Could we be about to lose the Town Hall in Campbell Town, due to a serious flaw in Tasmanian legislation?
I believed that the Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing would be a ‘fair’ process, but now I find a flaw in the legislation creates a bias that favours the council.
This happens because it treats the council decision to sell public property in the same way as a development application is dealt with.
The tribunal refers to Section 178A of the Local Government Act 1993.
The result is, the whole council decision cannot be considered, even though the decision-making process has proceeded over many years, and was then formalised with two council meetings, not one.
In the first formal meeting held in closed council, all evidence supporting the council decision to proceed with sale was able to be kept secret.
The tribunal appeal only examines the decision in the second council meeting after the required advertising period. The council only needs to provide documents tabled at this second meeting where the original decision was confirmed. There is no requirement to provide any documents from the first closed meeting where the original decision to sell was made.
Can a ‘fair’ tribunal hearing on the council decision to sell the Town Hall in Campbell Town proceed under the current legislation?
If not, should this tribunal appeal be suspended, until the legislation is made ‘fair’?
I have raised this matter in an email to the Premier, included below.
Re: Tribunal Appeal with the Town Hall in Campbell Town
Dear Premier Gutwein,
Should the hearing of this appeal be suspended until the Tasmanian Government fixes the legislation relating to the sale of a public property by a Council?
Why?
Normally the Tribunal deals with planning matters, where a decision by a Council will include all the evidence relating to that decision, and where the whole matter of the decision happens during the Council meeting.
Should a Tribunal appeal proceed over that decision, all the evidence of the Council decision is able to be presented at the Tribunal hearing.
In the case of a Council decision to sell public property, as with the Town Hall in Campbell Town, the decision-making process is much longer.
In the case of the Town Hall the decision-making process began in 2014, with the first part of the formal decision happening on 15 March 2021, with the Council decision to proceed with a formal and legal rounding up of their wish to sell, and then with the finalising decision happening on 17 May 2021.
It has come to light in the Tribunal proceedings that only matters relating to the finalising of the Council decision on 17 May 2021 can be considered in a Tribunal hearing.
This means that a consultant’s report by Watershed Solutions, which has been kept secret by the Council, and formed part of the closed Council meeting of 15 March 2021, cannot be considered as evidence.
Should the finalising of the Council decision on 17 May 2021 be described as a rubber stamp?
Should the Tribunal appeal be best described as the scrutiny of a rubber stamp?
Instead of natural justice as expected in our legal system, we see Council employed lawyers defending a rubber stamp with legal guns, threatening costs at every step.
By the limited scope of the Tribunal legislation when applied to a Tribunal hearing over a decision by a Council to sell public property, all the cards are being held by the Council, and anyone appealing is left with the Joker.
Is that natural justice?
Does the current legislation fulfill the duty to act fairly? [1]
To deliver fairness, the Tribunal legislation needs to match the Council decision-making process with the sale of public property.
Until that day of justice dawns, the Tribunal hearing over the sale of the Town Hall in Campbell Town, should be suspended.
Or, a special court could be arranged in the interim, where the whole Council decision is in the box, not just a rubber stamp.
Yours sincerely,
Kim Peart
REFERENCE
[1] “In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general “duty to act fairly”.”
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
EARLIER COMMUNICATIONS
Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal
TO ALL PARTIES
I remind the parties that the Tribunal is confined to two matters only by reference to Section 178A of the Local Government Act 1993.
Prima facie, these matters below are not matters which the Tribunal can consider (pecuniary interests/economic rationale for selling the hall). I strongly encourage the parties to take advice from suitably qualified persons.
To agitate matters which are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which give rise to costs by the other party in addressing, may give rise to a costs application at the conclusion of the proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
Registrar
Letter to Registrar
Re: Tribunal Hearing with the Town Hall in Campbell Town ….. Documents
Good Morning,
CONSULTANT’S REPORT …..
I wish to support the request by Andrew McCullagh to see the consultant’s report by Watershed Solutions, which is the key document the Council had before them that determined their decision to sell the Town Hall, but has been kept secret for reasons not disclosed.
An examination of the minutes of the Campbell Town District Forum indicates that Watershed Solutions were about to undertake more thorough community consultation, but this did not proceed, which may indicate the sale decision was made in a vacuum of essential knowledge and understanding of the value of the Town Hall to the present community and future generations of residents of the region. [1]
My investigations over the past three months have shown the Town Hall to have an irreplaceable value as a civic and cultural centre for the Central Midlands, including the towns of Tunbridge, Ross, Campbell Town, Conara, Cleveland, Epping Forest, Avoca, and the surrounding farm community.
