MINUTES - Kingborough Council€¦ · Minutes No. 22 Page 1 8 October 2018 MINUTES of an Ordinary...

MINUTES

8 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 1

C681/22-18 Confirmation of Minutes of 24 September 2018 1 2

Workshops Held Since Last Council Meeting 2 2

Declarations of Interest 2 2

Transfer of Agenda Items 2 2

Questions on Notice From the Public 3 2

C682/22-18 1 Dog on Powell Road 3 2

C683/22-18 2 Future Public Inquiry onto the Kingston Park Project 3 3

C684/22-18 3 Blackmans Bay Playground 5 4

Questions Without Notice From the Public 5 5

C685/22-18 1 Howden Planning Scheme Appeal 5

C686/22-18 2 Council’s Financial Position 5

C687/22-18 3 Variations 5

C688/22-18 4 Council Communications in the Kingborough Chronicle 6

C689/22-18 5 Public Paper Agendas 6

C690/22-18 6 Public Forums 6

C691/22-18 7 Record of Question Asked at Previous Meeting 7

Questions on Notice From Councillors 5 7

C692/22-18 1 Variations 5 7

C693/22-18 2 Correspondence to Councillors 6 8

C694/22-18 3 Blackmans Bay Beach Water Quality 6 8

C695/22-18 4 Proposed Commercial Lobster Hatchery Development at the IMAS Taroona Crayfish Point Facility 7 9

Questions Without Notice From Councillors 7 9

C696/22-18 1 Oxley’s Road 9

C697/22-18 2 Updating Website 9

C698/22-18 3 Exemption of Fees for Community Groups 10

C699/22-18 4 TasWater 10

C700/22-18 5 Dog Management Policy 11

C701/22-18 6 Water Quality, Blackmans Bay 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Minute No. Agenda

Page No. Minute

Page No.

C702/22-18 7 Blackmans Bay Beach 12

C703/22-18 8 Rates 13

C704/22-18 9 Bureau of Meteorology 13

Motions of Which Notice Has Been Given 7 13

Petitions Still Being Actioned 8 14

Petitions Received in Last Period 8 14

Officers Reports to Planning Authority 9 15

C705/22-18 Delegated Authority for the Period 12 September 2018 to 25 September 2018 9 15

C706/22-18 DA-2018-73 - Development Application for 97 Apartments, 11 Retail Tenancies, Basement Carparking and Relaxation of Total Number of Carparking Spaces at 6 Summerleas Road and Southern Outlet and Channel Highway Road Reserves (Including CT 165899/2), Kingston for JMG Engineers 12 15

Officers Reports to Council 62 21

C707/22-18 Community Grants 2018/2019 Round 1 62 21

C708/22-18 Dru Point Reserve Master Plan 66 21

C709/22-18 Bruny Island Ragwort Program Review 97 22

C710/22-18 Grants and Benefits Disclosure 159 22

C711/22-18 Information Reports 162 23

General Manager’s Diary for the Period 1 September to 1 October 2018 163

Current and Previous Minute Resolutions 165

Kingborough Waste Services - Bi-Monthly Report 169

C712/22-18 Confirmation of Items to be Dealt With in Closed Session 182 23

_______________________________________________________________________________

Minutes No. 22 Page 1 8 October 2018

MINUTES of an Ordinary Meeting of Council held at the Kingborough Civic Centre, 15 Channel Highway, Kingston on Monday, 8 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 Chairman acknowledged and paid respect to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community as the traditional and original owners and continuing custodians of the land on which we met, and acknowledged elders past and present.

