CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL · 4/20/2015 · Life Christian Church - Roofs for Vanuatu...

Central Coast Council Minutes – 20 April 2015 1

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Central Coast Council held in theCouncil Chamber at the Administration Centre, 19 King Edward Street,Ulverstone on Monday, 20 April 2015 commencing at 6.00pm.

Councillors attendance

Cr Jan Bonde (Mayor) Cr John BloomfieldCr Shane Broad Cr Garry CarpenterCr Gerry Howard Cr Rowen TongsCr Tony van Rooyen Cr Philip Viney

Councillors apologies

Cr Kathleen Downie (Deputy Mayor)

Employees attendance

General Manager (Ms Sandra Ayton)Director Corporate & Community Services (Mr Cor Vander Vlist)Director Development & Regulatory Services (Mr Paul Bidgood)Director Engineering Services (Mr John Kersnovski)Executive Services Officer (Miss Lisa Mackrill)Land Use Planning Group Leader (Mr Ian Sansom)

Media attendance

The Advocate newspaper.

Public attendance

Twenty members of the public attended during the course of the meeting.

Prayer

The meeting opened in prayer.

2 Central Coast Council Minutes – 20 April 2015

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL

83/2015 Confirmation of minutes

The Executive Services Officer reported as follows:

“The minutes of the previous ordinary meeting of the Council held on16 March 2015 have already been circulated. The minutes are required to beconfirmed for their accuracy.

The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide that inconfirming the minutes of a meeting, debate is allowed only in respect of theaccuracy of the minutes.”

Cr Viney moved and Cr Bloomfield seconded, “That the minutes of the previous ordinarymeeting of the Council held on 16 March 2015 be confirmed.”

Carried unanimously

COUNCIL WORKSHOPS

84/2015 Council workshops


“The following council workshops have been held since the last ordinary meeting ofthe Council.

. 23.03.2015 – Cradle Coast Authority

. 30.03.2015 – Sponsorship Policy / Provision of defibrillators at Councilfacilities

. 08.04.2015 – Quarterly update with the General Manager

. 13.04.2015 – TasWater briefing with Chairperson and CEO.

This information is provided for the purpose of record only.”

Cr Broad moved and Cr Howard seconded, “That the Officer’s report be received.”

Carried unanimously


MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS

85/2015 Mayor’s communications

The Mayor reported as follows:

“I have no communications at this time.”

86/2015 Mayor’s diary


“I have attended the following events and functions on behalf of the Council:

. Tasmanian Planning Reform Taskforce - meeting (Burnie)

. Caves to Canyon Tourism Association – meeting

. Cradle Coast Mayors – Queenstown tour and meeting

. Ulverstone Softball Association/Cradle Coast Sports and Events – TassieFastpitch Classic 2015 media launch

. Business visit – Furner’s Hotel (Federal Group)

. Cradle Coast Authority – Australian Masters Games Committee meeting(Burnie)

. Life Christian Church - Roofs for Vanuatu Mayoral Breakfast fundraiser

. Radio 7AD – community report

. Ten Days – ‘Episodes’ Mature Artists Dance Experience (MADE)

. Tasmanian Anzac Centenary Dinner (Hobart)

. University of Tasmania – Year 2 Medical Students Rural Week – welcome toCentral Coast.”

The Deputy Mayor reported as follows:


. Under the Oak Gallery – ‘Inscape’ exhibition opening

. Penguin Bowls Club – annual dinner

. Ulverstone Bowling Club – presentation dinner

. Metro Tasmania – Stakeholder dinner (Burnie).”

Cr Howard reported as follows:


. Penguin History Group – ‘From Penguin to the Great War’ book launch.”


Cr van Rooyen reported as follows:


. The Hon. Michael Ferguson MP, Minister for Health – Breakfast briefing onExposure Draft of the White Paper on Health Reforms (Burnie).”

Cr Carpenter reported as follows:


. Board of DairyTas – awards dinner (Burnie)

. Cricket North West - grand final luncheon (Burnie)

. Darwin Football Association – official launch of 2015 season (Yolla)

. Leven Football Association – lightning premiership/season launch (Railton).”

Cr Tongs moved and Cr Carpenter seconded, “That the Mayor’s, Deputy Mayor’s,Cr Howard’s, Cr van Rooyen’s and Cr Carpenter’s reports be received.”

Carried unanimously

87/2015 Pecuniary interest declarations


“Councillors are requested to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have, apecuniary interest in any item on the agenda.”


“The Local Government Act 1993 provides that a councillor must not participate atany meeting of a council in any discussion, nor vote on any matter, in respect ofwhich the councillor has an interest or is aware or ought to be aware that a closeassociate has an interest.

Councillors are invited at this time to declare any interest they have on matters tobe discussed at this meeting. If a declaration is impractical at this time, it is to benoted that a councillor must declare any interest in a matter before any discussionon that matter commences.

All interests declared will be recorded in the minutes at the commencement of thematter to which they relate.”

No interests were declared at this time.


88/2015 Public question time


“At 6.40pm or as soon as practicable thereafter, a period of not more than30 minutes is to be set aside for public question time during which any member ofthe public may ask questions relating to the activities of the Council.

Public question time will be conducted as provided by the Local Government(Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 and the supporting procedures adopted bythe Council on 20 June 2005 (Minute No. 166/2005).”

COUNCILLOR REPORTS

89/2015 Councillor reports


“Councillors who have been appointed by the Council to community and otherorganisations are invited at this time to report on actions or provide informationarising out of meetings of those organisations.

Any matters for decision by the Council which might arise out of these reportsshould be placed on a subsequent agenda and made the subject of a consideredresolution.”

Cr Broad reported on a recent meeting of the Central Coast Chamber of Commerce andIndustry Inc.

Cr Carpenter reported on a recent meeting of the Caves to Canyon Tourism Association.

Cr Howard reported on recent discussions to form a Neighbourhood Watch group at Riana.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

90/2015 Leave of absence



“The Local Government Act 1993 provides that the office of a councillor becomesvacant if the councillor is absent without leave from three consecutive ordinarymeetings of the council.

The Act also provides that applications by councillors for leave of absence may bediscussed in a meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public.

There are no applications for consideration at this meeting.”

DEPUTATIONS

91/2015 Deputations


“No requests for deputations to address the meeting or to make statements ordeliver reported have been made.”

PETITIONS

92/2015 Petition - Overnight stays at Lions Park, Penguin


“The following petition has been received:

‘We, the residents of Penguin and surrounds, petition the Central CoastCouncil to reinstate two night overnight parking at the Lion’s Park inPenguin.

. These overnight visitors to the town bring income to local shops andbusinesses because they are in Penguin for more than just a fewhours and need to purchase supplies and services.

. This provides employment for local people and boosts the economicsof the town.

. It also helps to put Penguin on the world map as a friendly,welcoming and unique town.’


A copy is attached. Whilst the petition is largely in compliance with s.57 of the LocalGovernment Act 1993, the signatory count indicated in the covering letter as being266 was reduced to 264.

A report on this matter is provided at Minute No. 106/2015.

The petition is tabled.”

Cr Carpenter moved and Cr van Rooyen seconded, “That the petition be received.”

Carried unanimously

COUNCILLORS’ QUESTIONS

93/2015 Councillors’ questions without notice


“The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide as follows:

‘29 (1) A councillor at a meeting may ask a question without notice of thechairperson or, through the chairperson, of –

(a) another councillor; or

(b) the general manager.

(2) In putting a question without notice, a councillor must not –

(a) offer an argument or opinion; or

(b) draw any inferences or make any imputations –

except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.

(3) The chairperson must not permit any debate of a question withoutnotice or its answer.

(4) The chairperson, councillor or general manager who is asked aquestion without notice may decline to answer the question.

(5) The chairperson may refuse to accept a question if it does not relateto the activities of the council.


(6) Questions without notice, and any answers to those questions, arenot required to be recorded in the minutes.

(7) The chairperson may require a councillor to put a question withoutnotice in writing.’

If a question gives rise to a proposed matter for discussion and that matter is notlisted on the agenda, Councillors are reminded of the following requirements of theRegulations:

‘8 (5) Subject to subregulation (6), a matter may only be discussed at ameeting if it is specifically listed on the agenda of that meeting.

(6) A council by absolute majority… may decide at an ordinary meetingto deal with a matter that is not on the agenda if the generalmanager has reported –

(a) the reason it was not possible to include the matter on theagenda; and

(b) that the matter is urgent; and

(c) that (qualified) advice has been provided under section 65 ofthe Act.’

Councillors who have questions without notice are requested at this time to give anindication of what their questions are about so that the questions can be allocatedto their appropriate Departmental Business section of the agenda.”

