Margot Giblin
Which brings me to the tenor and conduct of the whole of this meeting. It was a Midsummer Night’s Dream transformation. Had all aldermen sipped on dreamy honey dew? Or was the overall comparative politeness, good humour and speed with which most items were dispatched down to the benefits of a summer break from each other, the presence of the visiting Councilor Kenneth Joseph O’Leary from Municipalite de Litchfield, Canada, or the promise of the yummy dinner they would be sharing with him as soon as the meeting finished? Councillors were seen and heard to behave in new and amazing ways.
Hobart City Council
Open Council Meeting
Monday 29th January 2007
5pm
Aldermen
Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka
Aldermen: Darlene Haigh, Jeff Briscoe, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Philip Cocker, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Eric Hayes, Marti Zucco
Apologies: Nil
Leave of Absence: Nil
The proof that jockeying for the position of chair left vacant by Lyn Archer on the Development and Services Committee is damaging presented itself at this meeting when a recommendation to council was brought to it by its most recent chair, Helen Burnet.
At the relevant committee meeting, despite her attempt to see Alderman Haigh take the chair as the more senior, experienced person, Burnet found herself presiding, having been proposed by Alderman Briscoe and seconded by Alderman Christie when she failed to find a seconder for her proposal of Alderman Haigh.
Alderman Burnet has said in relation to this that while not a stickler for the minutae of meeting procedures she feels they can be as useful as historical precedence in ensuring things run smoothly.
The recommendation she now had to deliver — that council refuse an application for an extension of the planning permit requested by the potential developer of 4-14 Regent Street, Sandy Bay — came to grief because it seemed the committee had not fulfilled its legal obligation to provide sufficient reason.
The attempt to sort this out — with extended, complicated and confusing debate and advice from the relevant officer, Mr Noye, that more legal advice would now have to be sought — took up a disproportionate amount of the evening’s proceedings and made it look as if the Development and Environmental Services committee hadn’t done its job.
Clarification at its meeting last week of whether the request for a planning permit extension fell within the normal planning and development parameters or whether it should be treated differently as mooted by Burnet was not picked up on by others. As Chairman she was unable to move amendments herself and so the oversight went with the decision to refuse, to council.
The presence of more experienced aldermen and council officers than the Chair on the night concerned, none of whom seem to have anticipated the consequences of half baked decisions made there, didn’t save the situation. Perhaps focusing on how to get who into the chair, and the consequent feelings around that manipulation may have taken several aldermen’s minds off the things that mattered most.
At open council there was exhaustive and confusing debate over the grounds for refusing to extend the planning permit for 4-14 Regent St.
It was suggested by Zucco, as soon as debate started, that if council refused the application without reasons there could later be an accusation of frivolous rejection by the applicant. This was enough for Christie who, with apologies to the applicant, changed his mind to support an extension. Alderman Sexton’s suggestion that the applicant be given a limited extension, perhaps six months didn’t get up, nor Freeman’s that the extension simply be given because he hadn’t heard a valid argument against doing so.
Ruzicka said she was not aware that reasons had to be given for the refusal but hers was that ‘substantial works haven’t commenced.’
Freeman pointed out that ‘once you’ve commenced substantial works you don’t need extensions of time for planning permits’.
Debate bogged down. It stood still. Suspension of standing orders was suggested but the only person in a position to move that, because he hadn’t already spoken, was Alderman Hayes, who now looked as confused as other Aldermen said they were and when not encouraged to pursue that option, didn’t.
And so it went on. And on.
It was made clear that a refusal for an extension of planning permit wouldn’t prevent the developer putting in a new application.
Still later in the debate Zucco repeated earlier worries.
I have a major concern with this. I have in front of me a motion that is illegal. I don’t think we should even be considering this’ he said.
‘If passed it may be considered illegal’. ‘Valentine retorted.
They voted and it was passed.
Ruzicka, Briscoe, Haigh, Cocker, Burnet and Valentine voted in favour of refusing the application for a planning extension.
Zucco, Hayes, Freeman, Christie and Sexton voted against the motion.
Zucco’s assessment and unheeded warning have proved to be well founded.
The HCC General Manager, Brent Armstrong has confirmed to Tasmanian Times that a Special Meeting has been called for next week to sort out an unacceptable decision.