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 Staff: General Manager Mr Gary Arnold Deputy General Manager Mr Tony Ferrier Executive Manager Organisational Development Ms Pene Hughes Executive Manager Governance & Community Services Mr Daniel Smee Manager Development Services Ms Tasha Tyler-Moore Coordinator Statutory Planning Mrs Melissa Stevenson Senior Manager Capital Works Mr Craig Reid Co-ordinator Development Engineering Mr Simon Johnson NRM Project Officer Ms Rene Raichert Executive Assistant Mrs Amanda Morton

APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

_______________________________________________________________________________


C681/22-18 (Commences at ± 2 minutes of audio recording)

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF 24 SEPTEMBER 2018

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Bury

That the Minutes of Council Meeting No. 21 (open session) held on 24 September 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 Winter Cr Wriedt

Carried Unanimously

WORKSHOPS HELD SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING

1 October – Community Engagement Framework

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS

No agenda items were transferred.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC


1 Dog on Powell Road

At the Council meeting on 24 September 2018, Ms Kim Chandler-Storey asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

It has been brought to my attention that a young family walks their children to school along Powell Road, Blackmans Bay and there is an unregistered vicious dog that escapes under a gate and bails them up. They have reported this to the Council three times and they have video evidence. The dog is not at large all the time as it runs back under the gate under the fence. The family is very traumatised and has a young child who is suffering from fear of dogs and they now can’t walk to school. What can Council do about this and can they inform, as I’m sure they know who these people are, can they inform them and is Council under any obligation to this family if this unregistered dog attacks?

_______________________________________________________________________________


Officer’s Response:

The matter has been referred to Council’s Compliance Unit and will be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Dog Control Act 2000.

Daniel Smee - Executive Manager Governance & Community Services


2 Future Public Inquiry into the Kingston Park Project

At the Council meeting on 24 September 2018, Mr Mervin Reed asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

The Kingborough Ratepayers Association has formed the view that the Kingston Park is a land development project that Mr Ferrier, the Council’s Deputy General Manager, assess may end up with a loss to the ratepayers of some $6 million.

(a) What external consultants from major property companies such as LJ Hooker Commercial or Knight Frank Tasmania are being engaged to provide consulting advice to the councillors on this project?

(b) What independent valuation consulting services is being provided and by whom on this project?

(c) What individual financial risk management advice is being provided and by whom on this project?

Failure to have these current and independent reports to hand, both in the past and in the future, when making any financial or project management decisions in respect of this project, will see Councillors deemed to not be acting in the best interests of the ratepayers. Councillors have a fiduciary responsibility to the ratepayers and must be able to demonstrate this with independent evidence and advice. It is quite likely that given the losses on this project will impose rate increases of at least 6% on the ratepayers for some 5 years to clear debts, a formal public inquiry into the huge losses will be a probable result. Therefore, I request that the answer detail all consultants and professional advisers who have been engaged by the Council and whether copies of their reports have been provided to councillors prior to any decisions being made and if not why not?


The redevelopment of the former Kingston High School site has been the subject of a number of economic and financial related studies. An initial valuation of the whole site was conducted by Ernst & Young for the State Treasury. This provided the background to the further economic, land valuation and local market and feasibility analysis conducted as part of the Site Development Plan prepared in 2012/13. The brief for this Development Plan required a detailed economic analysis to be conducted of the proposed design – including an assessment of all likely future costs and revenue. This analysis was conducted by HillPDA as part of the consortium of consultants that prepared this Development Plan.

This information provided the basis from which Council made the decision to purchase and develop this site. It also formed the basis for a revised independent valuation of the site that took into account the proposed extensive areas of public open space and community facilities which would not be available to generate revenue from the sale of land. At that time it was estimated that there could be a total financial shortfall of about $5M after a 10-15 year development period – and this approximate figure has generally persisted through to the

_______________________________________________________________________________


present day. It must of course be acknowledged that for such a financial “loss”, the Kingborough community obtains its main community centre, many public spaces, playground and a development that will stimulate private investment throughout central Kingston.

This predicted financial shortfall subsequently provided the opportunity and basis for a series of external grant applications which were supported by an independent economic analysis prepared by HillPDA. A copy of this Economic Assessment (March 2015) is still available for perusal on the Council’s website.