The allocation of topics ensued.

94/2015 Councillors’ questions on notice


“The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide as follows:

‘30 (1) A councillor, at least 7 days before an ordinary meeting of a councilor council committee, may give written notice to the general manager of aquestion in respect of which the councillor seeks an answer at that meeting.

(2) An answer to a question on notice must be in writing.’


It is to be noted that any question on notice and the written answer to the questionwill be recorded in the minutes of the meeting as provided by the Regulations.

Any questions on notice are to be allocated to their appropriate DepartmentalBusiness section of the agenda.

No questions on notice have been received.”

D E V E L O P M E N T & R E G U L A T O R Y S E R V I C E S


DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY SERVICES

95/2015 Development & Regulatory Services determinations

The Director Development & Regulatory Services reported as follows:

“A Schedule of Development & Regulatory Services Determinations made during themonth of March 2015 is submitted to the Council for information. The informationis reported in accordance with approved delegations and responsibilities.”


“A copy of the Schedule has been circulated to all Councillors.”

Cr Broad moved and Cr Tongs seconded, “That the Schedule of Development &Regulatory Services Determinations (a copy being appended to and forming part of theminutes) be received.”

Carried unanimously

96/2015 Council acting as a planning authority


“The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide that if acouncil intends to act at a meeting as a planning authority under the Land UsePlanning and Approvals Act 1993, the chairperson is to advise the meetingaccordingly.

The Director Development & Regulatory Services has submitted the following report:

‘If any such actions arise out of Minute No’s 97/2015 and 98/2015, they areto be dealt with by the Council acting as a planning authority under the LandUse Planning and Approvals Act 1993.’”


“Councillors are reminded that the Local Government (Meeting Procedures)Regulations 2005 provide that the general manager is to ensure that the reasons fora decision by a council acting as a planning authority are recorded in the minutes.”



Cr Viney moved and Cr Tongs seconded, “That the Mayor’s report be received.”

Carried unanimously

97/2015 Planning Scheme Amendment – Proposed rezoning of land from RuralResource to Rural Living - Revell Lane precinct, Penguin


“The Land Use Planning Group Leader has prepared the following report:

‘PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider a request from the ExecutiveCommissioner of the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) for the Councilto advise its preferred course for proceeding with an amendment to theCentral Coast Interim Planning Scheme 2013 (the Scheme), in pursuit of itspreferred Rural Living zoning of land in the Revell Land precinct, Penguin.

A copy of the letter from the TPC’s Executive Commissioner is provided as anannexure to this report.

BACKGROUND

The TPC’s letter seeks the Council’s preferred option on how to proceed withinitiating a Scheme amendment for the area.

Specifically, the Executive Commissioner identifies two alternative courses,as follows:

1 That the Council initiates a draft rezoning amendment at Revell Lane,Penguin, of its own volition; or

2 That the Panel recommends to the Minister that he directs theCouncil to initiate such an amendment.

The letter has been sent in response to the Council’s submission to a Panelof the TPC that was established to hear and review representations made inresponse to public exhibition of the Scheme in November and December of2013.

The Council’s submission was that the area comprising the Revell Laneprecinct should be rezoned Rural Living.



Prior to the introduction of the Scheme, a proposal to amend the CentralCoast Planning Scheme 2005 by rezoning the Revell Lane precinct land toRural Living was received from a Revell Lane landowner. The Councilengaged consultants to advise it on the proposal. The consultants’ reportrecommended a zoning change to Rural Living. The Council agreed with thechange of zoning and proceeded with the Scheme amendment process underthe Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA).

The proposed rezoning was advertised and an information session held withresidents at Penguin.

The TPC created a Panel to hear the matter. The Panel met and consideredthe proposal in part. It requested additional information on the stability ofthe land. A geotechnical report was subsequently prepared and forwardedto the Panel. However, the Panel was not able to complete its hearingprocess before the Scheme was declared on 19 October 2013.Consequently, the amendment process was abandoned.

DISCUSSION

The Executive Commissioner’s letter identifies two courses for pursuing therezoning proposal – the first is that the Council initiate the Schemeamendment and the second is that the Minister direct the Council to initiatethe amendment.

The TPC’s advice is predicated on its view that the matter cannot be dealtwith through an alternative means, e.g. an urgent amendment or adispensation. There is no dispute with this view or with the view that theScheme amendment process is the appropriate means to resolve the matter.

The TPC’s two options are discussed as follows:

Council to initiate -

This approach would be the most expeditious, i.e. no time would be spentcorresponding between the parties about initiating the amendment.

This course would also be consistent with the Council’s previous decisionthat its preferred zoning of the land is Rural Living.



Minister to direct -

This approach would add a little more time to the process and may give riseto a perception that the Council is less than willing to resolve the zoningissue at Revell Lane.

CONSULTATION

Previous consultation regarding the proposed amendment was undertaken inaccordance with Section 38 of LUPAA, and involved:

. letters to landowners; and

. two advertisements in the Public Notices section of The Advocate.

A similar course would be followed in relation to the new amendment to theScheme.

RESOURCE, FINANCIAL AND RISK IMPACTS

The proposal has no likely impact on Council resources outside those usuallyrequired for assessment and reporting, as well as costs associated with ahearing on the matter.

CORPORATE COMPLIANCE

The Central Coast Strategic Plan 2014-2024 includes the following strategiesand key actions:

The Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure. Develop and manage sustainable built infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

The TPC has offered the Council the planning scheme amendment processas the mechanism to resolve the zoning issue for the Revell Lane precinct atPenguin. It is accepted that this process is the most appropriate courseunder LUPAA.

While the TPC presents two options for progressing with a planning schemeamendment, the ultimate effect of each course is much the same, i.e. theCouncil would initiate a planning scheme amendment. The suggestedcourse for the Council to pursue is to initiate the amendment itself; thiswould be the most expeditious course and would be consistent with theCouncil’s previous position on the matter.



Given the high level of public interest in the zoning issue, it would beappropriate to provide residents and landowners in the area advice of theprocess to be now followed.

Also, a fully developed proposal would need to be prepared for theamendment.

Recommendation -

It is recommended that the Council:

1 agrees to initiate the process for an amendment to the Central CoastInterim Planning Scheme 2013 whereby land in the Revell Laneprecinct is rezoned from Rural Resource to Rural Living; and

2 advise the Executive Commissioner of the Tasmanian PlanningCommission that it is prepared to initiate the process for securingsuch an amendment to the Scheme.’

The report is supported.”


“A copy of the correspondence from the Tasmanian Planning Commission referredto in the report has been circulated to all Councillors.”

Cr Howard moved and Cr van Rooyen seconded, “That the Council:

1 agrees to initiate the process for an amendment to the Central Coast InterimPlanning Scheme 2013 whereby land in the Revell Lane precinct is rezoned fromRural Resource to Rural Living; and

2 advise the Executive Commissioner of the Tasmanian Planning Commission that it isprepared to initiate the process for securing such an amendment to the Scheme.”

Carried unanimously

98/2015 Central Coast Interim Planning Scheme 2013 – Representations (166/2014 –16.06.2014)


“The Land Use Planning Group Leader has prepared the following report:



‘PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider an outstanding representation madein response to public exhibition of the Central Coast Interim PlanningScheme 2013 (the Scheme) in October 2013. The representation is providedas an annexure to this report.

BACKGROUND

The draft Scheme was publicly exhibited in October 2013. Fifty-tworepresentations were received and were considered by the Council and theregion.

All representations and comments by the individual councils and the regionwere assembled in a Joint Report. This report was submitted to theTasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) in accordance with Section 30J of theLand Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

Members of the community were provided with three locations where theycould lodge representations; individual councils, the Cradle Coast Authorityand the TPC offices. Most representations were received by the councils.

One representation, from the Friends of the Leven, was submitted to theCradle Coast Authority address. That representation was not received by theCouncil and was not commented on or forwarded to the region or the TPC.It was only recently that staff were made aware of the representation.

A check with the Cradle Coast Authority confirmed that there were no morerepresentations received by it that had not already been forwarded to theCouncil in early 2014.

DISCUSSION

Following consideration by the Council, the representation and the Council’scomments will be forwarded to the TPC for its consideration by theappointed Panel, as part of the Section 30J Report previously lodged.

The table below identifies each of the components of the representation andprovides draft comments in relation to each.



CENTRAL COAST INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2013THE COUNCIL’S COMMENTS ON REMAINING REPRESENTATION – 15 APRIL 2015

ISSUENUMBER

INTERIMPLANNINGSCHEME

REFERENCE

NATURE OFPROVISION

PERSON MAKINGREPRESENTATION

ISSUE RAISED INREPRESENTATION

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATION

797 CommonMandatoryProvisions(CMP)

Friends of theLeven Group

Rural Living Zone

Subdivision in zoneswill fragment habitatand adversely affectconservation areas.

