We begin our exercise in the dying weeks of this iteration of Council. Nine of the twelve councillors are out campaigning to keep their seats1, the other three throwing in the towel2. Tonight’s meeting has a slim agenda and a slimmer chance of producing much in the way of soundbites, except maybe for Item 8.4.1, but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.3
Here’s one of those departing councillors now, on a matter of condolence:
Councillor Doug Chipman (Mayor)
I’d like to acknowledge the passing of the Queen. On behalf of my fellow councillors and staff at Clarence City Council, I’d like to join with the rest of Tasmania, Australia, and the world in passing on our deepest sympathies and condolences on the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
We, along with so many others, have long admired the sense of duty and dedication that Her Majesty brought to the role throughout her extraordinary seventy years of reign. Her Majesty was very fond of our state, visiting Tasmania an incredible seven times throughout her reign, and we will forever be honoured by her interest and the wonderful memories of those visits.
Her Majesty leaves a legacy that is unrivalled in modern history, a legacy of dependability, adaptability, stoicism and dignity that will be an inspiration for many generations to come. May she rest in peace.
A petition is tabled by another departing councillor, Alderman Ewington, regarding accessibility around Little Howrah Beach. Expect an item after the election.
Items 7.1 and 7.3 move along without much hullabaloo, just a dissent from Ald James on each4 and Cr Mulder on 7.1, but in the middle of those…
7.2
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PDPLANPMTD-2022/026549 – 18 LOWLYNN COURT, GEILSTON BAY - 2 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
That the Development Application for 2 Multiple Dwellings at 18 Lowlynn
Court, Geilston Bay (Cl Ref PDPLANPMTD-2022/026549) be refused as it is
contrary to the provisions of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Clarence, with
regard to:
Not satisfying Performance Criteria P3 of clause 8.4.2 Setbacks and
building envelope for all dwellings by its southern side boundary setback
not being consistent with properties in the area, creating overshadowing
and visual bulk impact on the adjoining vacant lot to the south, resulting
in unreasonable adverse impact on the adjoining lot’s amenity.
Not satisfying Performance Criteria P2 of clause 8.4.3 Site Coverage
and private open space for all dwellings, as the dwellings’ nominated
private open spaces are designed and located in such a manner that they
are not capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for outdoor
relaxation, dining, entertaining and children’s play.
That the details and conclusions included in the Associated Report be recorded
as the reasons for Council’s decision in respect of this matter.
Oh dearie dearie me. We had a deputation tonight by someone linked with the proposal, disappointed at the recommended refusal. An excellent point was raised then about the circumstances by which we got here:
(2) The planning authority may, on receipt of an application for a permit to which this section applies, refuse to grant the permit and, if it does so –
(a) it does not have to comply with subsection (3); and
(b) section 60 (1) does not apply; and
(c) it must, within 7 days of refusing to grant the permit, serve on the applicant notice of its decision.
(3) Unless the planning authority requires the applicant to give notice, the authority must give notice, as prescribed, of an application for a permit.
The argument goes that the proposal needn’t have gone out for advertising if Council’s officers always intended to recommend refusal. Which is perfectly reasonable, were it not for Council’s councillors’ ability to ignore the officer’s recommendation entirely.5 And case in point, Alderman Blomeley has a very last minute motion on hand to approve the proposal, making the advertisement of the proposal completely necessary to comply with subsection (3). To give everyone time to read it over8, Councillor Mulder moves to defer the matter until the end of the open meeting, so I guess we’ll just have to come back to this.
Notes the General Manager’s advice that the petition complies with Section 57
of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas.).
Notes that design is well underway for the Pass Road reconstruction from Glebe
Hill Road to Connor Place and the design and cost estimates are to be presented
to a future council workshop prior to 2023-2024 budget consideration.
Authorises the General Manager to request the Traffic Commissioner to reduce
the existing 80 km/h Pass Road sections to 60 km/h, until the Pass Road upgrade
works are complete.
Authorises the General Manager to write to petitioners acknowledging their
concerns and advising of council’s decision.
