balance at 388 and 366 Howden Road, Howden for PDA Surveyors’.

TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS

There were no agenda items transferred.

______________________________________________________________________________


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC


1 Variations

At the Council meeting on 8 October 2018, Ms Kate Lucas asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

David Grace asked a question on 24 September regarding a variation of $100,000 on the Margate Esplanade Road. Assuming the original budget for the road was public why is the reason for the variation being discussed in closed Council?

Officer’s Response:

This matter was the subject of a report to the closed session of the Council meeting held on 14 May 2018 in accordance with Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, S 15 (2) (i).

Gary Arnold - General Manager Cr Winter joined the meeting at 5.35pm

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC


Ms Tricia Ramsay asked the following questions without notice:

1 North Roslyn Avenue Traffic, Pedestrian and Parking Safety

(a) Given that traffic counting on an around North Roslyn Avenue has once again occurred during a school holiday period when we experience low traffic volumes, can you advise how much longer the traffic counting will be conducted?

Executive Manager Engineering Services responds:

The intention is to cover outside of that school period, so it will pick up any discrepancies.

Ms Ramsay:

For how long?


At this stage probably for a couple of weeks after the school holidays.

(b) Provisions in our petition require Council consult with us prior to implementing any planned options. Can you confirm that copies of all documentation associated with the road counting, will be provided to us as soon as it is available?


I’m quite happy to provide any information that comes out of the traffic counts.

______________________________________________________________________________


(c) Can you confirm that consultation about options proposed will occur with petitioners prior to the final report being presented to Council?


Yes, happy to do that too.

(d) Can you give an indication of when the final report to Council is expected?


At this stage it will depend on what sort of information comes out of the traffic counts, whether that’s enough information to provide any information back in terms of options, how long it might take to get any feedback from the community, but we will be hoping to do that within the next couple of months.


Ms Rosalie Maynard asked the following questions without notice:

2 Water Quality, Blackmans Bay Beach

The Derwent Estuary Program data from last summer shows that water samples from the Illawarra Road stormwater outfall on Blackmans Bay Beach were of a good quality from December until mid-February when there was a marked spike in bacteria and contamination levels for almost the remainder of the testing period. These results pushed water quality at this end of the beach to poor and it is now not recommended for swimming. The DEP results also showed that there was no correlation between significant rainfall events and water quality at Blackmans Bay south over the testing period. Given the sources of this contamination have not been satisfactorily identified, has Council investigated whether this spike measured from sampling on the 13th February 2018 may have come from Illawarra Primary School and coincided with the start of the school year on Wednesday the 7th February and/or from Sherburd Park coinciding with a high usage period for that facility given that both were at the top of this Illawarra Road stormwater catchment area?


I can provide some limited information and take the rest on notice. Certainly there has been detailed sampling that has been done throughout the catchment, particularly relating back to the main line that goes up through Illawarra to try and establish any contamination that might be coming into that main line. I can’t answer with certainty whether the two areas you spoke about were part of that but I know it was fairly extensive in terms of that sampling. I also know that the intention is to do a range of more extensive sampling both on the outlets and further up through the catchments and sub-catchments in that area as well and there is a multi-disciplinary group within Council that is looking at this as a high priority project. But I’m happy to provide information back on the record in terms of those two locations as you mentioned.

Ms Maynard:

I refer to the planned extra Council water sampling at Blackmans Bay Beach as outlined by Council’s Andy D’Crus in response to Cr Winter’s question on notice about Kingston Beach Water Quality which is agenda item 5.

Mayor:

Being on the agenda I’m sorry, we can’t discuss it.

______________________________________________________________________________


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


1 Rates

At the Council meeting on 8 October 2018, Cr Grace asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

Regarding properties throughout the municipality that are not paying full rates because Council have not issued an occupancy certificate to properties. How many more properties in the municipality that we are not getting full rates on that we should be getting?


The most common reasons why a property may be occupied without the relevant Occupancy Permit are as follows:

1. Building is being occupied without an occupancy inspection being requested;

2. Building failed an occupancy inspection but regardless is being occupied illegally;

3. Building has undergone a change of use from a use not requiring an Occupancy Permit to a use requiring an Occupancy Permit without prior approval.

When Council receives an Occupancy Permit from a Private Building Surveyor this provides the Building Department with the opportunity to refer the completed building record to the Valuer General for valuation purposes.