Views and opinion on merit and on operation of theInterim Planning Scheme

The concern has validity. Subdivision andsubsequent development could well result in such animpact. The Clearing and Conversion of VegetationCode goes a significant way to managing areas oflandscape value, threatened species and coastalareas.

Management of habitat links is a land managementissue that is capable of being delivered throughvarious means, including:

(a) Required reports at subdivision stageregarding threatened species habitat andcoastal areas – implemented as permitconditions;



(b) Conservation covenants on land titles; and

(c) Part 5 Agreements.

It is not clear what specific changes to the IPS theGroup is suggesting.

Need for Modification

There is no need to modify the IPS to retain habitatlinks in Rural Living areas: existing mechanismsshould be adequate.

Impact on the Interim Scheme as a whole

In the absence of any clear suggested changes to theIPS there is no modification upon which to assess theimpact.

ConservationCovenants

Suggests that privateland containingConservationCovenants should be


Broader scale areas identified as containingparticular natural values deserving protection arezoned Environmental Management or EnvironmentalLiving in the IPS.



zoned EnvironmentalManagement orsimilar.

Conservation Covenants are used more to controlland management practices than land use. Theyhave statutory effect in their own right and do notrequire the added level of protection of a planningscheme for their operation.

Having said that, if a specific area is shown tocontain an order of natural values worthy of controlthrough limitations on use and development, thenthey would be considered for rezoning to anenvironmental zoning category.


There is no need for modification of the IPS based onthis concern, unless more specific information isreceived that indicates the need for a change.


The potential impact on the Scheme of zoning areaswith Conservation Covenants to EnvironmentalManagement, would be a ‘spot zoning’ approachthat would not necessarily protect wider areas withimportant natural values. A more comprehensiveapproach involving an assessment of appropriateland use should be adopted.



Exemption – Clearanceand Conversion ofVegetation Code

Representation opinesthat development inthe Rural ResourceZone should not beexempt from theCode.


Development in the Rural Resource Zone is onlyexempt where it also satisfies five other criteria, asfollows:

(a) no scenic or landscape value;

(b) does not contain threatened nativevegetation;

(c) does not contain threatened species habitat;

(d) does not contain a landslide risk;

(e) is not within 30m of a watercourse or waterbody.

Areas of significant natural values are typically zonedEnvironmental Management. Clearance of RuralResource zoned land does not require a Permitwhere it is for agricultural purposes. If the areacleared is significant and there are significant naturalvalues these would be identified and managedthrough the Forest Practices Act and requirement toprepare a Forest Practices Plan.




On the basis that the Forest Practices Act would‘pick-up’ the clearance of significant areas of nativevegetation, there is no need for additional controlswithin the IPS.


Including additional controls for clearance ofvegetation in the Rural Resource Zone would be tounnecessarily duplicate the requirements andprocesses of the Forest Practices Act.

Bushfire management

The representationproposes that thosewith expertise shouldbe involved inidentifying impacts onnatural values of firemanagement regimes.


The submission does not itself propose any changesto the IPS. The point it makes is sound but is moredirectly related to the preparation and execution offire management plans. Such plans are requiredunder the IPS and must be prepared by TasmaniaFire Service (TFS) certified practitioners. The issuewould be best referred to the TFS.




There is no need for modification of the IPS.


There is no particular change to the IPS proposed.Consequently there is no impact to assess.

Priority habitat andfragmentation

An overlay should beadded to the IPS thatidentifies threatenedspecies habitat withthe aim of maintainingconnection betweennatural areas. It listsseveral documentsmembers think shouldbe included.

The representationfurther suggests aBiodiversity Code be


It is possible to identify areas of important specieshabitat in a planning scheme and include relateddevelopment requirements in a Biodiversity Code.

However, at this stage there has been no adequatelocal or regional level investigation or mappingundertaken. This would be a necessary job, butwould be a significant project for which no fundinghas been allocated.

The IPS deals with the issue through zoningsignificant areas Environmental Management, withinwhich ‘tight’ development restrictions apply, and theClearing and Conversion of Vegetation Code which



added to the IPS torequire covenanting ofsubdivided areas tofurther protect naturalareas, includingcoastal reserves.

restricts development (and impact) and requires anassessment of natural values as part of thedevelopment control process.

In the absence of appropriate research and mappingit is considered that the IPS provisions are areasonable and adequate response to protectingsignificant natural values.




Incorporation of the suggested mapping andBiodiversity Code would not add a large value to thecurrent provisions for protection of significantnatural values - through the planning system –particularly if the Break O’Day Biodiversity Codeproposed by the Group were to be incorporated intothe IPS. Its adoption together with the currentprovisions, would cause significant duplication andcost to those seeking approval for development.



Part BAdministration

Planning terms anddefinitions


Section 4.1.3

Proposes numerouschanges to definitionsin the section, mostwith a focus onenvironmentalmanagement.

ProposedChange

Comment

IncludeThreatenedSpecies definition.

Not necessary. Definitionalready contained in ThreatenedSpecies Protection Act 1995.

Include definitionof ‘land clearing’.

Not necessary. Already adefinition in the Clearing andConversion of Vegetation Code.

Change definitionto include localprovenance.

Not necessary. Definition ofnative vegetation is adequate asa general definition. Groupwants to see restoration ofcleared areas use local nativeprovenance, which isappropriate. However, thisprinciple is more appropriate tohow land management shouldoccur, rather than the definition.



Definition ofnative vegetation“that have notbeen planted fordomestic orcommercialpurposes (exceptwhere restorationis the primaryobjective)”.

Change is not required.Suggested wording does notassist to define the term ‘nativevegetation’. Suggestedqualification relates moredirectly to vegetation restorationand planting regimes.

Add definition of‘environment’.

Not necessary. The term isdefined in the EnvironmentalManagement and PollutionControl Act 1994 and need notbe repeated in other legislation.

Add a definitionfor unserviceddevelopment –sewerage andwater.

Not necessary. There is noobvious need to define theterm. Its ordinary and commonuse interpretation is consideredadequate.



Include adefinition ofnatural values.

Not necessary. There does notappear to be any use of theterm ‘natural values’ in the IPS.

Add definition for‘water qualityguidelines’.

No obvious need for thedefinition. It is not a term usedin the IPS or to which a standardrelates, for which a definition isrequired.

Add definition for‘water qualityobjective’.


Add definition for‘protectedenvironmentalvalues’.


Add definition for‘cultural values’.




Add definition for‘best practiceenvironmentalmanagement’.


Suggested reference toWaterways and Wetlands WorksManual is a note alreadyincluded in the DevelopmentStandards of the Water andWaterways Code in the IPS.

Add a definitionfor ‘tourist roads’.

No obvious need for thedefinition. It is not a term usedin the IPS for which a definitionis required.

Add a definitionfor ‘priorityhabitat’.

No obvious need for thedefinition. It is not a term usedin the IPS for which a definitionis required.






Inclusion of the suggested defined terms is largelyunnecessary as they are terms not used in the IPS,contain no standards for which a definition isrequired, are defined in other legislation or thecommon understanding is adequate. For thesereasons the suggested additions would unnecessarilyduplicate existing definitions and add unnecessarybulk and complication to the document.

General exemptions

Section 5.8 Strata

Proposes thatprovision for stratadivision not be usedfor residentialdevelopment outsideurban areas.


There is no case for the provision included in thesubmission. Whilst strata division is not used muchoutside urban areas for residential use, it is a facilityavailable for use in circumstances where landsubdivision is not appropriate.

Control of residential use and development iscontained in use and development provisions withineach zone.






Inclusion of the suggested provision would beunlikely to impact adversely on the planning scheme.

Limited exemptions

Sections 6.1.4(d),6.2.1(d), 6.3.1(f),6.3.2(c), (d), (e) and(f), 6.4.1(b), 6.4.2(d),6.5.1(f) and 6.5.2(f)

Proposes thatprovision refers to“threatened specieshabitat or priorityhabitat”.


There is some logic in the suggestion however thepracticality of implementation would suggest itwould not be appropriate and that vegetation is themost suitable parameter. Some threatened specieshabitat (e.g. owls, eagles, parrots, frogs andbutterflies) occurs over a wide area and can change.It would be most difficult in many cases to bespecific about the location and/or boundaries of athreatened species habitat.






The suggested exclusion of threatened specieshabitat would add an unworkable layer to theapplication of exemptions, particularly wherethreatened species habitat covers a wide and ill-defined area.

