Margot Giblin
Freeman found himself amazed to share more than a love of Italian suits with Paul Keating, now adding an intense dislike for the politics of ‘the warm inner glow’ of satisfaction for policy makers whose efforts failed to effect real change. If a Federal decision in favour of the mill came first, to conduct a poll would, according to Freeman, ‘reach new heights of irrelevance’. He agreed with those who have viewed the decision making process on the mill to date as being corrupt. ‘It has been the most appalling charade we have ever seen’.
( Earlier, Kevin Bonham: Your council sorted, right to left )
Hobart City Council
Open Portion of the Council Meeting
Monday 24 September 2007
5pm
Councillors Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine (Chair), Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Darlene Haigh, Jeff Briscoe, Ron Christie, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Eric Hayes, Marti Zucco, Lyn Archer
Leave of Absence: Peter Sexton, Philip Cocker
Because its author wasn’t there for Public Question Time his question lapsed. Briscoe’s query as to what it had been also remained unanswered.
Some Agenda Items
Unanimous Ayes for:
20 Richardson Ave. Dynnyrne – Additional House and Partial Change of Use to Flat and Carports
Wellington Court –Rear of 55 Elizabeth St – Gas Storage. This was with conditions for the cylinder covering being made deliberately repellant to people thinking of sitting, or stubbing cigarettes, on it.
36 Giblin St, Lenah Valley – Subdivision (Two Additional Lots)
Majority Ayes for:
2-4 Ross Place, Mount Stuart – Twenty Houses
Ruzicka expressed concern that the proposed development wasn’t fitting for the area but pointed out that refusal of this application could mean even more obtrusive ‘McMansions’ could appear on the same site. This, she said, was a difficult proposal to decide on. She also said that the present proposal guaranteed the preservation of bushland at its rear, leading up to Knocklofty.
Haigh said while she didn’t vote against it at the Development and Environmental Services meeting she had said then, and repeated now, that approval would ‘bring us a lot of stick’. She wasn’t convinced by the architect representing the applicant at DESC who had said that the slope of the site dictated the design which she regarded as inappropriate for the area.
‘I am sure that we will live to regret this’ she said, but added ‘I don’t know what to do about it. There’s no point moving anything against it in this chamber because that will just make other people vote the other way’. This comment gives another insight into perceptions of councilors’ voting patterns. Burnet said she had concerns about the possible detrimental environmental effects on the lower reaches of Knocklofty. She was particularly troubled by the solution to the anticipated dangers for swift parrots which can presently feed there, a concern also expressed by Ruzicka at the DESC meeting.
The applicant’s proposal is to remove the parrots’ food source – Eucalyptus Globulus – and thus the chance of them dying by colliding with windows. ‘I don’t think we can afford to do this on the city’s fringe’, said Burnet. Adding this to the potential bushfire hazard the gully ‘behind the development represents she felt she was unable to support the application.
Valentine felt the visual impact of the proposed 20 houses was mitigated by setback and conditions for planting of shrubs and small trees at the front. ‘It wont have the looming effect of houses on Tolman’s Hill’, he said.
The vote, 7-3, saw Ruzicka, Haigh and Burnet saying Nay.
Refusal for
32 Hampden Rd Battery Point – Partial Change of Use to Visitor Accommodation.
Despite sympathy for the applicant, particularly expressed by Freeman, at the last council meeting, which had seen this application go back to DESC yet again, the decision now was against approval. Given the several breaches of the approval process involved and the fact that Council had provided the applicant with all relevant information Freeman now said he could no longer sympathise and the matter was now one for the applicant to sort out with the lawyer who had failed to check the implications of Council advice.
Further items
Sandown Park – Telstra Tower – Petition
Debate on whether to have a public meeting focused on whether that meeting should be conditional on a representative from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) being present, which was DESC’s recommendation.
Briscoe and Christie felt the petitioners need for a public meeting should be met; others, including Freeman and Burnet felt it would be not only futile but frustrating for the petitioners if there were no-one there with the expertise to answer concerns on safe levels of emission from the tower. While the petition referred to new scientific evidence, Freeman said this had not been sighted and there was no-one in the chamber, himself included, who could honestly answer related questions if it were produced. Burnet argued that the public at the meeting would be interested in accountability, which Council could not provide. She asked whether any Council officer did have the depth of knowledge to answer questions on radiation. ‘The short answer’, said the General Manager, Brent Armstrong, ‘is no. It’s not our area of expertise’. While keen for a public meeting to be held Burnet felt it would be strengthened by the presence of an expert from ARPANSA.