A stark reality of the Central Midlands is that the population is increasing, and can be expected to swell with mainland climate change refugees seeking a cool change in Tasmania, increasing the demand on civic services and cultural needs such as theatre, which can happen in the Town Hall, which is also a theatre.
BUILDER’S REPORT …..
Another missing document is a builder’s report, showing what the cost of maintenance will be in the near and long-term, and any upgrades that may be needed to meet modern requirements for public use.
In the meeting of the decision of 17 May Cr. Polley referred to a cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a need to replace the roof, but no evidence was included in the meeting Agenda to support these claims.
Cr. Polley ….. “I think this building, and also, if we retain it, it’s going to cost hundreds of thousands to do it up, and continue maintaining it for little use.” ….. “We’re talking about hundreds of thousands. And then we’ve got the on-going maintenance for peanuts in return.” [2]
Is there a builder’s report that details Cr. Polley’s claims on costs?
If the costs are so high, there is a concern that if sold, a new owner may baulk at the expenses and neglect the building, leading to fire and or demolition.
If the Council has been cutting back on maintenance, putting this building at risk, and reducing the sale price, I would like to know about this.
If there is a builder’s report, can this be presented?
PECUNIARY INTEREST …..
There is the question of a developer waiting in the wings to grab the property at a cut price, with an eye on the value of the land.
One Councillor declared a pecuniary interest in the Town Hall and left the debate. [3]
It is very hard to know what pecuniary interest a Councillor would have in a public property that is being mooted for sale.
I would very much like to know what the pecuniary interest of Cr Goninon is, a Launceston businessman, that would cause him to remove himself from the debate on the Town Hall.
Is it possible to know what Cr Goninon’s pecuniary interest is?
Yours sincerely,
Kim Peart
REFERENCES
[1] CAMPBELL TOWN DISTRICT FORUM
Meeting held on Tuesday 2nd February 2021 commencing at 9.30am
https://www.northernmidlands.
6.5 Town Hall Review
The guest speaker, Anna Bonython, was invited to speak at the start of the meeting.
Anna shared a list of her credentials for carrying out the appraisal of the Town Hall on behalf of NMC. She informed the Forum that she has submitted an Interim report to NMC and is currently waiting for the council review before she can proceed to commence discussions with the community from which a small working group will be formed.
Anna has completed an independent study of Town Halls, to see how they have repurposed their buildings, in other similar communities across Australia and is proposing to use it to commence discussions with the working group. The working group will also work with her to start mapping the social capital and find where there are gaps.
[2] Northern Midlands Council meeting ….. Transcript of the debate
17 May 2021
https://www.northernmidlands.
Cr Polley: I move the recommendation that we sell the hall, and that we notify. The reason that I move it, is because we built a new hall, and a new facility, which is being utilised very very well, including the grounds, constantly with people from around the State, sports people using the ground. I believe that long term it’s best for the town, particularly for employment. We already know there’s been interest expressed around the community about different things to use it for, mainly commercial things, and I think it’s an ideal opportunity to do hopefully what has happened down at Oatlands, not necessarily the same thing that happened at Oatlands. All of a sudden there’s been a huge expansion there at the old mill, because somebody has come along with a great new idea, and hopefully something will happen like this. We have to provide for the future, because there’s going to come a time one day when that town will be by-passed. It’s the only town on the national highway in Tasmania that hasn’t been, and to my knowledge the only one on the national highway in Australia that hasn’t been, and that’s great. I’d like to see it remain that way. But, I think we’ve really got to build the base of potential employment within the town, and I think this building, and also, if we retain it, it’s going to cost hundreds of thousands to do it up, and continue maintaining it for little use. People just aren’t using it. They’re using the other one. And there is a problem with the market. Somebody said we should keep it, because there’s a market there once a month. Well, they can use the other hall for a market. Well, they could go up there and use the veranda and the internal parts of the hall. Also, and there’s better parking at the new one. That’s the reason I support.
Cr Davis: Council made the decision to sell the hall when they committed to build the new facility. We called for expressions of interest in 2019. We didn’t get anything appropriate at the time, expressions of interest. It’s a commitment that Council has foreshadowed for quite some time. We cannot continue to maintain that facility, as well as the new one, so nobody can say it was a surprise.