Section 6.3.2(a) and(b)

Suggests addition ofthe words, “…andconsistent withrelevant clauses andcodes in the Scheme”in respect of listedexemptions.


S6.3.2(a) provides for exemption of, “…thelandscaping and the management of vegetation”.This is a generally worded provision capable of wideinterpretation and for this reason could beproblematic in some cases. Agreed that somelimitation be added to the exemption. Mostappropriate limit would be “…and does not fallwithin the provisions of the Clearing and Conversionof Vegetation Code”.

S6.3.2(b) exempts vegetation removal where that isin accordance with a certified Forest PracticesPlan. The Group suggests that threatened speciesand habitats be excepted from this exemption and



that the removal is consistent with all other Codes inthe IPS.

Threatened species management is a required partof a Forest Practices Plan. If threatened species orhabitat is removed/modified in accordance with anapproved plan then there is no need to also requireapproval under the IPS. For similar reasons there isno need to require the exemption to be qualified bycompliance with the Clearing and Conversion ofVegetation Code.

The suggested change would involve an amendmentof a Mandatory Provision contained in PlanningDirective No. 1. The matter should be forwarded tothe Tasmanian Planning Commission for itsconsideration.


The addition of the words, “…and does not fallwithin the provisions of the Clearing and Conversionof Vegetation Code”, would be appropriate.




Incorporation of the suggested wording addition isunlikely to cause any significant impact on the IPS asa whole. It would however, provide a clearerboundary to interpretation of s.6.3.2(a).

Section 6.3.2(i)

Suggests theexemption should onlyapply to situationswhere there is a risk toa dwelling or otherbuilt assets. Claimsthe provision has beenused to exempt landclearance.


S.6.3.2(i) lists circumstances where vegetation canbe removed as an exemption – dead wood removalfor safety reasons, treatment of disease, to removean unacceptable risk or where vegetation threatens astructure or building.

The listed circumstances for exemptions arereasonably clear. It is suggested that if this provisionis being used to exempt broad scale land clearancethen that is a corruption of the purpose of theprovision and is unlikely to stand scrutiny in a legalforum. The claimed abuse of the provision is not areasonable basis to exclude it or parts of it from theexemption. The representation does not suggestany specific change to the provision.




There is no suggested change to the provision, otherthan, perhaps, its removal. The listed exemptioncircumstances are deemed reasonable and notinconsistent with the points made by the Group.There is no need for modification of the IPS.


No specific change to the IPS is proposed so there isno impact to assess.

7.0 Planning SchemeOperation

7.4 Operation ofSpecific Area Plans(SAP)

The Group suggeststhat this section bedeleted on the basisthat it believes it hasno justification.


The Group believes that the clause should be deletedbecause a SAP might be inconsistent with a Code. Itis unlikely there would be any inconsistency betweenthe two parts of the IPS, but if it did occur then themore specific provision (the SAP) should applybecause it is more specific and the generalprovisions of zones and Codes can be moreaccurately applied, or not applied, depending on thecircumstances.



Also, Clause 7.4 is a mandatory provision underPlanning Directive No. 1 (PD1) and operates on thebasis that the most specific provisions should applyin the event of any inconsistency. This is afundamental principle in the operation of PD1 and arational one. It also clarifies interpretation of the IPS.

There is no reasonable case to amend or delete thecurrent provision.




Deletion of section 7.4 would add an inappropriatelevel of uncertainty in the interpretation andapplication of the IPS.

8.2 Categorising Useor Development

Natural and culturalvalues management


Definition states, “…use of land to protect, conserveor manage ecological systems, habitats…”.Suggested inclusion of “restore” is unlikely to add



Add “restore” to list ofactivities associatedwith EnvironmentalManagement.

much to the definition. The existing term “manage”is sufficiently broad to include the restoration of adegraded area.




Incorporation of the additional term is unlikely tohave any material impact on the IPS.

8.10.2

Delete phrase, “…butonly insofar as eachpurpose, local areaobjective or desiredfuture characterstatement is relevantto the particulardiscretion beingexercised” on thebasis that it is tooambiguous.


The qualification statement in the section establishesan essential principle in the way that decisions ondiscretionary matters are to be exercised, i.e. anexercise of discretion must only relate to relevantprovisions of the IPS. It should not be removed.






Removal of the phrase from the provision couldpotentially cause inappropriate decision-makingbased on irrelevant or inappropriate provisions.

8.10.3

Appears to proposethat Clause 2.0 shouldnot be considered,which is what the IPSstates. Also proposesthat Clause 3.0(Planning SchemeObjectives) should beas per the previousplanning scheme.


Clause 2.0 contains the Planning Scheme Purposeand reference to the Regional Land Use Strategy.The Group proposes that decision making should notrefer to this section – this is what the IPS says atSection 8.10.3.

The Planning Scheme Objectives of the IPS are morecomprehensive than the 2005 Scheme. It is not clearfrom the representation what the nature of theconcern is or why a change is sought.

However, the 2005 Scheme did contain three morespecific environmental protection objectives whichthe IPS ‘collapses’ into one, i.e. the matters are nowcovered by a more general objective.

Given the absence of any formal application of the



Objectives, there is not considered to be any realvalue in amending the Objectives of the IPS.




Making the suggested change would introduceinconsistent definitions and cause confusion.

8.11.1

Suggests that planningauthority mustconsider matters inClauses 2.0 and 3.0when determiningconditions orrestrictions on apermit.


Only matters involving interpretation of discretionarymatters must refer to matters contained in Clauses2.0 and 3.0. (i.e. applicable standards, zone purposestatements, local area objectives and statements ofdesired future character). Matters outside thosecontained in the clauses do not need to refer tothese matters. The existing provision provides thepower for the planning authority to refer to themwhen and if determining a condition of approval. Itdoes not need to be a compulsory reference. Henceuse of the term “may” is appropriate.






Requiring compulsory regard to matters listed inClauses 2.0 and 3.0 when determining permitconditions would add an onerous and unnecessarylevel of assessment.

Part C SpecialProvisions

Clause 9.1.1

Objects to use of theterm ‘non-conforminguse’ because itvalidates an illegaluse. Clause (c ) shouldbe deleted because itallows forintensification of anon-conforming use.


Where a lawful use or development no longerconforms with a subsequent planning scheme, it isafforded an existing use right under Section 20 ofthe Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.Such uses/development are not ‘illegal’. It isreasonable to allow some minor changes to theoperation in order to allow its proper functioning.

Section 9.1.1 of the IPS establishes ‘tight’ limitationson the extent that a non-conforming use may befurther developed. This is considered reasonableand appropriate.






Removal of Section 9.1.1 would inappropriatelyremove the ability for a non-conforminguse/development to make limited changes whichwould otherwise be quite reasonable.

9.3.1 (therepresentationreferred to section9.2.1 but moreappropriately relatesto 9.3.1)

Proposes that anotherclause be added inrelation to a boundaryadjustment, wherebythe boundary changedoes not contribute toribbon development.


There is no justification for the change included inthe representation. There is no issue taken with theoutcome, but the definition of a boundaryadjustment and its proper application would in alllikelihood mean that no ribbon development or noincrease in ribbon development is likely to occur.






Inclusion of the suggested clause is not likely tohave any significant impact on the IPS.

10.0 GeneralResidential zone

10.4.2.10

Representation saysenvironmental weedsshould not be planted


There is no Clause 10.4.2.10 in the IPS. In any eventplanting of environmental weeds is an offence andsubject to control under the Weed Management Act1999.




Inclusion of such a provision would be a duplicationof powers and responsibilities under another Act.

10.4.5.3

Representationappears to say thatimported fill should


There is no numerical structure in the IPS to whichthe suggested section would fit. Section 10.4.5



not be used becauseof the danger ofintroducing weeds andsoil pathogens.

deals with the width of garages.

The issue of soil pathogen spread is a serious onethat is not currently adequately managed in theState.

Development of standards in planning schemes atthis stage would be premature. The issue requiressignificant research and an integrated managementapproach developed, e.g. through legislation,allocation of responsibilities, mapping and acertification system for soil disinfection developed.

This issue should be referred to the StateGovernment with a request for it to establish andundertake the necessary work.


A modification of the IPS is not consideredappropriate at this stage.


Restriction on import (and export) of soil for fillwould be premature at this stage. Such a restrictioncould be ineffective and costly in the absence of amanagement strategy.



12.0 Low DensityResidential Zone

The representationstates that anadditional sectionshould be added thatprohibits planting ofenvironmental weeds.


Planting of environmental weeds is an offence andsubject to control under the Weed Management Act1999. It does not need to be restated or made anadditional requirement of the IPS.