Pass Road is going to be causing problems for residents and Council for years to come. Situated in parts along the Clarence Plains Rivulet, this former coach road has, to put things lightly, not taken recent developments well. A combination of the rapid urban growth of Glebe Hill and the Plains, the flimsy foundation of the road, and continuing extreme and very wet weather9 that definitely has nothing to do with climate change10 have led to a potholed disaster zone labelled on Google Maps as a major thoroughfare.
The recommendation covers a section of the road between Glebe Hill Road and Connor Place, about half the length of Pass Road. Even this half job, when it comes before the new Council at next year’s Budget deliberations, is going to be massively expensive. Obviously it needs to be done, for everyone’s sake, but things being what they are right now, it’s certainly not going to be easy.
Notes that Chambroad are expected to provide advice regarding its progress in
accordance with the Sale and Development Agreement before 13 October 2022.
In the event that “substantial commencement” has not been achieved by
Chambroad, authorise the General Manager to take whatever action is necessary
to preserve Council’s rights in accordance with the Sale and Development
Agreement.
Requests that the General Manager provide a report to Council as soon as
practical after the upcoming council elections setting out any advice from
Chambroad, identifying options and recommending a preferred option.
I do so love to be proven right.
Approved in January 201712 then again in modified form in December 201713 by the previous Council in an 11-1 vote14, the Kangaroo Bay Hotel and Hospitality School has been a thorn in the side of Council ever since. The land was sold to Chambroad Overseas Investment Australia15 as part of a Sale and Development Agreement, with Hunter Developments pegged to develop the site. Five years later, here is the list of work completed:
A derelict building across a footpath from a large flat gravel area has been levelled to, by their powers combined, become a larger flat gravel area.
So things haven’t gone well. A buyback clause in the SDA gives Council the opportunity to repurchase the land if substantial commencement isn’t reached within a certain time. Under LUPAA and the Clarence Interim Planning Scheme 201516, levelling the ground would have been enough to qualify as substantial commencement, but the SDA requires quite a bit more work.
In May and November of 2019 Council gave Chambroad extensions of time to commence as it struggled to obtain and retain a provider for the hospitality school portion of the project. In December 2020, during and because of the (continuing) COVID-19 pandemic, Chambroad was given a much longer extension through October 2022, but has never showed any tangible signs of starting anything else, let alone finishing it. There is little appetite in Council or in the community to let this go on any longer.
…Unfortunately, the end of this latest extension of time lands right in the middle of the polling period for Tasmania’s 2022 Local Government Elections. Council believes, as it well should, that it should not be making big decisions that might influence voters during an election season, which is why the result of this motion was completely unsurprising, even if it took a small chunk of fairly unfocussed and politicised debate to get there.
That the Development Application for 2 Multiple
Dwellings at 18 Lowlynn Court, Geilston Bay (Cl Ref
PDPLANPMTD-2022/026549) be approved subject to the
following conditions and advice:
GEN AP3 – AMENDED PLAN
Insert:
the communal bin area location of sufficient
size to accommodate six bins, and suitably
screened from both the frontage and landscape
plantings providing screening to Unit 1; and
a permanently fixed external privacy screen,
for the full length of Unit 2’s east facing living
room window (DGW 18/27), with a uniform
transparency of not more than 25%.
The development must be undertaken in accordance
with the recommendations of the Flood Hazard
Report, prepared by Flüssig Engineers, dated 10
August 2022, as attached to this permit.
Documentation demonstrating compliance with the
recommendations must be submitted to and approved
by Council’s Group Manager Engineering Services
prior to an occupancy permit being issued.
ENG A5 – SEALED CAR PARKING.
ENG M1 -DESIGNS DA.
ENG S1 – INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR.
The development must meet all required Conditions
of Approval specified by TasWater notice, dated
23/03/2022 (TWDA 2022/00378-CCC).
ADVICE
The development must meet all required Conditions
of Approval specified by TasWater notice, dated
23/03/2022 (TWDA 2022/00378-CCC).
