It was a chilly spring night on Monday as I took the bus to Bligh Street for the last meeting of the Clarence City Council for the 2018-22 term. The gallery was more crowded and the meeting longer than I anticipated, which actually worked out better for me,1 but let’s not worry about that. Onwards!
I wouldn’t normally pull out a heading for the omnibus, but there’s a couple of things to note here:
John Toohey is retiring as Council’s Manager Health and Community Development
after 23 years in various positions. Wishing him all the best.
The CEO and the Mayor met with Chambroad in relation to the Kangaroo Bay site.
In line with the decision at the previous meeting, they negotiated to keep
Council’s options open in the short-term. Chambroad has put forth the skeleton of
an alternative proposal that would see them construct only the hotel, using
the buildings for the hospitality school for some other, as yet undefined
purpose. Chambroad are expected to put a more detailed proposal in the near future,
and Council has been set a deadline of 21 December, 2022 to consider the proposal
and Chambroad’s requested extension. Possibly pencilmark the 19th of that month,
as that’ll be the last meeting before the deadline.
At least half the chamber stood to speak about various committees. With reasonable
odds of a shakeup around the table, I should note that committee appointments are
likely to come through in a big lump at the second meeting after the election.
Bellerive Oval2 is a hot topic tonight. Sound and light pollution, traffic woes,
public transport inadequacies, things have possibly got out of hand for the ground,
situated at Bellerive Beach right in the middle of a residential area. Things are
not made easier by the arrival of the T20 World Cup and the ICC‘s stringent
security requirements for the surrounding area pushing busses out to Clarence Street.
No easy solutions, I’m afraid.
Now I’d always intended to show up to this particular meeting, but a fascinating thing happened
in the last three weeks. I’d noticed a change to GM Ian Nelson’s sign off in the public notices
in The Mercury. And so:
Thomas Chick, Mornington
My question is to the CEO. (Congratulations, by the way.) Assuming that for the purposes of
the Local Government Act you are still the General Manager,4 for what reason and when did
your role transition within Council as a corporate body from General Manager to Chief Executive
Officer?3
And the simple explanation is that calling GMs CEOs has become the in thing. The transition seems
to have taken place during closed meeting three weeks ago, and Mr Nelson has been delegated all
the powers he had as a General Manager under the Local Government Act.
Victor Marsh, a Bellerive resident and regular questioner at these meetings, asks a question
for another resident about noise pollution from Bellerive Oval, which is taken on notice.
Told you it was a hot topic.
Three (!) deputations tonight, which I’d normally deal with under the relevant items,
but one of tonight’s doesn’t have a relevant item. When one of the Marshes turns up,
the other is probably nearby, and indeed, talking about Bellerive Bluff, we have:
Joanne Marsh, Bellerive
It was a childhood dream of mine to live on Bellerive Bluff, achieved in 1979. By 1979,
we were concerned about some of the decisions already made, such as the demolition of
the Town Hall and units built in the playground of the original school in King Street.
Mrs Marsh goes on to present a brief5 history of issues with various
developments in and around Bellerive Bluff, including Bellerive Oval,6 the recently
implemented ferry service7 and the recently completed public pier,8
among other less recent problems. She concludes:
Consequently, I have no confidence in the Council’s understanding of their role
in local government as clearly defined by the Local Government Act.
Now my opinion of Council isn’t quite so strong, but I also don’t live in Bellerive, and
with the Oval there I’m not sure I’d want to at the moment. That’s enough about Bellerive
for now, let’s move on.
7.1
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PDPLANPMTD-2022/027863 – 3 DROUGHTY POINT ROAD, ROKEBY - STORAGE (2 SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND FENCING)
That the Development Application for storage (2 shipping containers and
fencing) at 3 Droughty Point Road, Rokeby (Cl Ref PDPLANPMTD-
2022/027863) be approved subject to the following conditions and advice.
GEN AP1 – ENDORSED PLANS.
GEN AP3 – AMENDED PLANS [the location of outdoor storage areas
(excluding the display of goods for sale) together with details of how
these areas are to be treated or screened so as not to be visible from any
road or public open space adjoining the site].