However, if any of the abovementioned listed circumstances occur then Council may not be aware that the building is being occupied and is not provided with the opportunity for the building work to be referred to the Valuer General for valuation and the subsequent advice for rating purposes.

Council is currently in the process of analysing historic building permit records issued since 1994 to identify all building permits that have not been issued with a Completion Certificate. As part of this process, Council will also be identifying all buildings that have been constructed and that are being occupied without the relevant occupancy permit. This process will also identify any possible administrative errors or oversights.

All buildings of this type that are identified will be investigated and the owners contacted. In addition once the construction is completed and an Occupancy Permit issued it will be referred to the Valuer General.

Andy D’Crus – Coordinator Building & Plumbing Services


2 Development Application for Widening of Road

Cr Bastone submitted the following question on notice:

With the proposed widening of the area for queuing for the Bruny Island ferry will State Growth need to apply for a DA?

______________________________________________________________________________



The Department of State Growth are proposing to widen the marshalling area at Roberts Point within the existing road reserve. This upgrade of the existing area does not require a planning permit. If there is any encroachment on to private property then such a permit will be required. It is Council’s understanding that only minor lane changes are proposed at Kettering at this stage and they would similarly not require a planning permit.

Tony Ferrier – Deputy General Manager


3 Night Running of Ferries to Bruny Island


With the proposed night running of ferries on Fridays and Saturdays until 11pm is there any way we can require the operator to reduce the noise? The new ferry is noisier than the old ferry. Kettering is a quiet area and noise travels a long way at night threatening to disrupt the sleep of residents as far away as Trial Bay and Manuka Road.


Enforcing controls on the noise created by the ferry is probably outside of Council’s jurisdiction. It is suggested that contact first be made with the ferry operator to determine if there are any operational means to reduce the noise. Further evidence would need to be provided before Council could consider the noise to be an environmental nuisance.

Tony Ferrier - Deputy General Manager


4 Trucks Queuing for Ferry


As most mornings in Ferry road we now have fish trucks parked waiting for the next barge (up to an hour) is there anyway the Council can stop them waiting with their motors operating in a noisy fashion? Is the Council able to require these trucks to wait in a non-residential area until the barge is ready to be loaded.


Vehicles are allowed to park on a public road. In the first instance, it is suggested that the drivers be asked to park elsewhere. If the noise created by these vehicles constitutes an environmental nuisance (as defined under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act) then Council could potentially issue infringement notices in order to force the trucks to park elsewhere.


______________________________________________________________________________



5 Kingston Beach Water Quality

Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice:

The Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) 2017-18 Annual Report shows the Kingston Beach (Mid) reading for 30 January 2018 was 504 enterococci MPN per 100 mL, putting it into the 'poor' range, while Browns River's reading of 4884 at the same time was described as 'astronomical' by the DEP. These readings caused parts of Kingston Beach to be closed during the peak of summer. The DEP report (page 16) states: "...owing to its high recreational value, Kingston Beach (south) has now been marked for end-point treatment to help alleviate the ongoing problems, while the Council will continue to investigate ongoing problems in the stormwater system."

What work has occurred on this end-point treatment project and broader related stormwater system investigations to date and what work is planned?

What are the expected outcomes from these projects?

What is Council's expectation for water quality at Kingston Beach over summer 2018-19?


Following the recent establishment of an officer working group, staff have commenced formulation of an Integrated Management Strategy (IMS) to address stormwater quality issues influencing Kingston Beach (and Blackmans Bay Beach). The IMS will allow for a more holistic and measured approach to be taken to determine the main types and sources of contaminants and provide a rational response to achieve the best outcomes for the community.

In relation to the DEP program and water quality, the immediate focus involves increased sampling at more sites at Kingston Beach (and Blackmans Bay Beach). This initial approach will assist Council to narrow down the catchment areas that contribute contaminated water to the beach. By determining the main causes of contaminants it will allow a more accurate works program and methods to improve the overall stormwater health. In addition, Council is working with other stakeholders including TasWater, Department of Health and Derwent Estuary Program to achieve optimal outcomes.

Our sampling regime has increased from weekly in one location at each beach and sampling will now occur twice a week at five locations at both Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay Beach. This will increase our understanding of not only the possible source of the contaminants but also the nature of the waste.

In the short to medium term this approach is intended to identify contaminant types and isolate contaminant entry points. this will enable the formation of a systematic approach to treatment and control options, which may or may not include endpoint treatment devices.