Much discussion followed on Council’s precise powers in relation to the tower and in a pause needed for facts to be checked by officers Zucco filled the breach by demanding to know if it had been noted that he had just made eye contact with Ruzicka and in fact had sent her a note last week, which she had answered. Total silence prompted Zucco to turn up the volume to boom it again, adding that he just wanted to be sure that the writer of this report had noted that he had made such eye contact, sent such a note.
Burnet prevented any further move towards total failed farce by objecting on the grounds that Zucco’s contribution was irrelevant to the debate at hand, to which he then addressed himself. Having supported Christie in his desire for a public meeting a fortnight ago, his position had now shifted to the extent that he felt such a meeting would be ‘wasting residents’ time if we can’t answer their questions’.
The motion to drop the conditional presence of an ARPANSA rep having been lost, 8-2, the motion as it stood was passed.
Outstanding Parking Debt – Half Yearly Report
From the Finance and Corporate Services Committee, chaired by Freeman, came a motion to write off a total of 5,275 unpaid parking meter and traffic fines valued at $181,365. This was necessary, said Freeman, because ‘we can’t find them, they’ve nicked off and collection agencies tell us we’re wasting our time. They’re uncollectable.’
Zucco suggested writing to the relevant minister seeking legislation enabling car clamping and accepted the proposal from Ruzicka that a brief report on the practice be sought first. Briscoe felt that in a city the size of Hobart clamping would only cause offenders to park and shop elsewhere and he hoped that the negatives of the idea would surface in the report. Christie pointed out that the city of Cairns, on the basis that it was a tourist destination, wrote off many unpaid fines and Burnett asked for clarification of the intent to consider clamping only repeat offenders, to which Freeman asked that the word ‘unpaid’ be added.
The Pulp Mill Elector Poll
It was decided 8-2 that the poll, in tandem with the council elections, would only go ahead if Turnbull’s decision on it is to be made later than 1st October. Debate over this divided councilors into those (Briscoe, Christie, Burnet and Ruzicka) who thought there was merit in holding the poll regardless, in order to allow residents a voice on the matter and to gain information on attitudes in the Denison electorate and those who felt that it was only worth doing if the Federal decision were still to be made.
Freeman found himself amazed to share more than a love of Italian suits with Paul Keating, now adding an intense dislike for the politics of ‘the warm inner glow’ of satisfaction for policy makers whose efforts failed to effect real change. If a Federal decision in favour of the mill came first, to conduct a poll would, according to Freeman, ‘reach new heights of irrelevance’. He agreed with those who have viewed the decision making process on the mill to date as being corrupt. ‘It has been the most appalling charade we have ever seen’.
Freeman then corrected himself in reminding the chamber of a charade that might have been greater. He made tantalizing references to the protruding give-away boots of a policeman hidden behind a curtain during the sale of Tattersalls at Wrest Point Hotel and the same policeman’s sudden acquisition of a hearing defect when evidence was gathered. Freeman went on say that holding a poll after a decision on the mill would only ‘make Council look like fools’. Briscoe, who had initially brought the idea of this poll to Council, responded with, ‘I do know Freeman is known as God –
Zucco leapt to his feet to call for a point of order and Briscoe withdrew the remark as requested.
Briscoe said he was not enjoying ‘a warm inner glow’ from pursuing this proposal and had experienced many sleepless nights over it. ‘I think it is worse to let a corrupt process through without commenting on it’.
Haigh felt that there would be no-one at the table more opposed to the mill than herself, alluding to having grown up near pollution on the north-west coast and the queries she has since pondered in relation to possible connected health issues. However, she said, ‘the Premier has made up his mind and you couldn’t change it with a sledge-hammer, which makes a poll after Turnbull’s decision a fruitless exercise’.
Christie also denied indulging in the sensation of inner warmth, and cited the approval of many individuals who have spoken to him in favour of holding an elector poll regardless of the Federal outcome in support of Briscoe’s.
Burnet said she didn’t mind experiencing the glow, feeling it was important that people were able to have their say.
The vote in favour of amending the motion for conducting the poll to being conditional on Turnbull not having decided in the mill’s favour by 1st October was 6-4, making it a substantive motion now to be debated.
Briscoe, clearly unhappy with this development, suggested that Valentine was sitting on the fence, having supported the poll initially only to now make that approval conditional.
This propensity for fence sitting was, said Briscoe to the Lord Mayor, ‘something that a lot of people say they think you do’.
When it came to the vote Freeman, deciding it was ‘still silly’ registered a Nay, along with Archer. Archer, incidentally, has increased his participation at council meetings to seconding a number of motions although he still takes no part in debating them.
