Hobart City Council
Open meeting: Monday 21 November 21.11.2011
5pm Hobart Town Hall Macquarie St
Present: Lord Mayor Damon Thomas, Deputy Lord Mayor Ron Christie, Aldermen Marti Zucco, Rob Valentine, Jeff Briscoe, Eva Ruzicka, Peter Sexton, Helen Burnet, Philip Cocker, Bill Harvey, Sue Hickey, Leo Foley.
The last open council meeting, with the newly elected aldermen present, was basically ceremonial. So this was the first real business meeting, at which newcomers Sue Hickey and Leo Foley experienced a taste of how a couple of hours can be chewed up, and chewed over, with painstaking deliberation. Some things haven’t changed.
There were no Petitions and no Public Questions.
Some Agenda Items
646A Sandy Bay Road (Includes long Beach Bathing Pavilion), Sandy Bay, gained approval for a partial change of use. This will see outdoor dining and coffee consumption delivered in such a way that the dog walking public, heading to and from Blinking Billy Point, wont be obstructed.
In discussion before the vote Harvey asked that advice in relation to a waste management strategy for the coffee cart be included as advice to the applicant. Christie opined that it was ‘about time something happened here – it’s a bit of an eyesore’.
The application was passed unanimously.
145-167 Liverpool St and 104-110 Murray St Hobart had its application for partial demolition, alterations and redevelopment for offices, shops, restaurants, take-away food shops and car-parking approved.
As chair of the Development and Environmental Services Committee (DESC) Helen Burnet described it as a development of significant size, on which conditions had been imposed to reduce the visual effect of its bulk.
Bill Harvey talked of the likely approval as a lost opportunity in Council’s ongoing bid to encourage the inclusion of inner city housing in commercial developments. Zucco suggested that advice to that end be given to the successful applicant. Philip Cocker suggested that the debate had demonstrated the need for such advice to be given when sites were first being looked at, not at this late stage.
Valentine expressed concern about the shade effect on nearby businesses. ‘I do wish architects would understand the human size of Hobart – we have to live in this city and enjoy it.’ He regretted that there was nothing in the Planning Scheme that would allow him to vote against the application. ‘It’s difficult for me to accept, but our hands are tied.’
The Aye vote was unanimous.
25A Waterworks Road and Kooyong Glen Rd Reservation, Dynnyrne
This proposal sought approval for a subdivision of 23 residential lots on a 2.6 hectare property. The average lot size is 950m sq. There were 30 representations covering concerns such as traffic impact, environmental and landscape impacts, unreasonable density and lack of public open space. The council officers recommended approval with close to 60 conditions. DESC recommended refusal.
Debate covered the lack of wildlife corridors, the proposed five metre wide public walkway, the zone (Residential 2) being appropriate for this type of development, the steepness of the site, the necessity for the new road to cut across contours and the dimensions of frontages. The latter were allowed under performance criteria in the officers’ recommendations.
Some aldermen had been to the site and appreciated local residents’ concerns. But, Briscoe said, there seemed to be a perception that because there is a lovely and special community there, nothing can be done to upset them. ‘The application fits the rules’, he said and so he foreshadowed a motion of approval.
Harvey supported subdivision, but wanted more, not less houses. He envisaged smaller footprints, more shared facilities and higher energy efficiency.
Zucco spoke sweetly about his love for his own bush block, which was, however, cancelled out by the word ‘reasonable’ as it should be applied to the Planning Scheme. This proposal was reasonable on every count. To refuse it would be to give false hope to objectors. ‘If it goes to the Appeals Tribunal we’ll be laughed at’, said Zucco.
Christie agreed with Zucco in relation to the site criteria for approval but expressed concerns about traffic. Cocker’s view was that traffic had been inadequately dealt with in the officers’ report. This, he said, had relied heavily on the developer’s own assessment and didn’t address objectors’ concerns. ‘I think this report utterly fails to look at the traffic issues raised. Nor are the landscape issues addressed. The report is somewhat deficient.’
Leo Foley found his voice on this one, saying it was difficult to face, first up. He could see the problems, but it did provide infill housing. Foley again raised the problem of aldermen being stymied by their own Planning Scheme. He knew where he had to vote ‘but we, as a council, must do better in the future so we enhance the value of land, but for this one……..’. The implication that it was too late would have been little comfort to those in the public gallery who were there to see how their objections fared.
Valentine summed up the sorry situation, sympathising with objectors but adding ‘the Planning Scheme doesn’t give us the teeth to do anything about it. We have no reason to knock this back.’
Burnet stuck to her objections in concluding the debate. She did not agree with the interpretation of the performance criteria in the officers’ report, she said.
The application was approved, but not unanimously.
A second application for a subdivision in Waterworks Rd was deferred.
The Battery Point Advisory Committee Dr Ken Hosking, Mr Stuart Jones and Mr Michael Cooper have been appointed to the committee for two years.
Special Delegation The Director of DESC will determine all planning permit applications from 13 December 2011 until the first ordinary Council meeting scheduled for 30 January 2012, subject to some conditions.
Applications Approved under The Building Regulations Act
In the twelve months ending 30 September 2011, 567 permits were issued to the value of $142,160,062
In the same period last year, 628 permits were issued to the value of $162,148,376.
Motions Under Notice Zucco asked that a report be prepared that investigates the options available for installing interactive Hobart maps. He envisaged some-one wanting to buy shoes, for instance, being able to quickly find the the city’s outlets. With Burnet’s suggestion that smart phone apps be added, the motion was passed.
Zucco’s second proposal was for a Memorandum of Understanding between the city councils of Hobart and Launceston. Many historic attempts to eliminate the ‘Oatlands Line’ were revisited. Andrew Wilkie’s more recent efforts to think outside Denison’s boundaries were lauded. The motion was passed.
Christie moved that Council bring forward the start date of a new free CBD/Salamanca shuttle service to next weekend instead of January 2012. The General Manager has been given a general delegation to get it going ‘as expeditiously as possible”.
The next Open Council Meeting is on Monday 5th December at 5pm, upstairs at the Town Hall in Macquarie St.
The Planning Scheme
Many reference were made over the evening to the perceived shortcomings of the present Planning Scheme, the frustration this caused individual councillors and the need for Council to do better. ‘I object – but what can I do?’ was this meeting’s mantra.
Zucco finally felt provoked to respond to this with vigour, saying it was not up to Council, but up to up to aldermen to do better. He exhorted them to put their concerns into action, bringing proposals of change forward.
Cocker, with barely concealed disbelief, referred to the many hours already spent on this by aldermen. They had been briefed at length and had input into the proposed new Planning Scheme. ‘It is hardly the fault of aldermen that this is not progressing faster than it is’, he said.
The hiatus is regrettable, not just for the boring predictability of aldermanic responses to their own concerns.
Delays in enacting the new scheme must surely encourage developers to get their plans in before present concerns firm into grounds for rejection.
How long has the new Planning Scheme been in the pipeline? How far from completion is it?