In the long term it is hoped that this methodology will enable Council to undertake an ongoing systematic approach to monitoring, and proactive management of various contamination sources. In turn it will also serve to protect the natural environment and areas frequented by the public, such as the two mentioned beaches.

The water quality issues at Kingston (and Blackmans Bay) Beach are a complex multifaceted challenge that requires a measured and systematic approach to identify the source and contaminants (both which may change over time) and implement solutions that are targeted, effective and affordable for the community.

Andy D’Crus – Coordinator Building & Plumbing Services

______________________________________________________________________________



6 Requests for Alternate Planning Recommendations

Cr Bury submitted the following question on notice:

The question relates to the recent requests from Councillors to have planning staff prepare alternative recommendations and conditions to those on the published Council agendas.

In view of the fact that these requests take up substantial staff time in an already busy department and that the Local Government Act 1993 in the current version states in section 28 Functions of Councillors:

(3) In performing any function under this Act or any other Act, a councillor must not –

(a) direct or attempt to direct an employee of the council in relation to the discharge of the employee's duties;

Since a direct request/instruction from a Councillor to planning staff to prepare an alternative recommendation would appear to contravene the current legislation, would the General Manager please advise:

(1) if any Councillors have approached staff directly with such a request and;

(2) have the General Manager or deputy General Manager ever directed planning staff to prepare such an alternative recommendation?

The preparation of alternative recommendations and the related conditions for a planning matter is an onerous task.

In view of the fact that, in circumstances where a recommendation from planning staff has been overturned by council, the meeting can then be adjourned for 10 minutes whilst an alternative motion is prepared with the assistance of planning staff, is there any need for an alternative recommendation to be prepared in advance?

The information prepared by the planning staff, may of course, never be required.

And, finally, could the General Manager please advise as to the legality of the Planning Authority debating a recommendation, completely different to that in the agenda available to the public?

To be quite clear, the question I am asking, does not relate to a recommendation being moved, seconded and then amended. But whether a different recommendation, invariably the reverse in intent of that which has been made available in the public agenda, can legitimately be considered by the Planning Authority?


It has been the normal practice for Councillors to directly contact the Manager Development Services on each occasion when an alternative planning recommendation is to be proposed. This has occurred fairly frequently before and enables the Planning Department the time to consider the accurate wording that is required for such a matter. In each case, the Manager confirms with the General Manager that such a request should be met, particularly in regard to whether it is worth devoting staff resources and time to this request.

The situation is quite different, depending on whether the alternative recommendation is to approve or refuse the development application. If a refusal alternative is required, then the grounds of refusal need to be defined in accordance with the specific clauses of the planning scheme. If an approval alternative is required, then a new set of permit conditions need to be developed. In the case of the former, it may be possible to do this during the meeting, but in the case of the latter, this would not be possible as the conditions could run to a number of

______________________________________________________________________________


pages (eg for a land subdivision). Council staff appreciate the opportunity to have sufficient time to prepare an alternative recommendation.

As the Planning Authority, the Council is not bound to adhere to the staff recommendation. An alternative recommendation could be put and subsequently debated. There is no legal requirement to first debate the staff recommendation, prior to any alternative.



7 Stormwater Approvals and Policies

Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice:

Is Council aware of developers being allowed to not install or remove treatment devices for stormwater, despite such devices being required as part of their planning permit? If so, how has that issue being addressed?

Does Council have a policy regarding stormwater treatment devices?


Each application is treated on its merits depending on the size of the impervious area, the number of units, the existing Council stormwater system capacity, current connection type to Council’s reticulation system and in accordance with the requirements of the planning scheme.

Every Development Approval (DA) application is referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comment. There have been some applications for planning approval where the applicant’s Consulting Engineers have designed the stormwater system to include both stormwater treatment and stormwater detention systems at the planning application stage. This has not specifically been a requirement of Council.

Stormwater detention systems such as the installation of water tanks are also approved forms of stormwater treatment so some applications which have included both water tanks and separate treatment system, have in effect doubled up the treatment component of the system. There have been a few developers that, at the Building Permit stage, have requested the removal of the separate designed treatment device. In this situation the developer is required to seek a minor amendment to the planning permit, to amend the approved stormwater system design.

Any stormwater treatment device servicing a whole unit development is required to be installed in the common property in order to ensure that the servicing of the system to maintain its effectiveness can be adequately controlled by the Body Corporate.

There is no specific Council policy for stormwater treatment systems over and above the requirements of the planning scheme.