GEN AP3 – AMENDED PLANS [the provision of a site total of nine
on-site car parking spaces].
External lighting to illuminate external vehicle parking areas and
pathways must be provided, and must be located, designed and baffled
to ensure that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the site.
GEN S1 – SIGNS CONSENT.
GEN AM5 – TRADING HOURS [Monday – Saturday, 7am to 9pm;
Sundays and Public Holidays, 8am to 9pm].
GEN S1 – SIGNS CONSENT.
ENG M1 – DESIGNS DA.
ENG A1 – NEW CROSSOVER.
ENG A5 – SEALED CAR PARKING.
ENG M5 – EROSION CONTROL.
ENG S1 – INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR.
ENG S3B – WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES.
ADVICE
Based on the information provided, the development is likely to
adversely affect TasNetworks’ operations. Consideration needs to be
given to the underground electrical infrastructure which runs under the
new concrete driveway. This infrastructure may need extra protection
depending on the type of traffic that will be using the driveway to access
the site.
To understand what these requirements may entail, it is recommended
the proponent contact TasNetworks Early Engagement team at
[email protected] at their earliest convenience.
The development will intensify the stormwater discharge from the
property and hence requires approval under the Urban Drainage Act
2013 and the stormwater is to be designed as per council’s Stormwater
Management Procedure for new development.
That the details and conclusions included in the Associated Report be recorded
as the reasons for Council’s decision in respect of this matter.
I think coming in to this week’s meeting might have made this blog post more difficult
to write,9 but that’s not to say it’s without benefit, especially if one gets in early.
You overhear a lot of things sitting quietly in the corner waiting for things to get going.
This week, for example, I heard one of the councillors talking to the speakers for the
other two deputations, both in opposition to the application under this item. Something was up.
The proposal is for two shipping containers in a sealed and fenced off area on a
particularly awkwardly shaped lot in what appears to be a residential area.
Appearances, however, can be deceiving.
A quick perusal of theLIST reveals the lot is zoned for Local Business,10 as is the house
at No. 1, and the houses south of the lot are zoned Light Industrial11 or Utilities.12
Light Industrial and Utilities don’t allow for residences, but the Planning Scheme allows
for existing uses to continue. This isn’t the problem.
Those two remaining deputations were by residents of those nearby houses. Droughty
Point Road is already dotted with industrial areas further south of here, resulting in
heavy vehicles regularly trundling past the houses. The proposal was seen by residents
as likely to exacerbate that problem and introduce new ones, including the throwing up
of dust and other particulate. The Local Business Zone provides a range of allowable
trading hours, which you can see in the recommendation above, but these too were
problematic for residents just trying to get some sleep.
The Scheme cares not for their plight. Storage is a discretionary use in the Local
Business Zone, but discretion can only go so far. The Scheme ignores the fact of
nearby residences, concerning itself only with the opinions of those living in
areas zoned for Residential, such as the area to the east of the above map,
and the people of Princes Building Parade and Knopwood Street seem unlikely to be
perturbed.
In an effort to provide some modicum of solace, Councillor Mulder provided an
alternative motion:
Alternative (Approval)
[waiting for publication of minutes, couldn’t get my hands on a copy,
reduced hours, increased fencing requirements]
But in listening to the conversation, it becomes apparent that nobody seems to
think the changed trading hours are in any way enforceable. Further, it seems
that no matter how tonight’s proceedings turn out, the applicant is likely to
appeal the decision to TASCAT‘s Resource and Planning Stream, rendering the
whole thing rather moot.
Alderman James foreshadows a Refusal motion, but nobody takes its chances of
surviving appeal seriously. Alderman Ewington, at the other end, thinks the
amended Approval motion goes too far beyond the scope of what the Scheme
allows. Ultimately, there’s an air of inevitability in the chamber as the
Mayor calls for the vote. This probably isn’t over, but it won’t be settled in
this room, either. The Scheme is a rigid and imperfect instrument, and the only
winners here seem to be the developers.