About two years ago the consultancy firm NAVIRE was commissioned as Council’s principal property consultant. This consultant reviewed the financial viability of the project and undertook a local property market analysis. A series of workshops were held with the councillors, a Land Release Strategy prepared for the project and a comprehensive financial model introduced. The latter modelling exercise enabled Council to test a range of scenarios ranging from high risk/high return to low risk/low return options. Land sale revenue was a critical element of this and was based on past land sales in the general area (an obviously conservative approach). This modelling has assisted in the development of a project plan that achieves the optimum financial result for Council.

Most recently, the NAVIRE consultants have assisted Council in calling for expressions of interest from private developers. The future sale of land for this private development will provide the revenue required to support Council’s expenditure on public infrastructure and facilities. The offers that have been made take into account the special nature of this site and the future attractions that it will provide. Past land valuations soon become obsolete.

In summary, and in specific response to the questions about independent consulting advice, Council has engaged HillPDA and NAVIRE consultants over an extended period to assess the financial risks associated with this project, to provide land valuation information and to keep the councillors informed in regard to the project’s economic feasibility. Councillors have been provided with many reports and a great deal of detailed information throughout the life of this project.

Tony Ferrier - Acting General Manager


3 Blackmans Bay Playground

Jo Westwood submitted the following question on notice:

Following a meeting on 26 September 2018 with David Reeve, Executive Manager Engineering Services, where he committed to undertake further consultation with the community regarding their desire for a fence at the new Blackmans Bay playground, can the council please outline if it intends to consult with local schools and childcare centres and how will it undertake consultation with individuals?


Council will be carrying out consultation with groups, organisations and individuals in the Blackmans Bay community regarding the request for fencing of the new playground. Groups and organisations will be contacted directly and invited to discuss the concerns raised. Council will advertise a number of discussion sessions to occur at the playground, at various times and across a few weeks, for concerned parents and community members. These discussions will be organised after the school holidays, to make sure we are giving everyone in the community the opportunity to take part. There will also be an opportunity for people to contribute online. A report of the outcomes and options discussed by the community will be

_______________________________________________________________________________


prepared for Council to consider, which is likely to be presented to Council in late-November/early-December.

David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC


Mr John McDonald asked the following question without notice: 1 Howden Planning Scheme Appeal

I note the simple, clear and succinct reasons given by the Tribunal in dismissing this appeal against the development approved by Council. The grounds of appeal appear to be those grounds put forward by Council staff in recommending rejecting the development application, as recorded in the minutes of 26 February this year. What processes are in place to review staff advice to ensure that costly legal actions are minimised in the future? Manager Development Services responds: Every appeal that we go through we review. We review the comments made by the Appeals Tribunal in terms of interpretations, methods for assessment and other aspects in terms of the assessment against the Planning Scheme and the Land Use Act. We still feel confident that we made the right decision at the time and we accept the decision, as is the case for many appeals that go through, some go in our favour and some don’t, so of course we take into account any decisions made by the Tribunal.


Mr Mervin Reed asked the following question without notice: 2 Council’s Financial Position

Will you instruct the Councillors to actually tell the truth about the Council’s financial position, rather than the untruths that are currently being put about? General Manager responds: I note from the Council minutes from the 24th September meeting that a similar question was asked by Mr Reed and the answer given by Mr Breen, the Chief Financial Officer, in writing, recorded in the Minutes, is that for the last financial year the Council have declared an underlying surplus and that will be confirmed when the Tasmanian Auditor reports to Parliament.


Ms Kate Lucas asked the following questions without notice: 3 Variations

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?

_______________________________________________________________________________


General Manager responds: Thank you for the question but because it refers to a closed item that went to a closed session of Council, I’m not able to give a public response tonight. I will take the question on notice.


4 Council Communications in the Kingborough Chronicle

Can you give me your assurances that the two page ad that appeared in the Kingborough Chronicle last week will not appear during the remainder of the Local Government voting period up to the end of this month? How can you justify spending ratepayers funds on this type of advertising when Council is supposed to be completely impartial in the election? General Manager responds: I’ve just returned from annual leave on Friday last week. I have not seen last week’s Chronicle so I will throw to my colleague, Mr Ferrier, who may have seen the article and will be able to answer tonight. Deputy General Manager responds: My understanding is the article that you are referring to is the standard news article that Council provides in each issue of the Chronicle and is just a report on the news and the decision which were made by the Council at the previous meeting. It’s just a standard news article that is provided for Council to inform the community what the business of the Council has been.