Addition of the suggested clause would be aduplication of a responsibility already provided forthrough the Weed Management Act 1999. As such itis unnecessary.

13.0 Rural Living Zone

The Group believesthis zone isunnecessary andwould alienate farmland.


It is not clear what the Group is suggesting by way ofmodification to the IPS through this comment, shortof its complete deletion from the Scheme. Oversome years significant areas have been zoned Rural



Living and been developed in accordance withstandards associated with the zone purpose. Itwould not be practical to rezone those areas back toRural Resource.




Deletion of the zone would be unlikely to have animpact on the IPS itself, but would likely causeconsiderable public confusion and resentment for nojustifiable purpose.

13.2 Use Table

The Group believesonly a single dwellingshould be allowed.


There is no substantiation of the Group’s position.The list of Permitted and Discretionary uses areconsidered appropriate and in accordance with thezone purpose statements.






Addition of the suggested clause would likely causean excessively rigid use structure for no clearpurpose.

13.4.1 Building Designand Siting

The Group believesthat the site coverageshould not exceed20% and not impact onpriority habitat,threatened species orthreatened vegetation.There should be noPerformance Criteria.


There is little substantiation of the Group’s positionwhile its view seems to be predicated on theprinciple that the zone is conceptually inappropriate.Given the minimum lot size of 1ha for the zone, it isunlikely that a 20% site coverage (i.e. 2,000m2)would be reached in most situations.

In any event there is no clear purpose for the controlor why the standard should be 20%.

The Performance Criteria contained at P2 areconsidered appropriate for the stated AcceptableSolutions.






Addition of the suggested clause would be unlikelyto cause a significant impact on the operation of theIPS, but is not considered to be necessary.

13.4.2 Subdivision

The Group believesthe minimum lot sizeshould be 5ha andcause no impact onpriority habitat,threatened species orthreatened vegetation.Also suggests that anadditional clause beinserted to prohibitplanting ofenvironmental weeds.


There is little substantiation of the Group’s positionregarding the 5ha lot size, while its view seems to bepredicated on the principle that the zone isconceptually inappropriate.

There is no stated reason for why the minimum lotsize should be 5ha – it suggests a 100ha minimumlot size in the Rural Resource Zone.

The Group expresses concern about ‘widespreadfragmentation’ of rural land and conflict withagricultural users. Widespread fragmentation ofrural land is not likely: high quality rural land isnormally excluded from Rural Living zoning, whileRural Living zoning would limit any fragmentation tothe area zoned. Conflict between agricultural and



rural living uses can occur but are managed throughincreased setbacks.

Planting of environmental weeds is an offence andsubject to control under the Weed Management Act1999. It does not need to be restated or made anadditional requirement of the IPS.




Addition of the suggested changes would be unlikelyto cause a significant impact on the operation of theIPS, but are not considered to be necessary.

14.0 EnvironmentalLiving Zone

14.1.2.1 Local AreaObjectives

The Group suggestsaddition of clausescovering:


Landscaping of dwellings is something that might bedesirable but not as an objective to be applied in allcases. Character of dwellings and landscape arecovered in the Statement of Desired Future Characterand do not need to be repeated in the Local AreaObjectives.



(a) Landscapingaround dwellingsand prohibitionon planting ofenvironmentalweeds.

(b) Protect, maintainand restorenative flora andfauna habitat.

(c) Maintain scenicvalues.

Planting of environmental weeds is an offence and issubject to control under the Weed Management Act1999. It does not need to be restated or made anadditional requirement of the IPS.

Management of native flora and fauna is a matterdealt with by the IPS when there is a proposal toremove vegetation and habitat – through theClearing and Conversion of Vegetation Code.Outside this process, it is possible for land owners tocovenant their property for the purpose of habitatprotection. Generally speaking significant areas arenot situated in the Environmental Living Zone. Thepurpose of the zone is intended primarily forresidential use. An area of identified significanceshould be zoned Environmental Management.

Scenic values appropriate to Environmental Living inthe Central Coast area are considered to beappropriately covered by the proposed DesiredFuture Character Statements. There are locationswithin the municipal area and the region whereparticular landscapes are of outstanding scenicquality. Where this is the case they should beidentified, mapped and incorporated into the IPS, say



through a Specific Area Plan, together withappropriate development control provisions.




The suggested changes would be unlikely to createan adverse impact on the IPS generally. However thechanges are not considered to be necessary.

Statement of DesiredFuture Character

4.1.3 (c)

The Group proposesclause refers to bufferareas between areas ofconservation valueunder the NatureConservation Act2002.


The existing clause refers to areas of highconservation value – not managed under anyparticular legislation. The suggested change wouldlimit implementation of the character statement toonly land managed under the Nature ConservationAct 2002 (NCA). The strength of the existingwording is that it applies to any area of conservationvalue, not just those under the NCA – for example anarea may be managed by the Council that sitsoutside the provisions of the NCA. More general



wording is considered appropriate in a Statement ofDesired Future Character which is by its nature ageneral statement.




Potentially only a minor impact on operation of theIPS – reference to creation of buffer zones could berestricted unnecessarily by suggested modification.

14.2 Use Table

The Group supportsonly a single dwellingin the Residential useclass.


The Group offers no reason why a single dwellingonly is appropriate.

The zone is essentially a residential zone. It makessense to accommodate a range of compatible uses,similar to those of the Rural Living Zone.






The suggested change would unduly restrictotherwise reasonable development in the zone.

14.4.1 (A1) BuildingDesign and Siting

The Group believesthat a graded scale ofland clearance shouldapply – <5ha to 20haor more.


The case for introduction of such a standard has notbeen adequately justified, though it is clear theintention is to limit land clearance. Such a standardis not appropriate because:

1 Much of the land in the Rural Living Zone is4,000m2.

2 Land in the zone is in many cases alreadywholly cleared.

3 Standard might be more appropriate in theEnvironmental Management or EnvironmentalLiving Zones.






Inclusion of a land clearance standard is likely tomake more development discretionary, particularlyon smaller sized lots, for no useful purpose.

14.4.1 (A2-4)

The Group believesthat subdivision mustnot impact onthreatened speciesand habitats.


Protection of vegetation is managed through theClearing and Conversion of Vegetation Code. Itwould be an unnecessary duplication to also placecontrols in the zone standards.




Unlikely for any adverse impact with such standardsin the zone. But it would be a duplication.



17.0 CommunityPurpose Zone

17.4.2

The Group believesthere should be aminimum lot size inthe zone and shouldinclude landscapingprovisions and noplanting ofenvironmental weeds.


The zone does have a minimum area standard –500m2.

The diverse nature of uses and development possiblein this zone probably makes a mandatory standardfor landscaping inappropriate. If landscaping wasrequired, say to preserve privacy for residents from aschool, then hard or soft landscaping could berequired through the associated PerformanceCriteria. This, it is considered, would be adequate inmost circumstances.







Unlikely to be any significant adverse effect on theIPS by inclusion of suggested controls forlandscaping and planting of weeds. However suchcontrols are already adequately accommodated andare not necessary.

18.0 Recreation Zone

The Group suggeststhe zone shouldinclude provisions forlandscaping and noplanting ofenvironmental weeds.


Response is principally the same as for 17.0Community Purpose Zone. The diverse nature ofpossible development under this zone probablymakes a mandatory standard for landscapinginappropriate. If landscaping was required, say forstreetscape or visual impact reasons, then hard orsoft landscaping could be required through theassociated Performance Criteria of 18.4.2 Locationand configuration of development. This, it isconsidered, would be adequate in mostcircumstances.

Planting of environmental weeds is an offence and issubject to control under the Weed Management Act



1999. It does not need to be restated or made anadditional requirement of the IPS.




Unlikely to be any significant adverse effect on theIPS by inclusion of suggested controls forlandscaping and planting of weeds. However suchcontrols are already adequately accommodated andare not considered necessary.

20.0 Local BusinessZone

The Group suggeststhe zone shouldinclude provisions forlandscaping and noplanting ofenvironmental weeds.


Response is principally the same as for 18.0Recreation Zone. The urban nature of most likelydevelopment makes a mandatory standard forlandscaping inappropriate. If landscaping wasrequired, say for streetscape or visual impactreasons, then hard or soft landscaping could berequired through the associated Performance Criteriaof 20.4.2 Location and configuration of development



and 20.4.5 Setback from zone boundaries. This, it isconsidered, would be adequate in mostcircumstances.





Unlikely to be any significant adverse effect on theIPS by inclusion of suggested controls forlandscaping and planting of weeds. However suchcontrols are already adequately accommodated andare not considered necessary.