Notes the petition and the Chief Executive Officer’s (“CEO”) advice that the
petition partially complies with section 57 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Notes the CEO’s advice that it is not possible to provide an equitable “DDA”
access in the short to medium term, for the reasons set out in the report and
authorises the CEO to progress investigations and construction of a temporary,
short-term concrete access ramp to enable beach access from the end of the
existing access ramp at the public amenities block at Little Howrah Beach,
subject to council officers consulting with key stakeholders about the suitability
of the proposed ramp.
Authorises the expenditure of $10,000 from a previous budget allocation for a
DDA compliant ramp, plus ongoing maintenance costs of approximately $3,000
per annum to maintain the ramp in safe and functional order.
Authorises the CEO to write to petitioners acknowledging the petition and
advising of council’s decision.
The existing access ramp at Little Howrah Beach almost reaches the beach before it
unceremoniously ends in a single step, depositing the user onto some rocks. This is
hardly the peak of accessibility. When it was originally built in 2008, its only
problem was being a bit steep for DDA compliance, but sea and soles have stolen the
sand to some other shore.
Recently, in an act of guerrilla public service, an unknown person poured a short
ramp from the step, over the rocks, using rapid set concrete. Uneven and unauthorised,
this patch of concrete is already breaking up, and the CEO has noted that if things
deteriorate much further, he may be forced to close the beach entirely.
There’s probably a moral to be had here about thinking twice before taking rash action,
or maybe just irony, but I’m not sure I like it.
Council are going to pay someone to do a better job,13 but the accessibility problems
will remain for the foreseeable future. A hollow victory, certainly.
Recommendation
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ALL THE REST
Alderman James abstained on the Community Support Grants vote at 8.4.1 after raising
concerns with the refusal of Gurkha Legends Cricket Club’s proposal, but the reasons given
for the refusal seem wellfounded based on a quick look at Council’s
Grants Policy.
That abstention was the sole dissent,19 although Councillor Mulder was also interested
in the refusal of a Lost and Found sculpture at Cremorne.
From Councillors’ Questions:
No news on either Rosny Hill or the Kangaroo Bay Boulevard site, Rosny Hill
is waiting on draft lease negotiations
Clarence Lifestyle Village have requested to extend the Urban Growth Boundary,
but have so far not provided further information that Council has asked for
Consultation on the Seven Mile Beach Structure Plan has been completed
The developers of the Arm End golf course have claimed they have achieved
substantial commencement, but have not yet provided evidence to that effect
Roads around Bellerive Oval are experiencing potholing, but the ICC‘s security
provisions are making things difficult
No progress made on ways to acquire cash-in-lieu contributions for parking
No confirmed date for grading of Pipeclay Esplanade, Cremorne
There are no real rules governing councillors receiving compensation
for sitting on the boards of Government Business Enterprises or other government
committees
And finally tonight, certificates of recognition were given to, and final speeches
given by, the following retiring councillors:
Dean Ewington has been an alderman since the 2018 election. It’s been a bit of a
mixed bag for the owner of Oceana Aquatic and Fitness. Although he’s made big moves
in relation to the sport and wellbeing platform he was elected on, his political
career has been thoroughly sunk by his attendance at an anti-lockdown rally,
which resulted in his disendorsement as a Liberal candidate at the 2021 state election.
This, combined with his views on climate change and “woke culture”, and his very
pro-development stance, has not made him a popular man. I am not going to miss him,
though I do wish him the best as he tries to find more time for his family.
Alderman Ewington’s closing speech largely avoids any of the things that got
him into hot water over the last four years. He’s looking for the next council
to make an overhaul to their grants process, especially around newly starting
sporting groups.
Luke Edmunds was also elected at the 2018 election, but left Council14 in September
after being elected as a Labor MLC for Pembroke.15 While on Council, he
was a strong advocate for inclusive play options in parks, resulting, among other
things, in the installation of an all-abilities swing at Simmons Park, and the
consideration of other inclusive measures at current and future park developments.
