Margot Giblin
Valentine asked Haigh to withdraw her remark.
‘Oh well, if he’s so sensitive.’ 
Melville St carpark
Hobart City Council
Open Meeting
Monday 26 May 2008
5pm
Councillors Present: Lord Mayor Rob Valentine, Deputy Lord Mayor Eva Ruzicka, Marti Zucco, Peter Sexton, Ron Christie, Philip Cocker, Bill Harvey, Elise Archer, Helen Burnet, John Freeman, Jeff Briscoe, Darlene Haigh.
Some Agenda Items
59 Ruth Ave. Lenah Valley. Application for four houses approved with conditions.
89 Giblin St. New Town. Application for additional house approved with conditions.
4 Derwent Lane, Battery Point. Partial demolition, dwelling extension and alterations.
After some debate the decision on this application flowed from the reality that, as Valentine said, ‘you cannot buy a view’. Neighbours’ objections had tried to protect their own sightlines to the Derwent.
Objections cannot be upheld on these grounds, and as no other good reasons could be given to refuse, the application was approved with only Ruzicka voting No.
96 Liverpool St. Application for demolition of Building. Approved with conditions including maintenance of its façade.
Haigh described initial fire damage to the site, followed by wind storm damage and the voluntary dilapidation that followed. She felt it was important to retain the façade.
Harvey agreed. He asked if there were any plans to encourage the owners of the adjoining Myer site to beautify it in the time before building starts there. Officer advice was that Council has no responsibility to do so although it could direct the owners to act if the site became unsightly. Briscoe referred to other councils with provisions for landscaping private property if down time was extensive, but hoped the Myers building would be replaced soon. In the meantime Council was doing its bit by promptly removing graffiti from the temporary white fence, he said.
Valentine felt the façade was important, as its ‘vertical olive green component’ is the only remaining structure from the original Myer building. He regretted the loss of a rather attractive railing at the top the building. This had survived the adjacent fire but not demolition activity. It would be impossible to replace, he said, unless the original pieces had been retrieved and stored.
Proposed Business Owners and Operators ‘Get Together’.
This motion exercised the minds of councilors in extensive debate over who should be invited to the party. Should those already associated with the Council initiated Advantage Card be first? Or should they be considered as already on board and their presence sprinkled over a series of functions. Should the Advantage card even be mentioned? Given the five and a half thousand businesses in the Hobart metropolitan area some sort of plan was necessary.
During the rigours of this debate Haigh said that support for the Advantage was not universal. She had heard business people’s negative comments because she was ‘a bit of a shopper’.
‘That was a joke Alderman Zucco so there’s no need to frown.’
‘Why pick on me? I was just doodling and I’ve been attacked.’
Valentine asked Haigh to withdraw her remark.
‘Oh well, if he’s so sensitive.’
Two remarks now required withdrawal. Haigh obliged.
Valentine stressed how important a series of functions might be as a great marketing opportunity. There might also be a benefit in Council finding the right person to be The Face of Hobart.
On this, the day of the Premier’s resignation, Briscoe suggested that Big Red might be available
An amendment to delete reference to the Advantage Card was passed unanimously as was the decision that Council host several functions for business owners and operators over a period of time.
Melville St Carpark. It was moved that a Council workshop be held on its future options with consideration of
1. Developing a partnership with a private company.
2. Options for Council to develop the site.
3. A list of possible anchor tenants not currently in the city centre.
4. Options to entice new traders to the site through a rate or rent rebate direct to the trader.
Cocker, in introducing the motion, said it had been the strong view of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee that it was time to come to a view on what Council wants on this site, get moving and get something done.
Zucco referred to the growth of DFOs outside the city boundaries. While these meant nothing to him it was time to chase potential tenants for the Melville St site. He mentioned Albi Supermarkets and Ikea.
Haigh was concerned that the right sort of development be pursued in re-invigorating this part of town.
Briscoe noted that the carpark had been coming up on the agenda since 1994 but given the recent Economic Development Forum’s opinion that there is ‘no urgency or indeed current need to develop the site’ he saw no reason to have a workshop on it or make a decision now.
Elise Archer felt there would be no harm in looking at new ideas and who Council should be encouraging.
Sexton felt it was hardly rushing into things to be addressing an item that had first appeared in 1994. He suggested actively head hunting a suitable tenant.
Freeman referred to the two serious attempts Council has made at marketing this site.
The first Council invitation to developers had required a green belt running through the site’s centre. ‘People had giggled’ at this, Freeman said.
The second failure, for which he took the blame, had been an attempt to establish ‘an interesting high class development with boutique shops’. The response to this had been -why bother to replicate Salamanca at the other end of town?
Lessons should be learnt from both attempts, Freeman said.
He opposed the suggestion that Council find anchor tenants, given the specialist nature of such work. ‘Our officers shouldn’t be asked to do this – they might as well be asked to perform neurosurgery.’
He went on to refer to the site as an eyesore. Council should be pro-active in improving it.
Ruzicka felt that if the appropriate person were found to be The Face of Hobart that same person could go out and find the right tenant. She referred to this as a three dimensional approach to the issue.
The area could be ‘the hub of the city and put a rocket up the Waterfront Authority who keep trying to drag the CBD down to the waterfront. This empty brownfield site would be perfect – it has no heritage constraints.’
Burnet had brought a motion relating to the site to Council last September. She had wanted to promote public low cost housing in a mixed use area. She was now concerned that this intent might be lost.
Zucco assured her that point 2 of the present motion would cover her concerns.
Burnet stressed the need to differentiate this area from the central city area and from the waterfront.
She suggested dialogue with the State Government. The Federal Government’s expressed interest in affordable housing should be seized on. Burnet was happy to support the motion with the proviso that her original intention in relation to housing be considered.
Valentine felt anything would be better than the present so called ‘bomb-site’. He enthused about a 3rd supermarket chain being encouraged to enter the Tasmanian market. He touched on housing issues and hoped the workshop would be a cohesive event which would show that Council cared about the city.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The View in Hobart
Sympathy for individuals’ loss of view is expressed again and again by councilors but no move is under way to have the planning scheme amended. Other councils around Australia have come up with compromise solutions in which view sharing, percentage of view to be retained, sightlines and view corridors are considered. Wollongong, bracketed by ocean and escarpment, has made efforts to ensure the maximum number of people retain some view in its planning approval process.