Cr Brooks: I agree with that. I’m just worried that, I still support selling the hall, but I don’t want to see those user groups that are using the hall, not use the new facility, and I don’t know why they’re not using the new facility. Whether it’s they can’t afford the new facility, or they’re just not using it for some other reason. I don’t want to sell the hall out from under some user groups that genuinely can’t afford to use that new facility. I’d like to ask Ms Bricknell if those user groups that are using the old hall, are they able to use the new hall, and would they be charged for a market. It’s alright to say, have the market there, but do they get charged to have the market there. Some of these user groups in these country towns can’t afford to pay the high fees we need to charge to pay for this building, and I know that the facility is being used a lot, but I’m afraid I think it’s getting used by a lot of people outside the community, for government conferences, and all the rest of it, but I’m not sure if the community of Campbell Town are really using that facility.
Ms Maree Bricknell: I’m sure a lot of people from Campbell Town are using it, and they do get a rebate of 25% for fees, if they are local. There is an incentive there for them to use it. As far as the hall, they do for the market, they do pay a certain amount for the stall, I think it is, so there’s no reason why we couldn’t use the same charging regime with the other facility as well, amount per stall.
Cr Calver: I think there are other options in Campbell Town. There’s the Show Grounds up there. There’s the Girl Guides hall sitting there doing nothing, next to King Street, also suitable for market. So, there are other options.
Unknown: So, the beauty of the market at the Town Hall is it’s closeness to the CBD area.
Cr Calvert: But both those ones I’ve suggested would …..
Cr Lambert: I have a similar concern to Cr Brooks. I think, given the petition where there was, I know there were 349, but I believe there was a figure of 70 to 80 locals. Is that the figure that was?
Unknown: 69 I think.
Cr Lambert: 69, 70, locals who expressed concern about selling the hall. 60 or 70 people, 60 or 70 families as well, people who are not happy to see the hall go, and I think, I know this is a situation that a lot of Councils and communities are going to face over time, but I think, with that amount of concern in the town, I’m not sure I can support the sale of the Town Hall, particularly with what Cr Brooks has added into that equation as well.
Unknown: Can I just add to that initially when we first, there were two massive public meetings there. They were held in the hall, and it was made quite clear that if the new facility was built, they would not be duplicated by doing up the hall ….. that was made quite clear.
Cr Polley: Just a rough instrument, to restore and paint that hall we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. We can’t afford it. If we’re going to keep our rates down, we didn’t put the rates up last time. We know if we want to …. we’ll be limited in what we can do into the near future. We just can’t afford it. And there are other alternatives. As has been explained by the Acting General Manager if you‘re charging per stall and we give an arrangement the same as happens in the new facility, there is no additional cost. And hopefully with the sale we can do an arrangement where that the actual Service Tasmania shop, and other facilities can stay there. Hopefully that can happen, but that in itself is creating a problem, and a traffic hazard. Huge problem outside that place with trucks pulling up there which we want them to be doing. We’ve got no choice. Absolutely no choice. The longer we hang onto it, the more it will deteriorate. I understand the roof will probably need to be replaced. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands. And then we’ve got the on-going maintenance for peanuts in return.
Cr Davis: I’ll make two comments. I understand, to some extent empathise with, the comments that Cr Brooks and Cr Lambert have made but we’re going to be facing this with the Ross school, with other issues, where there are a lot of, you know, emotive positions taken by the local community members. The only way that I could see that we could get around that is for Campbell Town to agree to a discretionary rates payment for example because I can tell you right now the people of Perth aren’t going to pay for it. So, you know we’ve got to be very realistic and hard and I know it’s tough but we cannot keep everything. This was something that was foreshadowed, and everybody should have understood it. Yes, some people may have changed their minds, but we can’t make an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars because some people have changed their minds.
Mayor Knowles: OK , I’ll put the recommendation. All those in favour.
Aye.
Mayor Knowles: Against.
Aye.
Mayor Knowles: Hands up please those against. Cr Brooks and Cr Lambert. Motion carried.
[3] Northern Midlands Council meeting minutes, 17 May 2021
https://www.northernmidlands.
Cr Goninon declared an interest in item GOV 10, signed the register and left the meeting at 5.24pm.
TOWN HALL – RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
• i) notes the objections received; and
• ii) determines to sell / retain the Town Hall in Campbell Town; and
• iii) notifies parties who lodged the objections within 7 days of this decision.
DECISION
Cr Polley/Cr Davis
That Council:
• i) notes the objections received; and
• ii) determines to sell the Town Hall in Campbell Town; and
• iii) notifies parties who lodged the objections within 7 days of this decision.
Voting for the motion:
Mayor Knowles, Cr Adams, Cr Calvert, Cr Davis, Cr Goss, Cr Polley
Voting against the motion: Cr Brooks, Cr Lambert
Carried
Cr Goninon returned to the meeting at 5.34pm.