Andy D'Crus - Building and Plumbing Coordinator

______________________________________________________________________________


QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


Cr Fox asked the following question without notice: 1 Bruny Island Advisory Committee

Will Council staff prepare a formal response (for consideration at the same time as the BIAC decision on this matter) to the letter from Rosemary Stanford, including the attached 4 page document? General Manager responds: I was also copied in on the e-mail from Rosemary and it’s my understanding that the officer preparing the report for a future Council meeting will indeed ensure that it is addressed in the Council report that comes to Council.


Cr Bury asked the following questions without notice:

2 Dogs at Taroona Beach

Since we now have a free for all for dogs off leash at Taroona Beach, are staffing planning on putting any signage up on that beach to inform the dog walking community that that section of beach is not yet been declared off-lead? As an addition, one of our correspondents pointed out the fact that if we do not do something like that, it could be assumed that we are just going through the motions seeking submissions. I know that’s not true. I would hate for whatever happens to be appealed again. Are any notices planned to be put up at Taroona Beach advising the dog walking community that that section of the beach has not yet been declared.

Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:

It is my understanding that there is an existing sign indicating that the Taroona Beach is no dogs and that sign hasn’t, to my knowledge, been removed. The message conveyed by that sign is still in place until such time as Council considers the submissions received and finalises its position.

Cr Bury:

That sign has been ignored and is being ignored even more at present. Is that the final decision that there are no additional signs to be put up because the signs are not adhered to by some members of the dog walking community.

Executive Manager Governance & Community Services:

We have new signage going up for when our policy and declared areas are finally in place but my advice is that if the existing signage is being ignored, that is unfortunate but I’m not sure an additional sign going up will make any difference. My answer is, we don’t intend to put up any new signage until such time as our declared areas have been finalised.

______________________________________________________________________________



3 Request for Alternate Motions by Councillors

At present, one Councillor can request to have an alternative motion prepared without even providing the reasons for such a request. I noted the response of the Deputy General Manager and I repeat the direct quote from the Local Government Act in ‘Function of Councillors’ :

“(3) In performing any function under this Act or any other Act, a councillor must not –

(a) direct or attempt to direct an employee of the council in relation to the discharge of the employee's duties;”

I ask my question again that I asked previously. Have any direct requests been made and have the General Manager or the Deputy General Manager made a specific request to staff in regard to this?

General Manager responds:

The matter you are referring to was a recent one. Following a discussion outside of this forum with you, I did check into that there was a request made by email, it was a request, it was not, in my opinion, in any way seeking to direct staff. It was a request that could have been refused. It wasn’t refused. The process that this Council has adopted during this term of office for this Council has been to, wherever possible, to accede to those requests, mindful that there is a work load involved. The request was made on a Friday afternoon, the Council meeting was held on the Monday evening and the officers did repair the alternate motion as it would have been, not a recommendation as it would have been a motion moved by a Councillor, as per that request.

Cr Bury:

The particular request on the Friday afternoon, which I assume didn’t contain any reasons, led to the planning staff preparing seven pages of conditions. I’ve no doubt it took them significant time to do that. That document was never required. Does the General Manager feel that this is an effective use of planning staff time?


Under the circumstances, the short answer to your question is yes. The situation is that Council officers are not to know, when a request is put in, whether the Councillor has or doesn’t have the support of his or her colleagues. That is not a question we need to ask. All we need to ask ourselves is, if the Council acting as the Planning Authority, were to come up with a decision that was different to the recommendation, are there sufficient grounds on which to defend that decision. If it’s a case where a recommendation for approval has been put forward to Council and an alternate is sought, that would be sufficient grounds for refusal and again, all the officers need to turn their mind to is, would the Council have sufficient grounds to support that decision should it come to fruition. I think the more important answer to your questioning is, have we got the process right, and I think the honest answer is that I think we’ve got it as good as we can get it. I would always ask Councillors to put their requests in early because you are correct, there is a lot of work involved and the matter that you are referring to took in fact two officers pretty much the whole day.

______________________________________________________________________________



Cr Winter asked the following question without notice:

4 Public Question Time Policy

Can I have an understanding of why Mrs Maynard’s second question was ruled out of order?


In short, the matter has already been listed on the agenda for tonight’s meeting and under our Guidelines, a matter that is listed for discussion or for information, on this occasion, is in the same category and for this reason the Mayor, acting as the Chair, made that decision.

