Margot Giblin
Mr Armstrong, with restrained frustration, pointed out that he hadn’t asked Zucco to leave and go home, nor had he engineered Burnet’s absence due to illness. He wanted this put on the record. In a now tediously familiar style confusion followed clarity. Valentine asked for another motion.
Hobart City Council
Open Council Meeting
Monday 26 February 2007
5pm
Aldermen Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Darlene Haigh, Jeff Briscoe, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Philip Cocker, John Freeman, Eric Hayes, Marti Zucco
Leave of Absence: Lyn Archer, Helen Burnet
PUBLIC Question Time at Council meetings is rarely utilized. Always fourth on the agenda (following Minutes, Communication from the Chairman and Notification of Council Workshops) it’s a chance for individual’s to try to get Council’s response on an issue.
Questions need to be submitted seven days before the meeting and there is no opportunity to respond to any given answer. The questioner is asked to stand, state their name and address and read out their question from the public gallery.
Last night a question from Elizabeth Perey related to Anglicare’s proposed low income housing at Star St, Fitzroy Place wasn’t allowed — on the grounds that it relates to a matter Council is taking to the Supreme Court. Perey knew this and wanted to ask, given that the objecting residents were likely to have done this themselves, was Council in fact spending ratepayers’ money on their behalf?
Mr Tom Nilsson was allowed to ask his question on how Council was fulfilling its obligations to disadvantaged Hobart residents.
The only creative thing about the answer was that it could be technically said to have been one.
It was stock, standard and delivered by Valentine. He said that low income housing is primarily a State Government issue and that Council takes its responsibilities to all citizens of Hobart seriously, doing its share in addressing any problems.
Mr Nilsson is standing against Jim Wilkinson as a Greens candidate in the May Legislative Council election for Nelson.
He told Tasmanian Times he thought Valentine’s answer was ‘wishy-washy’.
Sticking Point
Item 8.4 looked innocuous on the agenda but caused a ruckus.
592 Sandy Bay Road wants a ‘Change of Window to Clear Glazing’.
The window was opaque in the original application. The current ‘stand alone’ application for it to be clear has exposed a loop-hole in the planning scheme.
Legal advice suggested that Council had no option but to approve the requested change. The expected impact on neighbouring properties and the ramifications for other developments caused aldermanic concern. Efforts were made to deal with this case and also prevent a recurrence of this anomaly.
Freeman suggested that the clear window be allowed with the condition that it then be sand blasted. Zucco suggested a screen.
Council officers advice (Mr Noyes and Mr Heath) was that imposing such conditions would be regarded as being a negation and/or frivolous and would probably be challenged.
Several aldermen said that any decision resulting in the application going to Tribunal would at least give neighbours an opportunity to speak.
Cocker moved ‘That there be an investigation into how this situation had arisen, its potential to impact on other applications and what steps need to be taken for Council to be able to meet its obligations in relation to planning’.
This received unanimous support.
Zucco Jacks Up
During debate on the troublesome window Zucco objected strongly to how things were going. He was upset by what he perceived to be aldermanic attempts to ignore, or go against the law.
‘I’m not and never will vote for anything that is against the Local Government Act. I just cannot understand how simple it is. I will not support furphy reasons. You are a bunch of people who don’t understand what you’re talking about. I’m walking out.”
Keys jangling, he did.
The next agenda item was 11 Mona St (Vernon) Battery Point. Application had been made for a new house to be built on what is presently garden.
Was Zucco around ?
A bell was rung.
No Zucco.
Debate continued. The influence of site visits on aldermen was demonstrated.. Two who had initially supported the application changed their minds when they saw the detrimental effect it would have, both on Vernon’s neighbours and its own garden, home to an enormous walnut tree. It was felt the tree was unlikely to survive the completion of the proposed building.
Freeman argued that as Battery Point already had plenty of tiny blocks one more shouldn’t be a problem. He suggested that aldermanic concern for plot ratio (80% in area allowing 45%) was being ‘a bit precious’.
The writer lives on one of the tiny blocks referred to by Freeman. One of the things that saves it from feeling cramped is the sight of enormous trees in neighbouring gardens.
Debate concluded. The application was rejected.
Items 9 to 27 were dispatched without the benefit of Zucco’s presence.