Affordable Housing
Two new pieces of business related to affordable housing were brought to Council as motions with notice by councilors contesting the position of Deputy Lord Mayor at the next, possibly October, election – Burnet and Zucco.
Burnet’s was dealt with first. It was for a report to be prepared on an Inner City Housing Proposal incorporating Environmental Design Principles and pursuing a pilot of mixed use development on the Council-owned property at Melville Street (the Melville Street Carpark).
The development would have as its core functions:
(i) Multi-storey accommodation with no less than 10% for community housing
(ii) Student accommodation
(iii) Office and boutique retail space
(iv) Shared public open space and connecting walkways between city blocks
Consideration would be given to developers and architects who present ideas for a proposal which is 6-star in environmental sustainability, including pursuit of carbon neutral and solar-passive design principles.
Burnett, who attended the Affordable Housing Conference in Sydney last month, now supported her motion by saying the proposal would help address the present housing crisis in Hobart. The site abutting Melville, Bathurst and Elizabeth Streets is one of the largest development sites in the area and it would enliven a precinct she said had been described by fellow councilor Philip Cocker as ‘run down’. This development would be seen as a push to encourage public housing, along with student accommodation which, to date, Council has been unable to deliver, said Burnet.
There had been no move from Council, in her time on it, to increase public housing. There had been a 25% increase in attendance at the University of Tasmania in the last four years and given the geographical dispersion of Tasmania’s population the need for city accommodation for students from other areas was critical. Demand was also high from interstate and international students including those going to TAFE and secondary colleges. Burnet regarded the connecting walkways as critical to the project’s success and envisaged the 6 star rating would make it one of great environmental significance. At last month’s Affordable Housing Conference in Sydney Burnet noted the prominence of ‘brown-field’ developments in discussions and had visited The Quadrant off Broadway which incorporates a mix of functions and, she said, works well.
At this point, advised by the Chair that she had only 30 seconds of her allotted 5 minutes left, Burnet asked for an extension of time. Briscoe was quick to move that this be granted but this then lapsed, as Valentine said ‘for want of a seconder’.
Briscoe: You could have seconded it.
Valentine: I couldn’t.
Briscoe: You could.
Valentine: Couldn’t.
Briscoe: Could.
Valentine: Not.
And so on until Burnet brought Council back to business by asking that no more of her remaining 30 seconds be squabbled away.
(On the question of whether Valentine could have seconded Briscoe’s motion my understanding is that while it is possible for the Chair to vacate that position to be able to second and speak to a motion this is a rare, if not unknown, occurrence at Hobart City Council meetings).
In supporting the inner city housing motion Briscoe congratulated Burnet on bringing the proposal forward and suggested that, as a previous attempt to develop the site had failed because of parking problems, she might like to add consideration of parking to her requested report. Burnet said she preferred not to as the core issues being addressed didn’t exclude parking. Briscoe also felt the development might not be suited to younger students, it being best, he said, ‘to keep them apart from the community’. He based this view on his past experience of managing student accommodation.
The difference between affordable and community housing was also raised. Burnet said that the aim was to provide something akin to public housing (ie: for people on low incomes) while she saw affordable housing as relating to those suffering mortgage stress. Valentine’s understanding of community housing was of shared facilities to reduce costs and while he wasn’t sure a previous proposal had fallen down over parking said he thought this proposal was for an interesting usage mix and a report would be welcome. He referred to the success of CH2 (Community Housing 2) in Melbourne a claim refuted by Freeman based on a recent report in The Age, now recommended reading for the Lord Mayor.
Christie was ‘opposed to affordable housing in the CBD. I’ll never vote for affordable housing there – it’s for business.’
Briscoe’s amendment to specifically include parking in the report was successful. Burnet’s last word on the amended motion was that she thought the project would work in Hobart’s favour, being a good response to the needs of both low income residents and students. She also pointed out that it was not going to be in the absolute centre of the city.
Zucco had also attended the Affordable Housing Conference and the proposal he brought to Council was for it to consider development of the North Hobart carpark for an affordable housing project subject to a report being prepared on possible options and/or a development plan for the site. The motion also asked that in considering the options for affordable housing on the site a previous report on the carparking options also be included as part of a joint development option.
Zucco’s supported his motion by saying that the project’s street frontage could be a façade creating the impression of lots of small dwellings and cited the success of a mural which entertains him daily in North Hobart where real dogs sniff mural dogs and real humans attempt to post letters in a meter box.
The facade would give the project, he said, ‘the illusion of creativity’.
Both motions in relation to affordable housing were accepted.