Cr Winter:

I think there have been numerous occasions where that’s not occurred. These are questions on notice listed particularly about Kingston Beach water quality. When I previously asked about this the reason is that Council officers felt that they didn’t want to pre-empt a Council decision by answering a question one way at the start of the meeting and becoming different later. To my mind, a question on notice listed in the agenda is not an agenda item and therefore there is no issue with answering the question. I just find it unusual that Council wouldn’t want to answer a question about Kingston Beach water quality particularly when it is a very topical issue at the moment. Is there any chance we can review this situation, particularly in clarifying whether questions on notice can’t be answered.

General Manager:

I’m happy to review it and discuss it with the new Council.


Cr Percey asked the following question without notice:

5 Kingston Beach Masterplan

Is the Kingston Beach Masterplan up to date and is it anticipated that it will be reviewed in the near future?


Certainly in a draft form and its certainly been to the community on more than one occasion and it has also been back to Council on more than one occasion as well. It will need to come back to Council to be finalised. The design elements have been finalised and some of the aspects that were probably still outstanding were to do with Council’s position, for example, on car parking on the foreshore side of the beach. Part of that still needs to be resolved before coming back to Council and that can then hopefully be adopted as a finalised strategy for the area.

______________________________________________________________________________



Cr Grace asked the following questions without notice:

6 O’Brien’s Road, Snug

Could we be given a time when this report is coming back to Council regarding correspondence and meetings with Mr Reeve.


There have been a number of different discussions with property owners in that area in terms of gathering information from them. That still needs to be finalised in terms of that information prior to bringing it back to Council. We are hoping that will come up in the next Council meeting or the one after.


7 Snug Playground

Council has said, when I raised this, that the skate park had already been dealt with for Snug. People have listened to our audio recording and come back and I’ve researched it. The skate park was only mentioned at the very final meeting that went to Council to get funds for the playground and the skate park was put over to stage 3 of the project. Councillors never debated what sort of skate park they would put in at Snug. My question is, can this be done?

Mayor:

I would like you to clarify a little bit please.

Cr Grace:

As you know, Snug and Electrona and with the study that was done on recreation for the lower Channel area, a lot of things were identified but I was cried down the fact that staff maintain they did the consultation. Yes, they did do some consultation, I’m not arguing about that, but not on the skate park. The skate park was never any consultation on that skate park and if you go back through the records you will find that.


Certainly there was some extensive consultation that was done on what is a multi-disciplinary type playground which is for a number of different uses. So that was fairly extensive consultation across the whole community and included input back about skating facilities. Certainly the intention was, with the final report that came up to Council, was that Council resolved to continue with the project having a skating element of some description would come up, as Cr Grace mentioned, as a Stage 3 project. Certainly the intention would be for anything that would be added into that particular area outside of what’s currently funded, that Council would get to have some discussion about that in terms of what they would like to see in that area as well. At this stage, that part of the project is a non-funded part of the project so it would wait until it did achieve that funding.

______________________________________________________________________________


MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN


1 Council Committees and Special Committees

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Wriedt

That Council: 1. shall as soon as practical after the October 2018 local government election and prior to

appointing any councillors to Council Special Committees hold a workshop to discuss what Council Committees and Council Special Committees should be established, and

2. requests, through the General Manager, advice from council officers on what changes to the Committees and Special Committees would improve the functioning of Council.

FOR


Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Wriedt

AGAINST

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Carried


2 Council Workshops

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Chatterton That council request a report from officers on a practical way to improve the process for subject selection, scheduling, and any other aspects of council workshops. FOR


Cr Grace Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Winter Cr Wriedt

Carried Unanimously

______________________________________________________________________________


PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED

There are no petitions still being actioned.

PETITIONS RECEIVED IN LAST PERIOD

At the time the Agenda was compiled no Petitions had been received.

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

______________________________________________________________________________


Planning Authority Meeting commenced at 6.26pm

OFFICERS REPORTS TO PLANNING AUTHORITY


DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 26 SEPTEMBER 2018 TO 9 OCTOBER 2018

MOVED Cr Chatterton SECONDED Cr Grace That the report be noted. FOR



Carried Unanimously

Cr Fox left the room at 6.27pm


DAS-2018-18 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS AND BALANCE AT 388 AND 366 HOWDEN ROAD, HOWDEN FOR PDA SURVEYORS

MOVED Cr Grace SECONDED Cr Percey That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for subdivision of two lots and balance at 388 and 366 Howden Road, Howden be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Except as otherwise required by this Permit, use and development of the land must be substantially in accordance with Development Application No. DAS-2018-18 and Council Plan Reference No. P2 submitted on 30 August 2018, and P3 submitted on 26 of September 2018. This Permit relates to the use of land or buildings irrespective of the applicant or

PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION

______________________________________________________________________________


subsequent occupants, and whoever acts on it must comply with all conditions in this Permit. Any amendment, variation or extension of this Permit requires further planning consent of Council.