Ms Tricia Ramsay asked the following questions without notice: 5 Public Paper Agendas

Following the decision at the last Council meeting to adopt digitally produced agendas for Councillors, will paper copies continue to be available for ratepayers who attend the Council meetings? Mayor: Yes, they will be available.


6 Public Forums My question is directed to the Mayor. If re-elected, will you guarantee to hold a public forum to debate the $5 million debt accrued against Kingston Park, a development that was sold to ratepayers as cost neutral only four years ago? Additionally, will you guarantee that public forums will become an integral part of every annual budget consultation process? Mayor: If Councillors decided around the table that they wished an open forum, an open forum would be held.

_______________________________________________________________________________



Mr John McDonald asked the following question without notice: 7 Record of Question asked at Previous Meeting

I’ve just checked the agenda for this evening and I believe I asked a question at the last meeting concerning election signs. That doesn’t appear in the record. General Manager responds: I’m referring to the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2018 at which you did indeed ask a question and a response was given by Mr Ferrier, who was Acting General Manager at the time, and that is recorded in the Minutes. Mr McDonald: So it’s been recorded in the previous Minutes rather than the current Agenda? General Manager: Yes, that is correct.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


1 Variations

At the Council meeting on 24 September 2018, Cr Grace asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

How many more times do I have to request and be told by the General Manager, not the Acting General Manager, that yes, he would make available to myself and other Councillors information about the variations which were exceeded over $100,000 on the Esplanade, Margate road project. I’ve asked that question three times and still not got any information regarding those variations.


The reasons for the additional expenditure on the recent Dru Point Esplanade and Beach Road works was outlined in a closed session report to Council on 14 May 2018. This question relates to information that would be presented in closed session, however if individual Councillors have specific questions on this matter, the General Manager would be available to provide responses to them on a confidential basis.

David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services

_______________________________________________________________________________



2 Correspondence to Councillors

At the Council meeting on 24 September 2018, Cr Grace asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

When residents write letters addressed to the Mayor and General Manager and also on the bottom of the letter cc copy to all Councillors, could you please advise why these are not being handed on to Councillors and how many of these come in that have not been handed out because this letter was dated the 23rd August to yourself and the General Manager and the resident is not very happy that we didn’t get the copy.


Letters that are addressed to the Mayor or General Manager are normally forwarded to the General Manager’s office for further distribution or action. Many of these letters deal with routine operational matters and are also directed to the appropriate carriage officer for a response. In this particular case, there was an internal oversight and the letter was not sent to the General Manager’s office in the first instance.



3 Blackmans Bay Beach Water Quality

Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice:

What is Council's understanding of the predicted water quality at Blackmans Bay Beach for summer 2018-19 and how will this impact use of the beach?


Council has not yet identified the main causes of the poor water quality at the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach. It is most likely due to contaminated stormwater, which is worse after periods of heavier rain. In the absence of any significant on-ground improvement measures, the water quality is likely to remain poor. Council is currently investigating end-point treatment options for the stormwater outfall at Illawarra Road. Recreational water quality gradings are based on a five year rolling average and water quality gradings at Blackmans Bay South have been poor over the last two years, so it may take several years before the overall grading improves. However if end-point treatment causes significant improvement to water quality, then it may be possible to review the long term grading if agreed by the State Government Department of Health and the Derwent Estuary Program.

Notwithstanding the above, the current water quality grading of ‘poor’ will remain in place at Blackmans Bay (South), along with signage advising that the water quality is not suitable for swimming for the entire 2018-19 summer season. If water quality improves significantly during the 2018-19 monitoring period, then it is possible that the long-term grading could be re-instated to ‘fair’ for the 2019-20 summer season.