Item 28 addressed the Development and Environmental Services Committee (DESC).
It’s in a mess and the need to resolve the issue immediately was submitted by the General Manager, Mr Brent Armstrong.
Since its Chair Lyn Archer took Leave of Absence in July 06 the task of choosing his replacement, fortnightly, has resulted in skirmishes, point scoring and personal animosities cascading into Council time.
Freeman moved for the committee to be dissolved and a new one appointed.
Briscoe seconded his motion.
Ruzicka pointed out the absence from the chamber of relevant aldermen, Archer in particular. This move, she said, pre-supposes he would not be returning.
Armstrong pointed out that the time had come to resolve matters.
‘Action taken tonight does not preclude Archer coming back’, he said.
Briscoe stood by his misunderstanding (that a report was still to come in on chairing) to explain his actions at the last DESC meeting when, in concert with Christie, he prevented Haigh taking the Chair, contrary to both precedent and policy.
Haigh doubted that he had misunderstood and said that things had to be done ‘properly’, to which Christie retorted that the General Manager had given appropriate guidelines, had he not?
Mr Armstrong stated that it was not his job to get involved in politics and that he wouldn’t be involved.
‘This situation is adversely impacting on the administration of Council and I want it fixed’, he said.
Valentine offered his view that some committee members might be ready to stand down, based on earlier conversations with them.
Freeman’s motion to dissolve and reconstitute the committee was put to the vote but failed to achieve an absolute majority. (Quorum plus one, whether aldermen are present or not; ie 7)
Haigh suggested that with a key member of the present committee, (Helen Burnet), absent and Zucco still out of the room this agenda item had been ‘thrust upon’ them.
Mr Armstrong, with restrained frustration, pointed out that he hadn’t asked Zucco to leave and go home, nor had he engineered Burnet’s absence due to illness. He wanted this put on the record.
In a now tediously familiar style confusion followed clarity.
Valentine asked for another motion.
Briscoe referred to his preference for a rotating Chair.
He also suggested, with apparent telepathic insight, that Zucco was still in the building.
Christie left the chamber.
Zucco returned with him putting his keys back on the table.
Valentine said Zucco couldn’t contribute to this debate because he wasn’t there at its beginning.
A motion for council policy to be re-indorsed was put and carried.
Briscoe maintained the situation still needed to be sorted.
Valentine maintained it had been. Freeman said that it had not.
Mr Armstrong, when asked, said that the decision to follow policy could work but the reality was that it didn’t.
Ruzicka’s reading of the legal status of Council policy was put forth at length, to be described as ‘narrow’ by Briscoe.
Valentine’s view was that ‘It’s ridiculous that we’ve got to this point.
‘We need some good will or it’s just not going to happen.’
Zucco’s status, if a new motion were to be put up, was checked. Yes, he could partake.
Darlene’s Turn at the Mirror
The pause in which all waited for goodwill to descend was bizarrely interrupted.
Haigh: ‘If I remove myself am I removing the person who is regarded as causing the problem?’
Valentine: Not so.
Haigh: This was all obviously sorted while we were busy at the Special DESC meeting.
(The meeting Haigh referred to, held at 4.20pm, was already showing signs of change. Neither Briscoe nor Christie were in their usual places. The committee comprised Cocker, Ruzicka and Haigh, with Valentine present.)
Zucco: Absurd. Get her to withdraw that.
Haigh: I am going to remove myself. This Council is being run by a group of people. We all know … .
Valentine: There is no accusation against you. No-one said you were the problem.
Haigh: Isn’t this what it’s all about? Come on, wake up. You know that’s what it’s about.
Exit Haigh.
There was more, and it was messy but the upshot was that nominations for a reconstituted committee were called.
Zucco nominated Burnet.
Ruzicka nominated Haigh.
Briscoe nominated Ruzicka.
Briscoe’s nomination for Archer was withdrawn when Freeman pointed out Archer would need to be present to elect the committee’s chair.
Freeman, characteristically careful in pointing out that he hadn’t named any one person or incident as being the cause of the committee’s problems when moving for it to be dissolved and reconstituted, nominated no-one.
Three people can constitute a committee so that’s it.
The now reduced DESC committee’s decisions have to be ratified by full Council before they can be enacted.