He also advocated for the continued operation of the Rosny Golf Course, although
a motion intended to progress that seems to have backfired. The course is currently
being maintained to regular park standards, with golfing disallowed.
Mr Edmunds was in the gallery tonight, and invited to give his own speech. Mostly
just thanks to everyone involved.
Doug Chipman has been a councillor since the 2000 election, was Deputy Mayor
from 2007 until his election as Mayor in 2011, a position he has held since.
Councillor Chong provides some statistical context:
Chaired over 200 meetings, covering some 600 hours
Attended over 440 meetings total, comprising about 132,000 pages of agenda papers
Mayor Chipman has been president of LGAT and vice president of ALGA, and during
his tenure as mayor was involved in the conception of the Hobart City Deal
and Clarence’s City Heart Project. On the other hand, his tenure has also been
marked by the sale and development of public land at Kangaroo Bay and Rosny Hill.
His departure leaves big shoes to fill for the next mayor, whoever that turns
out to be.
Doug’s closing remarks also contain a lot of thanks, and reflections on the
challenges faced during his time on Council and to be faced by Councils to
come. He doesn’t really consider this a retirement, more a reset, and he
fully expects to spend some Monday nights in the gallery in future.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
On the wall behind the Mayor’s desk in the Council Chambers, two large frames
hang with the pictures and names of every councillor and alderman who has
sat in Clarence. Laid out in a grid, 6 rows by 7 columns, the frame on the left
is full of local politicians from many decades ago. The frame on the right has
some much more recent faces.
As I left the chamber, there were three spaces remaining in the bottom right of
that right frame. As I finish writing up this post, much later than intended,
it is midnight on the day counting is due to commence in the Local Government
Elections. With three seats vacant, and few former councillors running, it seems
fairly likely that this frame too will find itself full in a few days time. We might
even need a new frame. Food for thought.
Come back in16 two weeks17 and I’ll see what I can do about introducing
you to some new faces. Election coverage might come in a bonus post when I wake up today.
Mayor Chipman has regularly opened deputation segments by saying that,
under the meeting regulations,
deputations are limited to at most three minutes in length. In reality, the regulations
make no such requirement (s38), and this three minute limit is imposed by a
council policy.
Ultimately, the power to make that limit does come from the meeting regulations, which are
fairly light on detail about deputations otherwise, but to say that the limit is in the regs
is misleading at best. ↩
Encroachment onto public land, parking woes, nearby resident movement, noise and light pollution. ↩
Parking woes. (And likely to get worse if not resolved before new stops open upstream.) ↩
Covered in fish remains shortly after opening, resolved some weeks later. ↩
Which is the excuse I’m using for it coming out so late. ↩
“The purpose of the Local Business Zone is:
To provide for business, retail, administrative, professional, community and entertainment functions which meet the needs of a local area;
To ensure that the type and scale of use and development does not compromise or distort the activity centre hierarchy;
To encourage activity at pedestrian levels with active frontages and shop windows offering interest and engagement to shoppers;
To encourage Residential and Visitor Accommodation use if it supports the viability of the activity centre and an active street frontage is maintained.”
– Tasmanian Planning Scheme 14.0 ↩
“The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone is:
To provide for manufacturing, processing, repair, storage and distribution of goods and materials where off site impacts are minimal or can be managed to minimise conflict with, or unreasonable loss of amenity to, any other uses;
To provide for use or development that supports and does not adversely impact on industrial activity.”
– Tasmanian Planning Scheme 18.0 ↩
“The purpose of the Utilities Zone is:
To provide land for major utilities installations and corridors;
To provide for other compatible uses where they do not adversely impact on the utility.”
– Tasmanian Planning Scheme 26.0 ↩
Possibly also with work done on the stepped access to the beach. ↩
When I refer to an approval or refusal as alternative, I mean that it was recommended, but the motion in question substantially modified or replaced the recommendation. ↩↩
Abstentions count as votes against. (Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 s28(3)) ↩↩↩
Seat vacant due to election to Legislative Council, but was in gallery. ↩