The situation will continue to be monitored and signposted and the community kept informed of any changes. The water quality in the middle of the beach is reported to be good and safe for swimming.

Tony Ferrier – Acting General Manager

_______________________________________________________________________________



4 Proposed Commercial Lobster Hatchery Development at the IMAS Taroona Crayfish Point Facility

Cr Winter submitted the following question on notice:

What information does Council have in relation to the proposed IMAS commercial hatchery at Taroona?

What application(s) are currently with Council in relation to the proposal?

What are the expected timelines for dealing with the proposal?


Council has received an application for a planning scheme amendment that would, if approved, enable the lodgement of a development application for the proposed lobster hatchery. This application was accompanied by a detailed planning report outlining the reasons why the scheme should be changed. It states that “the purpose of the amendment is to overcome existing anomalies within the planning scheme, recognise existing activities on the site and to facilitate the development of a fully self-enclosed, pilot facility for a tropical lobster hatchery on the site. The hatchery will be a commercial research facility closely affiliated with the research emerging from the University of Tasmania”. Council must now assess this proposal and provide a report for Council’s consideration in order for it to be publicly advertised. There is no statutory deadline for this to occur and it is envisaged that such a report to Council will be provided in a few months’ time.


QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS


Cr Bastone asked the following questions without notice: 1 Oxley’s Road

The sealing of Oxley’s Road has been on hold until two large blue gumtrees are cut down. When the subdivision was done these trees were noted as significant trees and one of the conditions of the subdivision was that these trees should be protected. Why is it now a change that we have to cut them down when they were earlier regarded as significant? Senior Manager Capital Works responds: The two large gumtrees on Oxley’s Road are required to come out as a directive from Aurora Energy due to powerline clearances, not because of the roadworks per se.


2 Updating Website

As its some weeks now since the new Dog Policy was passed, when will the website be updated? There is also quite a large amount of inaccurate signage around now. When will both the signs and the website be updated?

_______________________________________________________________________________


Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:

We are working on both signage, we are working on our tracks brochure to update that and that will also be updated on the website. I could not give a definitive date at this point in time.


3 Exemption of Fees for Community Groups When community groups are developing assets and they have to put in a DA, and these are assets that are going to be handed over to Council, why do the community groups have to pay for the DA? Manager Development Services responds: Community groups are entitled to request a waiver or reduction of fees. It needs to be in accordance with the Fees and Exemptions Policy which was recently updated. If it’s a fee that we incur, we are able to waive it. If it’s a fee that is a cost to other ratepayers by way of cost to us, such as the advertisement in the Mercury, they still need to pay that fee.


Cr Bury asked the following question without notice: 4 TasWater

There was a Council meeting on the 10th September which I was absent on leave and a discussion was had on the proposed MOU between the State Government and TasWater. Council decided unanimously to agree with the recommendation to oppose the three components of the resolution. Could you give us some idea of the debate that was held that would give me a little bit of understanding as to how the vote went so overwhelmingly against Kingborough Council? General Manager responds: Cr Bury, like you, I wasn’t at the meeting but I did prepare the report and the recommendation, from what I’m told, was unanimously supported by the Councillors present at the meeting. The reasons that I recommended to Council that they should reject the MOU, in essence, were based on my concerns that I raised at a TasWater meeting before I got the detailed financial modelling from TasWater but can perhaps best be summarised as follows. I described in the report to Council, I thought it was a good deal for the State Government. In fact, my personal opinion is that Treasurer Gutwein has completely out-manoeuvred and out-negotiated TasWater on the matter. I describe in the report that it concerned me that the State Government was injecting $200 million, $20 million per annum over a decade and from the first payment received, in essence, a 33% say in a number of significant matters relating to TasWater. It concerned me, and still does, that the $200 million injection over a decade was more than counter balanced by the fact that the TasWater financial modelling, their own modelling, showed clearly that during the 10 year period they would in fact lose $237 million of revenue. The other thing that really tipped me over the edge, and I’ll leave the politics of this deal aside, but the thing that really tipped me over the edge in recommending to this Council that they should oppose the MOU was the fact that for the last few years, the Mayor and I have regularly attended TasWater briefings and meetings at both their head office in Moonah and at Riverside and at nearly every meeting over the last couple of years we have been reminded that for financial sustainability of TasWater, they require an interest cover ratio that exceeds 2.50. Their modelling over the 20 year period that they provided to the 29 Councils clearly showed that for a number of