This will take place at 5.45pm on Tuesday 6 February. It will follow a return of this application to the Development and Environmental Services Committee the previous evening, Monday 5 February at 5pm. Both meetings, held upstairs at the Town Hall, will be open to the public.
Zucco’s view, as expressed to Tasmanian Times, is that Valentine failed to act to protect the Council from potential legal action. He maintains that the Lord Mayor and all councilors present were aware, because he told them, of the potential ramifications of their voting to refuse the application.
Zucco also shared with Tasmanian Times the frustration he feels at debate which he considers is often conducted on party political lines rather than on strict adherence to planning scheme provisions.
Zucco maintains that he is not aligned with any group, political or otherwise and sees his job as to act within the Local Government Act requirements as he interprets particular planning provisions as they apply to applications.
It is frustration, he maintains, that causes him to react in ways, on the floor, to which many object.
Which brings me to the tenor and conduct of the whole of this meeting.
It was a Midsummer Night’s Dream transformation. Had all aldermen sipped on dreamy honey dew? Or was the overall comparative politeness, good humour and speed with which most items were dispatched down to the benefits of a summer break from each other, the presence of the visiting Councilor Kenneth Joseph O’Leary from Municipalite de Litchfield, Canada, or the promise of the yummy dinner they would be sharing with him as soon as the meeting finished?
Councillors were seen and heard to behave in new and amazing ways.
‘I agreed with Cocker. Cocker agreed with me.’
Alderman Zucco looked up to confirm, in an amazed and happy proclamation, that the ceiling hadn’t fallen in on him.
This amiable concord was over the Fish Bowl Restaurant at 51 Salamanca Place wanting to extend its license for eating outside beyond 12 midnight to 4 am on Saturdays and Sundays.
Support for the proposal had already been cogently put by Sexton, who argued that it was illogical to allow people to eat inside and order take food away while not allowing them to sit at tables because of the risk of anti-social behaviour when what you are in fact forcing them to do is head for the park, or kerb-side with their take-aways and stubby.
The debate fell between those who felt that anything at all happening after midnight in a public space will bring trouble and those want to reclaim the night by having the sorts of activities going on that don’t attract trouble. Bing Crosby had been used in the past, Haigh reminded the council, to discourage unwanted hangers on around a late night bakery, in Salamanca Square. It worked. Haigh warned against council putting itself in a position where Bing would be needed again, fondly recalling the days when Inspector Plumpton sat in the back of council chambers, available to opine on situations like this at every meeting.
‘Louts,’ she said, ‘will pick up the tables and chairs and use them as implements.’
Haigh asked Mr Parker, (HCC Group Manager Traffic and Road Engineering, covering some licensing issues) if the applicant had proposed providing security staff.
Mr Parker: ‘Yes they made that offer — of one person.’
Freeman, while supportive of a carefully planned approach to dining outside after midnight was scathing of this.
‘It’ll probably be his granny — who may, or may not be able to call police’, an interesting view of the abilities of people of his own generation.
Ruzicka was one of several aldermen who argued for a consistent cross city approach, given the uniquely different nature of each suburb. The logic of much of the evening’s debate eluded me.
There were also more general concerns expressed for the proposed piecemeal approach of approving one establishment which would inevitably open a flood-gate of applicants across the city. Alderman Cocker’s view of this was that he hoped it would, suggesting some aldermen were being overcautious and not responding to today’s social patterns.
The compromise result was refusal of the application by the Fish Bowl Restaurant at 51 Salamanca place ‘because a policy document is being prepared in relation to outdoor dining city wide at this time’.
Sexton and Cocker voted against this motion.
Bikes on Buses
A proposal from Burnet last year for a report on a trial project, Bikes on Buses, was treated with such pointed lack of enthusiasm that Freeman had finally intervened to say never in the past had a request for such an exploratory report been denied and it would be churlish in the extreme to treat this request differently, with which it went through.
On Monday night Alderman Christie was the only one maintaining his negative view of the resultant Bikes on Buses proposal. Zucco waxed close to lyrical on its effects on traffic flow, fuel consumption and an increasingly corpulent citizenry.
The ceiling still didn’t fall.
Christie was basically supportive of the project, which is for an evening bus ride home that would allow Fern Tree and Ridgeway residents to better enjoy the bike ride down to work in the morning. His felt however that it wasn’t economically viable which had been proved already by a past MTT trial and that council should not now be spending money on it.