26.0 Rural ResourceZone

26.1.2 Local AreaObjectives


The Group’s position lacks any convincing argument.There is no disagreement with the objective in ageneral sense, however the IPS achieves it through



The Group believes anadditional objective beadded to, “Protect,maintain and restorenatural values presentin the zone”.

pursuit of the stated objective 3.0 Planning SchemeObjectives (xviii), i.e. “protect and conserve itemsand areas of significant ecological, scientific,cultural, heritage or aesthetic value”.

The principal mechanism for protecting naturalvalues in specific cases is through control of landclearance under the Clearing and Conversion ofVegetation Code or a certified Forest Practices Plan.

Another mechanism used by the IPS to protectnatural values over a wider area, e.g. coastline, is theEnvironmental Management Zone. The purpose ofthe zone is, “To provide for the protection,conservation and management of areas withsignificant ecological, scientific, cultural, heritage oraesthetic value, or with a significant likelihood of riskfrom a natural hazard.”

A natural values overlay may also be an option.

Voluntary protection for areas with significantnatural values is also possible through ConservationCovenants.

It is considered that further standards for naturalvalues protection is not required through the RuralResource Zone provisions.






Unlikely to be any adverse effect on the IPS throughinclusion of the Group’s suggestion, however itwould be an unnecessary duplication in this instance.

26.1.2

The Group believes anadditional paragraphshould be addedrelating to protect,maintain and restoreconservation/landmanagement/landscape values.


For reasons outlined in the previous clause use ofadditional provisions in the Rural Resource Zonerelating to protection of natural values is notconsidered necessary.

Protecting visual values is a legitimate function of aplanning scheme and there is no argument thatareas of scenic quality may be found in the ruralarea. However the most appropriate approach is toundertake a landscape assessment as a strategicexercise, rather than rely on individual perceptionsand argument at the development stage.



Identified landscapes could be described andmanaged through the Statements of Desired FutureCharacter, development standards in appropriatezones and/or Specific Area Plans.




Unlikely to be any significant adverse impact withincorporation of the suggested clause but it wouldconstitute some duplication and would not besufficient in the case of landscape management.

26.4.4 Subdivision

The Group supports a100ha minimum lotsize in the RuralResource Zone.


The minimum size for a lot in the Rural ResourceZone is 1ha (Section 26.4.1) except where the use isfor agricultural purposes in which case there is nominimum.

The Group has not given any clear justification for itsposition other than it would prevent thefragmentation of agricultural land.



The IPS seeks the same outcome and uses as itsmechanism the Acceptable Solutions andPerformance Criteria of Sections 26.4.1 and 26.4.4.The IPS approach is preferred because it betterrelates to complexities in land managementsituations and focuses specifically on achievingidentified outcomes.




Unlikely to be any adverse impact with the suggestedsubdivision standards, but the IPS approach ispreferred.

28.0 Utilities Code

28.4.1 Building Designand Siting

The Group suggestswords, “and not resultin impact on


As discussed previously the management ofthreatened species and habitat in relation todevelopment generally is a matter dealt with by theIPS through the Clearing and Conversion ofVegetation Code.



threatened species,threatened vegetationor priority habitat” toAcceptable SolutionA1.

Outside the Code significant areas are situated in theEnvironmental Management Zone and would also besubject to the provisions of this zone.

It is also possible for individual land owners tocovenant their property for the purpose of habitatprotection.




Unlikely to be any significant adverse impact withsuch standards in the zone, but it would be aduplication.

29.0 EnvironmentalManagement Zone

29.1.3 Local AreaObjectives

The Group suggeststhat protection,


The Group’s sentiment is reflected in the statedpurpose of the Environmental Management zone, i.e.

29.1.1.1 To provide for the protection,conservation and management of areas



maintenance andrestoration of naturalvalues should takeprecedence over allother uses.

with significant ecological, scientific,cultural or aesthetic value, or with asignificant likelihood of risk from anatural hazard;

29.1.1.2 To allow for complementary use ordevelopment where consistent with anystrategies for protection andmanagement.

It is not necessary to add another ‘layer’ of priority –the purpose is the priority.




Unlikely to be any significant adverse impact withsuch standards in the zone, but it would beunnecessary.

29.2 Use Table

The Group suggeststhat Visitor


Visitor Accommodation is a Permitted use in the IPS



Accommodation bemade a discretionaryuse and carry thequalification, “only toconvert an existingdwelling”.

subject to it being tied to a conservation, sports andrecreation or tourist use on the land. This use andqualification is similar to other uses in the zone,including Community Meeting and Entertainment,Educational and Occasional Care, and Sports andRecreation.

The IPS land use table structure seems appropriate,logical and consistent with the zone purposestatement.

In the absence of any supporting justification for theproposed change, it is difficult to see why theadditional wording would be appropriate or thepurpose it would serve.




The suggested change would restrict the provision ofvisitor accommodation in the EnvironmentalManagement Zone but without any clear purpose.



29.3.1 Use in astatutory conservationreserve

The Group suggeststhat the AcceptableSolution be made thePerformance Criteriato ensure thatdevelopment isrigorously assessed.


Land subject to a conservation reserve would in mostif not all cases be Crown land. If a developmentproposal is consistent with the four matters requiredin the Acceptable Solution, i.e.

(a) consistent with conservation outcomes;

(b) accords with a reserve management plan;

(c) no risk to human health, property orenvironment;

(d) meets any conservation requirements;

then a development need not, as a matter of course,be a discretionary matter. Most reserve managementplans go through a public consultation and approvalprocess prior to their adoption. If development isconsistent with such plans then a further layer ofpublic exhibition is an unnecessary duplication.






Unlikely to be any significant adverse impact on theoperation of the IPS as a whole but the suggestedchange would be a duplication.

29.4.2 Suitability of asite or lot for use ordevelopment

The Group suggeststhat the whole sectionis unnecessary andshould be deleted.


It is likely that the amount and type of developmentin the zone is likely to be limited. However given therange and type of Permitted and Discretionary usesin the Use Table, it would not be appropriate todispense with control provisions, e.g. a localconvenience or souvenir shop could be subdividedand should make provision for water, seweragetreatment and stormwater disposal.






Removal of Section 29.4.2 could cause a significantand adverse impact on the operation of the IPS inthat important health and safety requirements fordevelopment in the Environmental Management Zonewould not apply.

E3 Clearing andConversion ofVegetation Code

E.3.2.1 Application ofthe Code

The Group isconcerned that theCode only applies inthe EnvironmentalLiving, EnvironmentalManagement, OpenSpace and Rural LivingZones and wonderswhy other zones,particularly the RuralResource Zone are notalso included.


The listed zones within which the Code applies arethe zones most likely to involve vegetation clearance.Residential, Commercial and Industrial zones arelocated in urban areas and are predominantly clearedof vegetation. The most productive agriculturalareas are also predominantly cleared and where theyare not, would be subject to preparation of a ForestPractices Plan under the Forest Practices Act.

The four listed zones is not the only criterion forapplication of the Code. There are five other criteriathat also define whether the Code applies, including:

(a) land shown in the IPS as having scenic orlandscape value;



(b) land containing threatened native vegetationcommunities;

(c) land that is the habitat of a threatenedspecies;

(d) land at risk of landslide under the IPS;

(e) land within 30m of a water body orwatercourse.

It would appear that the Group has not realised thatthe remaining criteria also apply or that they arelikely to expand the area to which the Code appliesto an extent that is likely to include most areas towhich the Code should apply.




The Group does not make any particular suggestionsregarding the Code, but its submission is interpretedas suggesting that the Code should apply to allzones.



Application to all zones is not considered necessarybut if the Code were so extended, this would likelyinvolve unnecessary reports and assessmentsinvolving increased costs and time.

E1.0 Bushfire-ProneAreas Code

Code should includereference tothreatened vegetation,threatened speciesand priority habitat.Tasmania Fire Serviceaccredited people andCouncil staff do nothave the expertise toadequately assessconservation value ofvegetation.

The Group suggeststhat a BiodiversityCode should be addedto the IPS and that the


Where a Bushfire Management Plan includes removalof vegetation, such removal would automaticallytrigger an assessment under the Clearing andConservation of Vegetation Code. Where thatassessment reveals threatened vegetation or habitat,then compliance with the Code standards would berequired. In most cases, this would involve a reportfrom a person with relevant training and experience.




The Group’s suggestions would add a layer ofcomplexity to implementation of the IPS, particularlyin respect of the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code. The



Bushfire-Prone AreasCode should besubject to that Code.

approach of the IPS is not that dissimilar to thatproposed by the Group. They both require anassessment of the presence or otherwise ofthreatened vegetation or habitat.