_______________________________________________________________________________


years, in fact if memory serves me correctly, 8 years out of the 20, not only does it drop below 2.50, it drops below 2% in a number of years. The impact of that, quite simply put, is that if interest rates increase and you have an organisation of the size of TasWater with accelerated borrowings to meet the accelerated Capex program that the State Government MOU demands, then that will severely impact the financial sustainability of TasWater, in my opinion. And for those reasons I recommended that Council should oppose. Cr Bury: I appreciate that answer and I also fully appreciate the fact that Council voted unanimously and Council often votes against recommendations that are put in front of it. I’m wishing to interrogate the General Manager, I should possibly be interrogating Council. If I may, with respect, I asked actually about the debate that went on at the meeting. At least if I didn’t say that, that’s what I want to hear about, because I would be interested to know what arguments were put that actually persuaded 28 out of the 29 Councils to support the MOU. Mayor: In relation to the meeting with TasWater were the vote was taken, we were required that when we arrived we put our voting paper into a box of which was counted and there were also a show of hands, but there was no debate as such.


5 Dog Management Policy

Given the general and continuing neglect of the regulations of those dog walkers at Taroona, could we have some indication as to when any compliance staff are going to be involved? Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds: Cr Bury’s question is timely. Late last week the Acting General Manager and I were called to a meeting with the Director of Local Government in relation to complaints received from the public in regard to the validity of Council’s decision to declare that section of Taroona Beach an off lead area. That’s been followed up by correspondence received today. The upshot of that is that to provide absolute certainty with respect to the legality of the decision made by Council, we need to publically advertise the declared areas and we need to allow a 15 working day period for submissions and it needs to come back to Council to be finally ratified. That is unfortunately going to delay the formal implementation of our policy and indeed if Council opt to amend the declared areas that are advertised, that would then need to go back out again and so on and so on. However, in respect to Cr Bury’s question, as soon as we can get the policy formalised and we can get the appropriate signage in place we will then be in a position to issue infringement notices that are legally enforceable. As Councillors are well aware, that hasn’t been the case for the past few years and until our policy is formalised, won’t be the case. The upshot of that is that we probably are at least another month away from our policy becoming 100% formalised. Cr Winter: Does that also impact the Suncoast Walking Track because I don’t believe that we did any consultation on that one as well? Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds: The complaint received by the Director is specifically in relation to Taroona Beach. However, the concern of the Director of Local Government is the principle of natural justice in that we advertised a policy and then what was finally approved changed from what was advertised.

_______________________________________________________________________________


The concern is that people may not have commented on the policy because they thought, for example, that section of Taroona Beach was to remain prohibited to dogs. Again the Director accepts that there are some flaws within the Act, however, the advice is that, to provide 100% certainty, we now advertised all of the declared areas and that is the intent. That will include every single declared area that is contained within our policy.


6 Water Quality, Blackmans Bay

With regard to the water quality issues identified at the southern end of Blackmans Bay Beach, is the $50,000 allocated in this year’s budget for 'Blackmans Bay stormwater outlet quality control' specifically targeted at this problem? General Manager responds: The short answer is yes and earlier today I sought a briefing with Council officers on the actions that have been taken, given the current situation at the Blackmans Bay beach. We have reintroduced weekly monitoring. Samples were taken today so that we can get the current E.Coli readings, if there are indeed any. The Council’s engineering department continue their investigation of an end of pipe treatment systems for the stormwater at the end of Illawarra Road. We are also currently arranging for more signage to alert beach goers to the current situation and we have also commenced additional stormwater monitoring targeting outfalls discharging stormwater to the Blackmans Bay south catchment. Cr Winter: Is the $50,000 to actually implement quality control or is that money to investigate solutions? General Manager: Our hope is that it will be to not only come up with a solution but also cover the cost of that construction. Cr Winter: In terms of timelines, is there any prospect of a solution being implemented before Christmas? General Manager: That is certainly our desire.