2. As no provision has been made for recreation space or improvements thereto, and having formed the opinion that such a provision should be made, Council invokes the provisions of Section 117 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and requires security equivalent of 5% of the unimproved value of the gross area of lots 1 and 2. This must be in the form of a direct payment made before the sealing of the Final Plan, or alternatively, in the form of security provided under Section 117 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993.

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

3. A passing bay with a minimum length of 6m and a minimum width of 5.5m must be provided on the proposed sealed driveway at its intersection with the driveway to the existing dwelling on Lot 3. The passing bay must taper to the width of the driveway and be wholly located within the right-of-way provided in favour of Lot 2.

4. The building area shown on Lot 1 on the endorsed plan of subdivision and bushfire hazard management plan must be identified as a building envelope on the final plan of survey. The land title of Lot 1 must be endorsed to the effect that:

a) All habitable buildings must be located within the building envelope and designed to a minimum of BAL 19 under the Australian Standard AS3959:2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire prone areas;

b) The measures contained within the Bushfire Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) prepared by Enviro-dynamics dated 22/08/2018 must be implemented in relation to any future development of the lot, unless superseded by an alternative BHMP. Any alternative BHMP must be certified by an accredited person or the Tasmania Fire Service and demonstrate that:

i) the hazard management areas are contained within the lot boundaries; and

ii) the establishment and ongoing maintenance of the hazard management area does not rely upon the removal on any Eucalyptus ovata trees with a diameter greater than 25cm (measured at 4.5 feet above the ground).

c) Habitable buildings and outbuildings are to be designed to limit the likelihood of bird strike as far as possible and development is to be designed in accordance with the document “Minimising the swift parrot collision threat – Guidelines and recommendations for parrot-safe building design”.

d) No felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of eucalypt trees can take place without the prior written consent of Council;

e) Future development must be designed and located to avoid and mitigate impacts on Eucalyptus ovata trees with a diameter greater than 25cm and other eucalypts with a diameter greater than 70cm to the extent feasible, including buildings, access, services and bushfire.

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________


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

5. To ensure future development of Lot 2 minimises collision risk to swift parrots, prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey the title of Lot 2 must be endorsed to the effect that:

a) Proposed dwellings and outbuildings are to be designed to limit the likelihood of bird strike as far as possible and development is to be designed in accordance with the document “Minimising the swift parrot collision threat – Guidelines and recommendations for parrot-safe building design”; and

b) The measures contained within the Bushfire Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) prepared by Enviro-dynamics and certified 22/08/2018 must be implemented in relation to any future development of the lot, unless superseded by an alternative BHMP. Any alternative BHMP must be certified by an accredited person or the Tasmania Fire Service and demonstrate that the hazard management areas are contained within the lot boundaries.

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

(a) Identifies all native trees with a diameter greater than 25cm relative to the subdivision works, including road construction, services and utilities;

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

(c) Demonstrates that the road, services and utilities are designed, located and constructed to avoid impacts on high conservation value trees, including any E. ovata trees with a diameter greater than 25cm and any eucalypts with a diameter greater than 70cm;

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

(e) Is in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 for the protection of trees on development sites.

7. No felling, lopping, ringbarking or otherwise injuring or destroying of native vegetation or individual trees listed in Table E10.1 in Code E10.0 of the Kingborough Interim Planning Scheme 2015 is to take place as part of the subdivision works.

8. Due to the presence of declared and environmental weeds, prior to the commencement of on-site works and the issue of a “start works” notice, a Weed Management Plan developed by a suitably qualified consultant and to the satisfaction Council’s Manager Development Services must be submitted. This Plan must include:

(a) Timeframes and methods for primary and follow up treatment of all declared and environmental weeds within Lot 1 and Lot 2; and

(b) Weed hygiene measures required to ensure the risk of the spread of weeds from the site during construction is minimised.

______________________________________________________________________________


Primary and secondary treatment of all weeds is required in accordance with the Weed Management Plan and must be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager Development Services prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey.