Christie and Briscoe, who often seem to be joined at the vote and were participants in rendering the DESC inefficient now showed an interesting lack of desire to be on it.
Given the way the numbers often line up at full council perhaps they see themselves as being able to exert as much influence as ever without having to be quite so obvious about it.
The Quiet Bits
The Ayes had it on:
Amendments to Battery Point Planning Scheme 1979 — Slipyards will progress with endorsement of a conservation plan for the area and the General Manager to appoint a working group to consider the scope and feasibility of a “Living Heritage Project”.
Gregory St. Local Area Plan — Review. To go ahead with the addition of another focus group session aimed at the general public using this area. There will now be three such meetings for this Sandy Bay shopping precinct.
Urban Design Principles — Detailed Standards and Guidance. Philip Cocker’s request for another week to consider the report was granted.
Eva Ruzicka, who chaired last week’s Parks and Customer Services Committee in the absence of Peter Sexton, demonstrated the value of this position. She took the opportunity to present her personal views as well as the committee’s conclusions in opening debate on:
Proposed Map and Signage for Tourists and Visitor in Sullivan’s Cove.
Sandy Bay Rivulet Linear park — Draft Feasibility Study.
250 Elizabeth St’s proposed use of Elizabeth St Park. Chrome Coffee Lounge requests use of part of the park for access and outdoor dining.
Support for Senior AFL Football matches at Bellerive Oval. Ron Christie reported a lack of interest from those Clarence Councillors he contacted, to which he added his own. Despite this Clarence Council and relevant Government members will be approached.
Public Artwork — Peace Park. West Hobart. The sculptural work ‘In Blanket’ by artist Tom Coley will go to design development and construction stage.
Animal Welfare Advisory Committee — Nomination of Council Officer. This will be the Customer Service Centre Manager, Roger Viney.
Interpretative Sculptural Elements Trail Battery Point. The tender for this will be awarded to Futago. Stage 1, comprising research/consultation and concept development work was approved at a fee of $10,000 (exclusive of GST)
All of the above were approved.
Chairman of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee, John Freeman introduced its deliberations on the following:
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Request for Permission to Undertake Archeological Assessment in Council owned Dunn Place and Dunn Place carpark.
It was agreed that, whatever the future for this area, such an investigation would be needed and to have another organization put up their hand to pay for it was excellent.
Budget Review — changes to Annual Plan 06/07 were approved.
275 Liverpool St. Hobart City Council Car Park. It was agreed that no action be taken in developing the site until it was clear what was planned for a large site opposite which recently changed hands.
One of the suggestions mooted for the Council site was low cost housing. Valentine’s view was that if Council don’t use a site for this purpose somewhere, now, when are they going to?
Only Ruzicka and Cocker agreed with him.
Thrust into the torch-light by Zucco being ‘otherwise disposed’ Briscoe did offer to follow convention and allow Cocker to present the Community Development Commitee’s eliberations.
The offer was amicably declined.
Zucco and Hayes will be attending the Sister Cities Conference in Darwin in Sept/Oct this year. Estimated cost, $4,500 per person.
City of Hobart Art Prize. Council will enter a new 3 year agreement with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.
Estia Greek Festival. Council will contribute $2,750, with a report to be prepared on improving the grants process to regular recipients.
Delegation to Yaizu, Japan. Who will be going and when?
The General Manager said he needs to know soon.
Discussion centred on this being the 30th Anniversary of the Sister City relationship. Christie felt it would be a great embarrassment if only one or two aldermen went. Freeman assured Council, having been there with his wife (a self funded trip) that Yaizu would be only too delighted if anyone regarded it as significant enough to attend.
It was stressed by all aldermen who have experienced one of these trips that they are not junkets.
‘You are flat out from the moment you arrive’, said Briscoe.
Guidelines will be broken to enable the Lord Mayor to join the delegation, a suggestion not supported by Philip Cocker.
‘We have these guidelines for good reasons and I don’t think the fact that it’s the 30th anniversary is sufficient argument to abandon policy. We run the risk of undermining credibility’.
He was alone on this.
Attempts to connect with Fuzhou in China in relation to exploring another sister city relationship, (at the Premier’s request) have not borne fruit.
It was thought communication might be the problem.