It was envisaged by others in the debate that if this project proved successful the private operator would be able to stand alone, or that the MTT might recognize the shift in need and take it up.
Alderman Ruzicka strengthened the argument for a bike bus with vivid images of the narrowness of Huon Rd and how well served all concerned will be if cyclists aren’t squeezed in peak hour competition with home-seeking car drivers.
Alderman Haigh’s response to the proposal last year had been Why Fern Tree? Why not Mt. Stuart, Mt. Nelson and so on. By Monday night this had morphed into the hope that if the Fern Tree run succeeds others will follow. ‘Things change’, she said. ‘Some ideas come up again and again only to be rejected by council until their time is right.’
Approval was given for Council to provide $2,250 for a trial service linking Fern Tree and Ridgeway with the City, for a ten week period. A report, from the Fern Tree Community and Ridgeway Progress Association (which will administer the funds) and the private operator they liase with, will be made to Council at its conclusion.
Other decisions
In Sandy Bay the car show rooms at 48 King Street and 55 Queen St will be replaced by shops including a restaurant/takeaway food shop. but 94 Princes Street’s desire for an additional house wont be realized. 7 Fehre Court will get its spa pool and decking.
169 Melville Street’s application to subdivide went through as did 13 Lochner St West Hobart’s house extension, garage and ancillary flat.
415 Argyle St will subdivide (one additional lot).
The above went through quick smart but the trees at 120 Swanston St New Town posed trickier problems given that two of them are dead and need to be removed from their close proximity to the surviving, at risk, tree. It was agreed that this one will be checked on every six months.
Briscoe’s desire for a sunset clause was seen as unnecessary given the already advanced age of the tree.
Valentine pointed out that the poor to dead status of all trees was clearly linked to a major housing development nearby and asked that officers measure and take note of that distance for future reference to protect desirable trees.
Freeman was quick to point out that the major development referred to was low cost housing.
Cocker was the only alderman to vote against the plan for the trees and again against the application for a flagpole, lit at night, displaying the Australian flag outside 136 Davey St.
The Council will advise the Wellington Park management Trust that it supports the joint release of the draft Springs Initial Conservation Policy for public comment.
Under the Building Regulations 2004 and Building Act 2000 in the twelve months ending December 2006, 561 permits were issued to the value of $97,810,907 compared with the same period in 2005 when 719 permits were issued to the value of $89,156,237.
The Finance and Corporate Services Committee, chaired by Alderman Freeman, urged council to do more to enforce traffic infringement notices by adopting a six month trial in which the number of ‘nice’ letters be reduced before debts are forwarded to a collection agency , which passed.
The council declared itself supportive of developing and using alternative vehicle fuels and will prepare a written submission to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Environment, Resources and Development in relation to the inquiry into this in Tasmania.
Roads will be closed for the 2007 Hobart International Triathlon as required on Sunday 18 February and for 10 Days on the Island street theatre on various dates between Monday 19 March and Tuesday 27 March.
Zucco, as chair of the Community Development Committee, introduced a proposal to take up a request from Viborg in Denmark with breath-taking brevity saying only ‘the motion speaks for itself’ before sitting down.
Burnet asked whether, in the council’s laudable enthusiasm for fostering world wide friendships it would be necessary for more aldermanic travel to take place. She also wondered if it might not be worth exploring a relationship with a less wealthy city. She was assured that the answer to her first question was ‘not necessarily’ and that Fuzhou City in China, with which Hobart has a sister city relationship, has a low enough socio-economic status to satisfy her concern.
Zucco couldn’t be prevented from observing that he thought her latter query ‘a bit over the top’.
The last item on the agenda dealt with the result of the Local Government Association of Tasmania Standards Panel report on a complaint made by one Alderman against another concerning an alleged breach of the Aldermanic Code of Conduct.
The complaint dealt with the failure to declare an alleged conflict of interest at both a committee (3 July 06) and a full Council meeting (10 July 06).
The Standards Panel determined that the relevant decisions ‘did not amount to an occasion on which the Alderman had a conflict of interest’.
And so to dinner downstairs for the aldermen with Mr O’Leary from Ontario, who told Tasmanian Times, before he was whisked away by several of his hosts, that he had found the meeting interesting and no different in many ways to those he attends at home. No, he assured Alderman Briscoe, it hadn’t seemed too long.
Compared to the last open meeting I covered it was indeed a quickie.