9. Engineering design drawings must be submitted to Council for approval. Engineering design drawings must be generally in accordance with the submitted concept overall and site works plans to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services. The plans must be approved prior to commencement of any works on site and must:

(a) Comply with Tasmanian Standard construction drawings;

(b) Include, but not be limited to, adequately detailed vehicular road access, stormwater reticulation mains extension and connections to service each proposed lot;

(c) Include the design, construction and asphalt sealing of Howden Fire Station Road (including the intersection with Howard Road) to a minimum of 4.0m sealed width to the boundary of lots 1 & 3;

(d) Include the design, construction and sealing of the proposed right of way access driveway to a minimum of 3.6m sealed width to the boundary of Lot 2;

(e) Include a private service fire main extended along the right of way road access to a point that permits service within 120m of all extents of Lot 2 & 3 boundaries for fire management purposes.

The engineering plan approval will be valid for a maximum period of two years from the date of Council endorsement, and if practical completion has not been achieved within the time limit, the engineering plans will be subject to re-assessment. Design reports and calculations must be provided as required, and engineering plans must be prepared and certified by an accredited professional engineer to the satisfaction and approval of the Executive Manager - Engineering Services. The construction works must be supervised by an accredited professional engineer.

10. The applicant must not commence civil construction works within a Council road reservation until the following requirements are met:

(a) A ‘Permit to carry out works within a Council road reservation’ has been issued by Council and the associated application fee paid; and

(b) A Traffic Management Plan has been prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the Australian Standard 1742.3 (2009) and lodged with Council.

11. A Council fee of 2% of the estimated value of the civil engineering construction works (including GST, provisional items and contingencies) for the development or the current minimum fee, whichever is the greater, must be paid at the time of submission of the engineering design plans for approval. The actual amounts payable must be based on the rates adopted by Council and prevailing at the time of payment.

12. All existing and proposed water, sewer and stormwater pipelines must be provided with all necessary drainage easements and shown on the Final Plan of Survey lodged for sealing.

Specific easements as required by other authorities must also be provided and shown on the Final Plan of Survey lodged for sealing.

13. All existing sewer, water, stormwater plumbing infrastructure including Aurora and telecommunication authorities supply infrastructure traversing newly created lots, must be removed and/or replaced as necessary so that they are contained within the boundaries of the specific lot which they service with all associated costs borne by the applicant. The

______________________________________________________________________________


requirements of the relevant service authorities are to be strictly complied with by the applicant.

14. Underground power and telecommunication services must be provided to all lots on the endorsed plan of subdivision in accordance with the requirements of TasNetworks and the telecommunications authority requirements. Services conduits must be provided to the lots proper at the developer’s cost. Services conduits must be provided to the service authority requirements. The underground cabling and street lighting design including annual operating costs must be submitted to Council for approval prior to engineering plan approval.

15. The supervising engineer must lodge a maintenance bond and bank guarantee of 10% of the total contract sum including GST to cover the satisfactory rectification of all defects and defective works during the statutory 52 weeks maintenance period prior to the issue of Certificate of Practical Completion for each approved stage of the subdivision.

16. At practical completion and the satisfactory completion of all mandatory audit inspections for each approved stage of the subdivision works the supervising engineer must:

(a) Request a joint on site practical completion inspection with the Council’s authorised representative;

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

(c) Provide a copy of relevant documentation that all requirements have been carried out as applicable by the following:

(i) Telecommunication authorities

(ii) TasNetworks

(iii) TasWater;

(d) Provide supervising engineer’s certification that site filling exceeding 300mm has been placed in accordance with AS3798 (guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential developments). Fill areas must be shown on the ‘As Constructed’ drawings;

(e) Provide a signed checklist for ‘As Constructed’ drawings;

(f) Submit A1 size ‘As Constructed’ drawings in accordance with Council’s Survey Brief, at a scale of 1:200 or 1:500 as appropriate, unless approved otherwise, certified as correct by a registered land surveyor in accordance with Council’s Survey requirements for subdivisions, developments and capital works projects;

(g) Provide CCTV inspection and report (by Council approved contractor) of any new public stormwater infrastructure to be taken over by Council;

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

(a) All mandatory audit inspections;

(b) Provision of acceptable documentation;

(c) Practical completion inspection;

(d) Provision of Bond and Bank guarantees.