That the reasons are as follows:
The proposal is discretionary and provides in excess
of the minimum ground level private open space
(POS).
There is no unreasonable loss of amenity to adjoining
properties.
Unit positions have been informed by the Flood
Report by Flussig Engineers dated 10 August 2022.
Welcome back. When we left off, Alderman Blomeley had announced an alternative motion that was so last minute he hadn’t had time to distribute it before the meeting. This is very much not normal practise, and that takes up a reasonable whack of the debate. The rest essentially proceeds as follows:
The officers had two very good reasons to recommend the refusal of the proposal:
There wasn’t enough space in a certain configuration outside either of the dwellings that was useful for privately doing anything.19
There wasn’t enough space between the dwellings and the south side of the lot, creating overshadowing problems for the lot next door.19
But, the argument goes:
Surely whoever goes on to live here or otherwise use the property will know this and adjust their plans accordingly.
Surely whoever goes on to live there or otherwise use the property will know this and adjust their plans accordingly, and besides, if the owner had an issue, surely they would have raised it when the proposal was advertised.
I do generally subscribe to the philosophy that reasonable and consenting adults can do what they want as long as no one else is coming to harm. When the proposal was advertised, it received zero representations, objecting or otherwise. So what do? On the one hand, no representations means the only valid appellant is the applicant20 and they’re not going to complain if they get what they want. On the other hand, a planning authority playing funny with the rules is liable to pay out a lot of ratepayers’ money to the state treasury.21,22 …I should probably point out I’m not a lawyer.
Regardless, in the end it comes down to the choices of twelve eleven humans in a tall, acoustically awful room. Discretion and interpretation is the game, and today’s big winner is the applicant.
Well that was rather a bit more excitement than I was expecting from this pilot run. Come back in three weeks for the last meeting of this iteration of Council. I suspect there may be certificates involved. For now, here’s the big table:
Note: Item was deferred to just before closed meeting.
7.3. Development Application PDPLANMTD-2022/029299 – 19 Scott Street, Bellerive - Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Construction of 3 Multiple Dwellings
Rec Approval
10-1
CARRIED
8.1. Determination on Petitions Tabled at Previous Council Meetings
For some value of throwing in the towel; Councillor Edmunds has become MLC Edmunds after a by-election in Pembroke, and has vacated his seat. ↩
looks back over post Hahaha, what’ve you gone and said that for? ↩
Alderman James dissents from the majority rather often. If you limit your scope to just planning items, James has been on the losing side of votes nearly 30% of the time during the 2018-22 term. Alderman von Bertouch is next, then Councillor Warren, but each pulls only a paltry 17%. The most successful councillor on planning items this term has been Alderman Peers, with an excellent 7% loss rate. ↩
Planning authorities6 have the ability to delegate some or all of their power7 to their employees under section 6 of LUPAA. Clarence delegates the ability to approve certain proposals with very low numbers of representations made to its planning staff, but requires that all refusals go through a council meeting. ↩
Which is to say, councils, which operate in part as planning authorities. ↩
Except the power to delegate power. That way lies madness. ↩
This is a lie. I am lying to you. In unrelated11 news, I’d like to wish Alderman Ewington a very happy exit from local politics after the election. Family is very important and I’m glad you’re making time for yours. ↩
Councillors Chipman, Chong, James, Peers, von Bertouch and Walker remain from that Council. James was the sole dissent on both motions. ↩
I’m not about to get bogged down in the foreign investment debate, you can’t make me. ↩
Which has since been superceded by the Tasmanian Planning Scheme and its Clarence Local Provisions Schedule, but still applies to DAs and SAs approved underneath it. ↩
A small community hall on Alma Street, Bellerive. Alderman von Bertouch is very passionate about the site, but tough budgeting, especially through the pandemic, has put it firmly on the backburner, slowly falling into disrepair. Hasn’t stopped her trying, though. ↩
With no particular specificity, so watch this space, I guess. ↩
At least according to an arbitrary but generally well-defined standard, as laid out in the planning scheme. ↩↩