Adding the proposed Biodiversity Code wouldeffectively duplicate the Clearing and Conservationof Vegetation Code to no useful effect.



CONSULTATION

The representation was submitted in response to public exhibition of theScheme between October and December in 2013, pursuant to Section 30H ofthe Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.


The proposal has no likely impact on Council resources outside those usuallyrequired for assessment and reporting.



The Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure. Develop and manage sustainable built infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

There were 42 separate points raised by the Friends of the Leven. All werejudged as not requiring an alteration to the Scheme. However, there weretwo points raised in relation to Common Mandatory Provisions on whichthere is some agreement as follows:

1 Section 6.3.2(a) of the Scheme provides for exemption of landscapingand the management of vegetation. This exemption is capable ofbroad interpretation that could be used to justify inappropriateremoval of trees and wildlife habitat. It is considered that therepresentations’ suggestion for a qualification on the extent of theexemption would be appropriate. It is suggested that Clause (a) beamended by addition of the phrase, “…and does not fall within theprovisions of the Clearing and Conversion of Vegetation Code”. Theadditional wording would remove a source of potentially unintendeduse.

2 The spread of weeds and pathogens through transfer of contaminatedsoil is not a matter satisfactorily managed in the State at present.There does need to be some control on the import and/or export ofsoil from one location to another. The issue is complex and requiresa more sophisticated approach than a single development standard inthe Scheme, e.g. dealing with areas of known contamination,movement of vehicles, methods of soil disinfection and certification



of disinfected soils. This is a matter that needs to be fully researchedand a management program developed through State and localgovernment.

The above matters should be considered by the TPC, from a State andregional level, and if it considers the matters to have sufficient weight, that itinstitute relevant work and/or changes to relevant provisions.

Recommendation -

It is recommended that:

1 The Council endorse the draft comments in relation to therepresentation received from the Friends of the Leven in response topublic exhibition of the Scheme during the period October toDecember 2013; and

2 The representation and the Council’s comments to the points raisedbe forwarded to the Tasmanian Planning Commission as part of theregion’s Section 30J Report.’



“A copy of the representation referred to in the report has been circulated to allCouncillors.”

Cr van Rooyen moved and Cr Viney seconded, “That:

1 The Council endorse the draft comments in relation to the representation receivedfrom the Friends of the Leven (a copy being appended to and forming part of theminutes) in response to public exhibition of the Scheme during the period Octoberto December 2013; and

2 The representation and the Council’s comments to the points raised be forwarded tothe Tasmanian Planning Commission as part of the region’s Section 30J Report.”

Carried unanimously

G E N E R A L M A N A G E M E N T


GENERAL MANAGEMENT

99/2015 Meeting commencement – recitation of the Lord’s Prayer

Cr Bloomfield (having given notice) moved and Cr Howard seconded, “That the CentralCoast Council Ordinary meetings begin with the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer.

Cr Bloomfield, in support of his motion, submitted as follows:

“The Lord’s Prayer has been said at the beginning of this Council’s Ordinarymeetings for more than 50 years, why is there a need or a reason to discontinue?The Lord’s Prayer is said in Federal and State Government so it is recognised andseen as a symbol of unity and common purpose at many levels of government. Welive in a Christian/democratic country where this Prayer is said at many significantand important public gatherings, why should we want to be different. Why is therea need to discontinue this Prayer from our meeting, and so deny those Councillorswho are in favour of keeping this long-standing tradition, the right and opportunityto participate. Those Councillors who do not wish to recite this Prayer can staysilent if that is their wish.

Why should a majority of five Councillors wants to delete this well respected andwidely used tradition from our meetings when there are many men and women inour community, if asked, would want the saying of this Prayer retained. It is auniversal Prayer said daily by millions of people as a reminder to them of themessages that it contains.”

The General Manager reported as follows:

“PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider a motion on notice from Cr Bloomfield.

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of each Council meeting the Council commenced each meetingwith the Mayor reading a prayer and then any Councillors who wished to, recitingthe Lord’s Prayer. From the first Council meeting in January 2015 this practice wasceased.

DISCUSSION

After a Council meeting last year, Councillors discussed whether to continue withthe custom of reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the commencement of our Council



meetings. The majority of the Councillors present were in agreement of notcontinuing with the Lord’s Prayer.

As the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer was a custom only, and not a requirement of theLocal Government Act or the Meeting Procedures Regulations, it was deemed that amotion to change our custom at the Council meeting was not necessary.

The Council has not changed the agenda as such, as the Mayor still reads out theprayer at the start of the meeting, as is shown in the agenda. There is no mentionin the Council agenda of reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

CONSULTATION

Councillors discussed this in 2014 with the general view being that the currentprayer that is recited by the Mayor is appropriate at the commencement of ourCouncil meetings and there not being a need for the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer bythose Councillors who wished to.


This report has no impact on Council resources.


The Central Coast Strategic Plan 2014-2024 includes the following strategies andkey actions:

. Nil.

CONCLUSION

The motion on notice from Cr Bloomfield is submitted for consideration.”

Voting for the motion Voting against the motion(3) (5)Cr Bloomfield Cr BondeCr Howard Cr BroadCr Viney Cr Carpenter

Cr TongsCr van Rooyen

Motion Lost



100/2015 Minutes and notes of committees of the Council and other organisations


“The following (non-confidential) minutes and notes of committees of the Counciland other organisations on which the Council has representation have beenreceived:

. East Ulverstone Swimming Pool Management Committee – meeting held on12 March 2015

. Central Coast Youth Engaged Steering Committee – meeting held on19 March 2015.

Copies of the minutes and notes have been circulated to all Councillors.”

Cr Tongs moved and Cr Broad seconded, “That the (non-confidential) minutes and notesof committees of the Council be received.”

Carried unanimously

101/2015 Local Government Association of Tasmania – General ManagementCommittee 2015 Election


“PURPOSE

This purpose of this report is to invite consideration of nominations for the LocalGovernment Association of Tasmania’s 2015 Election; in particular for GeneralManagement Committee representation.

BACKGROUND

The Electoral Commissioner, Tasmanian Electoral Commission, has written asfollows:

‘The Tasmanian Electoral Commission has been asked to conduct the 2015 electionof five members of the General Management Committee for a two-year term inaccordance with the rules of the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT).The LGAT have advised that elections of President and Northern Electoral District(population <20,000) member will not be required. This is due to these positionsbeing filled at recent by-elections and the Committee extending the terms of office fora further two years.



Nominations are now invited from LGAT members and must be received at my officeby 5 pm Tuesday 19 May 2015. Candidates will be notified of receipt of theirnominations by this office.

Election timetable

Nominations open Thursday 19 March 2015

Nominations close 5 pm Tuesday 19 May 2015

Ballot material posted (if a ballot is required) Friday 22 May 2015

Close of postal ballot 10 am Wednesday 8 July 2015

Declaration of result Wednesday 8 July 2015

A nomination form and reply paid envelope are enclosed.

If you would like further information or assistance, please call Rod Huskins at thisoffice on 6233 2421.’

DISCUSSION

Attached is a copy of the electoral nomination form. Also attached is an extractfrom the LGAT Rules in which the General Management Committee’s functions andcomposition are outlined and in which the representative process is detailed.

Most current members of the General Management Committee are mayors butmembership is not limited to mayors.

Within the North West & West Coast Electoral District, nominations are invited fortwo candidates; one to represent the member councils which have a population of20,000 or more, and another to represent the remaining councils. All councils votefor both positions.

There are two councils in this District with a population of 20,000 or more. Theseare Central Coast and Devonport City. They are currently represented byMayor Jan Bonde.

In the event of there being more than one Central Coast Councillor seekingnomination, a ballot will be required at the meeting to determine the successfulcandidate. It is noted in this regard that the Local Government (Meeting Procedures)Regulations 2005 provide that, ‘…voting at a meeting may be conducted by secretballot if the purpose is to select a person to represent the council on a committee orother body…’.



CONSULTATION

Consultation is not required in respect of this matter.


Apart from provision of briefings in respect of agenda items being considered bythe General Management Committee and travel costs to meetings, thisrepresentative role does not otherwise impact on the Council’s resources.


Corporate compliance is not relevant to this matter.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s consideration of nominating a candidate is invited.”


“Copies of the electoral nomination form and LGAT Rules (extract) have beencirculated to all Councillors.”

Cr van Rooyen moved and Cr Viney seconded, “That Cr Bonde be nominated as acandidate for election as the Central Coast and Devonport City Councils’ representative onthe General Management Committee of the Local Government Association of Tasmania for atwo-year term commencing in July 2015.”