______________________________________________________________________________


17. The satisfactory completion of all public infrastructure for each stage of the subdivision works will be considered achieved when:

(a) A Certificate of Practical Completion has been issued;

(b) All defects and any defective works have been satisfactorily rectified at the completion of the 52 week maintenance period;

(c) Council will be entitled to call upon the bond and bank guarantee funds to complete or rectify any outstanding defective works after the expiry of the maintenance period;

(d) At the end of the statutory 52 week maintenance period, the supervising Engineer must request a joint onsite inspection with the Council’s authorised representative to confirm that all outstanding defects and defective works have been satisfactorily completed;

(e) Upon satisfactory completion of all outstanding defects and defective works Council will issue a notice of satisfactory ‘Final Inspection’ and the public assets will be taken over by Council;

(f) After takeover of the works, it will be the responsibility of the supervising engineer or applicant to request Council to release all Bond and Bank Guarantee monies.

18. All works associated with each approved stage of the subdivision must be completed to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager – Engineering Services prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey by Council for the respective stage. Quality assured contractors may lodge a notice of intent to Council requesting assessment and approval that security be accepted to cover the completion of any outstanding works to enable the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey. The assessment must be in accordance with Council’s policy at the time, is subject to an onsite inspection and report by Council’s officers. The follow must be confirmed in writing:

(a) That all sewer, stormwater, water mains and associated house connections are constructed and capable of satisfactory operation; and

(b) That all requirements of the Electricity and Telecommunication agencies and other relevant service authorities have been satisfactorily completed.

Acceptable “As Constructed” drawings must be provided.

19. All the downpipes, stormwater drains and subsoil drains from the existing dwelling must be connected to an approved stormwater connection. The work must be carried out by a licensed plumbing contractor and inspected by a Council Plumbing Surveyor prior to backfilling. The work must be carried out prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey.

20. All the water supply pipes from the existing dwelling must be connected to the proposed new water connection by a licensed plumbing contractor and inspected by a Council Plumbing Surveyor prior to backfilling. The work must be carried out prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey.

21. All the sewer house connection drains from the existing dwelling must be connected to the proposed new sewer connection by a licensed plumbing contractor and inspected by a Council Plumbing Surveyor prior to backfilling. The work must be carried out prior to the sealing of the Final Plan of Survey.

22. Prior to decommissioning, the septic tank must be emptied of all controlled waste by an appropriately licensed contractor (ref: Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994). The tank must then be removed, destroyed or completely filled in with a solid inert material.

______________________________________________________________________________


23. The conditions as determined by TasWater, and set out in the attached Appendix A, form part of this permit.

ADVICE

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

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

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

New property addresses have been allocated as follows:

Lot No. Allocated Property Address

1 388 Howden Road, Howden

2 390 Howden Road, Howden

3 390A Howden Road, Howden (existing dwelling)

FOR

Cr Atkinson Cr Bastone Cr Bury Cr Chatterton Cr Grace

Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Winter Cr Wriedt

Carried Unanimously

______________________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________


PLANNING AUTHORITY ADJOURNS

______________________________________________________________________________


C742/23-18 (Commences at ± 1 hour, 6 minutes of audio recording)

INFORMATION REPORTS

MOVED Cr Percey SECONDED Cr Bury That the following information reports be noted: 1. Financial Report for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 September 2018. 2. Infrastructure Works Progress Report. FOR



Carried Unanimously

C743/23-18

CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Atkinson 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)

Manor Gardens Property Tenure 15(2)(f)

Supply of One (1) Articulated Motor Grader Fitted With a Multi Tyred Roller 15(2)(d)

Kingborough Awards 2019 15(2)(g)

FOR



Carried Unanimously and By Absolute Majority

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

______________________________________________________________________________


In accordance with the Kingborough Council Meetings Audio Recording Guidelines Policy, recording of the open session of the meeting ceased. Open Session of Council adjourned at 7.07pm Cr Wriedt left the room at 7.07pm

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

______________________________________________________________________________


Open Session of Council resumed at 7.59pm

C750/23-18

MOVED Cr Bury SECONDED Cr Percey 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 Confirmed

Applications for Leave of Absence Nil

Manor Gardens Property Tenure Noted and GM authorised to negotiate

Supply of One (1) Articulated Motor Grader Fitted With a Multi Tyred Roller

Tender awarded to William Adams Pty Ltd for $432,000

Kingborough Awards 2019 Recommendation endorsed

FOR



Carried Unanimously

CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 8.00pm

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

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

minutes - kingborough council · 2018-10-28 · minutes no. 23 page 3 22 october 2018 questions on...

Documents