Cr Grace asked the following question without notice: 7 Blackmans Bay Beach

With the silt trap that we have in the Wetlands area as alluded by the General Manager that is something that staff may be looking at for Blackmans Bay beach, did that cause any of the problems by restricting the flow in the peak period of the flood that caused flooding in the middle of the town?

_______________________________________________________________________________


Senior Manager Capital Works responds: The short answer is no. The wetland arrangement had no impact on the upstream flooding. It wasn’t a flow back effect. The silt pond on the wetlands is an off-line pond, so any of the larger flows will flow straight across the inlet and continue down the creek line. It is primarily picking up sediment from the smaller flows.


8 Rates

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? General Manager responds: I think there are two separate but possibly related issues here. In terms of how many properties we are not getting rates on that we should be getting rates for, I would hope the answer is nil but I will take it on notice and ask our rates department to provide a written response. In regard the reference to the certificate of occupancy, that relates to requirements under the building code and there may be, at any given time, a considerable number of houses that are under construction throughout the municipality and to put a figure on that might be a little challenging but I will see if I can get that advice for you.


Cr Wass asked the following question without notice: 9 Bureau of Meteorology

With the possible changes that may be introduced by the Bureau of Meteorology, do staff consider the changes may have significant financial and safety implications for Kingborough? General Manager responds: The first thing that comes to mind is that through our Emergency Management Committee and officers engaged in that space, one of the many uses of the advice provided by the Bureau is severe weather alerts. We are regularly providing Council staff, particularly our depot staff, with those warnings and I think it’s fair to say they accurately predicted what turned out to be a significant event in early May. Anything that would impact that advice would, of course, be problematic for this organisation and many other organisations. I will have to take the balance of your question on notice and seek feedback from my colleagues.

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

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

_______________________________________________________________________________


PETITIONS STILL BEING ACTIONED

There are no petitions still being actioned.

PETITIONS RECEIVED IN LAST PERIOD

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

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

_______________________________________________________________________________


Planning Authority Meeting commenced at 6.08pm

OFFICERS REPORTS TO PLANNING AUTHORITY


DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD 12 SEPTEMBER 2018 TO 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Wriedt That the report be noted. FOR



Carried Unanimously


DA-2018-73 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 97 APARTMENTS, 11 RETAIL TENANCIES, BASEMENT CARPARKING AND RELAXATION OF TOTAL NUMBER OF CARPARKING SPACES AT 6 SUMMERLEAS ROAD AND SOUTHERN OUTLET AND CHANNEL HIGHWAY ROAD RESERVES (INCLUDING CT 165899/2), KINGSTON FOR JMG ENGINEERS

MOVED Cr Bury SECONDED Cr Fox That the Planning Authority resolves that the report of the Manager Development Services be received and that the development application for 97 apartments, 11 retail tenancies, basement carparking and relaxation of total number of carparking spaces at 6 Summerleas Road and Southern Outlet and Channel Highway Road Reserves (including CT 165899/2), Kingston for JMG Engineers be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause 22.4.1(P1) in that the proposed height of the building is not compatible with the scale of nearby buildings.

PLANNING AUTHORITY IN SESSION

_______________________________________________________________________________


2. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E5.5.1(P1) in that the safety and efficiency of the Summerleas Road/Channel Highway junction is reduced as a result of the increased traffic generated by the development.

3. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E5.6.1(P1) in that the impact on the amenity of the future residents of the proposed units due to the proximity of the category 2 road has not been adequately provided for in the current design and it is unclear what impacts compliance with AS3671-1989 would have on the design.

4. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E5.6.4(P1) in that the sight distance at the Summerleas Road/Channel Highway junction is not adequate to enable safe movement of vehicles.

5. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E6.6.1(P1) in that number of car parking spaces provided for the development is not sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of users.

6. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E6.7.2(P1) in that the design of the vehicular access does not avoid conflict between users and does not avoid unreasonable interference with the flow of traffic to ensure safe, efficient and convenient access for all users including drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.

7. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E6.7.5(P1) in that the design of the access ramp to the basement parking areas does not enable safe, easy and efficient use of the site.

8. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E6.7.13(P1) in that the arrangements for commercial vehicle loading and unloading does not provide for the safety and convenience of vehicular traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.

9. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause E6.7.14(A1) in that the access is not in accordance with the requirements of the Road Authority and there is no corresponding Performance Criteria.

10. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause 22.1.3, and in particular Desired Future Character Statement and Implementation Strategy (b), in that the existing and proposed infrastructure is not adequate to provide for safe and efficient movement of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

11. The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Clause 22.1.3, and in particular Desired Future Character Statement and Implementation Strategy (c), in that the car parking needs of the future residents and users of the commercial facilities are not met.

FOR


Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Wriedt

AGAINST

Cr Grace Cr Winter

Carried

_______________________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________________


PLANNING AUTHORITY ADJOURNS

_______________________________________________________________________________


Open session of Council resumed at 6.38pm

OFFICERS REPORTS TO COUNCIL

C707/22-18 (Commences at ± 1 hour, 9 minutes of audio recording)

COMMUNITY GRANTS 2018/2019 ROUND 1

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Fox That Council approve the allocation for funding from Round One of Council’s Community Grants Program as outlined in the attached table. FOR



Carried Unanimously


DRU POINT RESERVE MASTER PLAN

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Chatterton That Council endorse the Dru Point Reserve Masterplan dated October 2018. FOR



Carried Unanimously

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

_______________________________________________________________________________



BRUNY ISLAND RAGWORT PROGRAM REVIEW

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Grace That Council endorse the Bruny Island Ragwort Review, recommendations and actions. FOR



Carried Unanimously


GRANTS AND BENEFITS DISCLOSURE

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Fox That: (a) Council include within its Annual Report, details of any in-kind assistance provided to the

organisers of community events;

(b) The review of Council’s Fee Exemptions and Reductions Policy include consideration of public disclosure of any fees waived or reduced; and

(c) Where possible, reports relating to the setting of rentals for not-for profit groups occupying Council owned land or facilities be considered in Open Session.

FOR



Carried Unanimously

_______________________________________________________________________________



INFORMATION REPORTS

MOVED Cr Fox SECONDED Cr Chatterton

That the following information reports be noted: 1 General Manager’s Diary for the period 1 September 2018 to 1 October 2018.

2 Current and Previous Minute Resolutions.

3 Kingborough Waste Services Bi-monthly Report. Cr Winter left the meeting at 7.27pm Cr Percey left the room at 7.36pm Cr Percey returned at 7.37pm FOR


Cr Grace Cr Percey Cr Wass Cr Wriedt

Carried Unanimously

C712/22-18

CONFIRMATION OF ITEMS TO BE DEALT WITH IN CLOSED SESSION

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Fox

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)

Tender Assessment - AB1810 Kingston Park Public Open Space and Pardalote Parade Design

15(2)(d)

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

FOR



Carried Unanimously and By Absolute Majority

_______________________________________________________________________________


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 7.39pm

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL ADJOURNS

_______________________________________________________________________________


Open Session of Council resumed at 7.49pm

C718/22-18

MOVED Cr Atkinson SECONDED Cr Chatterton 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

Tender Assessment - AB1810 Kingston Park Public Open Space and Pardalote Parade Design

Tender awarded to Play Street for $269,135

Current and Previous Minute Resolutions Noted

FOR



Carried Unanimously

CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 7.50pm

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

OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL RESUMES

MINUTES - Kingborough Council€¦ · Minutes No. 22 Page 1 8 October 2018 MINUTES of an Ordinary...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - Kingborough Council€¦ · Minutes No. 22 Page 1 8 October 2018 MINUTES of an Ordinary...