Carried unanimously

C O R P O R A T E & C O M M U N I T Y S E R V I C E S


CORPORATE & COMMUNITY SERVICES

102/2015 Contracts and agreements

The Director Corporate & Community Services reported as follows:

“A Schedule of Contracts and Agreements (other than those approved under thecommon seal) entered into during the month of March 2015 has been submitted bythe General Manager to the Council for information. The information is reported inaccordance with approved delegations and responsibilities.”


“A copy of the Schedule has been circulated to all Councillors.”

Cr van Rooyen moved and Cr Tongs seconded, “That the Schedule of Contracts andAgreements (a copy being appended to and forming part of the minutes) be received.”

Carried unanimously

103/2015 Correspondence addressed to the Mayor and Councillors


“PURPOSE

This report is to inform the meeting of any correspondence received during themonth of March 2015 and which was addressed to the ‘Mayor and Councillors’.Reporting of this correspondence is required in accordance with Council policy.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED

The following correspondence has been received and circulated to all Councillors:

. Letter requesting the installation of bollards on the side of Leith Roadopposite Russell Street, Leith.

. Email raising a number of questions and concerns relating to the Nine MileRoad upgrade.

Where a matter requires a Council decision based on a professionally developedreport the matter will be referred to the Council. Matters other than those requiringa report will be administered on the same basis as other correspondence received bythe Council and managed as part of the day-to-day operations.”



Cr Viney moved and Cr Howard seconded, “That the Director’s report be received.”

Carried unanimously

104/2015 Public question time

The time being 6.38pm, the Mayor introduced public question time.

Questions and replies concluded at 7.04pm.

105/2015 Financial statements


“The following principal financial statements of the Council for the period ended31 March 2015 are submitted for consideration:

. Summary of Rates and Fire Service Levies

. Operating and Capital Statement

. Cashflow Statement

. Capital Works Resource Schedule.”


“Copies of the financial statements have been circulated to all Councillors.”

Cr Bloomfield moved and Cr Tongs seconded, “That the financial statements (copiesbeing appended to and forming part of the minutes) be received.”

Carried unanimously

106/2015 Petition - Overnight stays at Lions Park, Penguin (272/2014 – 15.09.2014and 92/2015 – 20.04.2015)


“PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider a petition requesting that the Councilreinstate permission for overnight parking within Lions Park, Penguin.



BACKGROUND

On 15 September 2014 (Minute No. 272/2014) the Council unanimously passed thefollowing motion on overnight rest areas and the provision of wastewater dumpstations:

‘That the Council confirm its existing policy on overnight rest areas asfollows:

. That, subject to the Crown’s consent for the use of its land, theCouncil approve that campervan and motorhome owners are able torest for up to 48 hours in any of the rest areas within the municipalarea;

and additionally that:

. appropriate steps be taken to limit the space available at the ForthRecreation Ground for overnight stays; and

. appropriate signage be erected at Lions Park, Penguin, as soon as it ispractical to do so, identifying the area for day-use only – overnightstays not permitted.’

On 12 March 2015 the Council received a petition with 264 signatories requestingthat the Council, ‘reinstate the overnight parking within the Lion’s Park to twonights’.

DISCUSSION

In developing its Policy on Overnight Stays between 2004 and 2006, the CentralCoast Council undertook a range of community consultation the outcome of whichwas strongly in favour of allowing overnight stays in rest areas throughout theCentral Coast area. A community forum held at the Sulphur Creek Hall at that timewas overwhelmingly in favour of allowing overnight stays at Hall Point because ofthe positive impact the presence of motorhomes and campervans was having on thedumping of rubbish and hooning in that area.

In 2014 the Council undertook a review of the Policy on Overnight Stays. Thisreview was largely driven by concerns over the increase in the overnight stays atLions Park in Penguin with an overnight average of eight per night, while the ForthRecreation Ground also saw a significant increase of both overnight stays bymotorhome and campervans as well as a number of seasonal workers who had beenutilising the barbecue hut.



The popularity of Lions Park in Penguin at that time had reached a point wherenumbers were constantly exceeding the capacity of the area. This resulted in anumber of complaints from locals who were unable to access the area and a requestthat this area be closed to overnight stays. As the area provides access to the twolocal dog beaches and is the main parking area for Penguin residents who wish toaccess Penguin Beach, it was considered appropriate that this area be made an areawhere overnight stays are not permitted.

In 2011-2012 there was an average of 36 vehicles parking overnight in rest areaswithin the Central Coast area, with a majority of those located in areas aroundPenguin, and with the highest numbers recorded in the first three months in 2012.These numbers doubled between 2012 and 2014 with a significant increase in thenumber of overnights stays at Lions Park in Penguin. During the month of January2014 there was an average of nine vans per night staying within the Lions Park area,while in the month of February 2014 this increased to 10 vans per night and in themonth of March 2014 this increased again to 11 vans per night. These figures areonly the average; there were some nights when there were as many as 17 vansparked within the Lions Park Precinct.

It was found at that time that the Lions Park parking area is not large enough to takemore than four or five vans per night and the additional vans were parked on theside of the roadway leading into Lions Park; limiting all other access to the area tothe extent that any other vehicle endeavouring to access Lions Park was forced toreverse all the way out as there was not enough room to turn within the parkingarea itself. Despite attempts by the Council to limit numbers in the area by paintingparking bays within the car park area and the Visitor Information Centres in advisingthat there were only limited spaces at Lions Park, the numbers utilising the areacontinued to increase well beyond the capacity of the area.

It was for this reason that the matter was workshopped with Councillors and arecommendation brought forward to the Council that the area be limited to day useonly.

Vehicles continue to regularly stay overnight at Hall Point, Preservation Bay andMidway Point, Sulphur Creek. The Council has been monitoring the numbers inthese areas and it is evident from the numbers that the number of vans that werepreviously utilising Lions Park have largely moved to Midway Point. The numbers ofovernight stays in the Penguin/Sulphur Creek area has increased rather thandecreased since the closure of Lions Park. In December 2013 there were an averageof 32 vans overnighting between Hall Point, Preservation Bay, Midway Point andLions Park, while in December 2014 there were an average of 35 vans overnightingbetween Hall Point, Preservation Bay and Midway Point. This pattern is repeated inJanuary with 38 vans in January 2014 and 47 vans in January 2015, and again in



February with 43 vans overnighting in February 2014 and 50 vans overnighting inFebruary 2015.

While the information accompanying the petition argues that the restriction is indirect contradiction to the Council’s website publication ‘Central Coast – A place tovisit’, it should be noted that Hall Point, Midway Point and Preservation Bay are justas much a part of the Central Coast area as Lions Park.

The petition is also accompanied by the concern that the closure of Lions Park toovernight stays reduces the patronage of local shops and reduces local economicsand local employment. The Council’s monitoring of overnights stays has confirmedthat the overall number of stays in the area has increased and comments made tothe Council Inspector by overnight visitors to Hall Point, Midway Point andPreservation Bay support the claim that they continue to purchase fuel and suppliesin Penguin rather than travel to Burnie or Devonport.

With the overall numbers of overnight stays increasing, it is believed that anyreopening of Lions Park to overnight stays would once again lead to the overuse ofthe area resulting in the area being inaccessible to local residents who might wish toaccess either Penguin Main Beach or Watcombe Beach, as well as an increased risk ofvehicle damage and damage to Council infrastructure in the area. The overall sizeof many of the vehicles involved in overnight stays is such that, unlike passengersedans, they severely limit the vision of drivers utilising the roadway andpedestrians in the area. Apart from the installation of a measure preventing theparking of vehicles alongside the roadway leading into Lions Park, there appears tobe no realistic way of limiting overnight stays to those few designated spaces withinthe parking area. Any measure preventing the parking of vehicles alongside theroadway would also have a negative impact of local residents wishing to accessPenguin Main Beach who use passenger sedans that do not pose the same problemas large campervans and motorhomes.

The Council Inspector who undertakes the monitoring of overnight stays has spokenwith a large number of visitors to the area and advises that he has received nocomplaints from them concerning the closure of Lions Park; rather, they havecommented on the fact that they fully understand the reason behind the actiontaken by the Council to close the Park to overnight stays only.

Both Ulverstone and Penguin have maintained their ‘RV Friendly Status’ asdesignated by the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia, the change in LionsPark has no impact on this status, and the Council continues to receivecommunications from overnight visitors thanking the Council for the overnight areasthat are available for their use.



CONSULTATION

The report details the consultation that has been undertaken.


There would be no resourcing or financial impact, apart from the cost of removingthe signage, in reopening the area to overnight stays.

Based on previous experience there would be an increased risk to vehicles andpedestrians due to the over use of the area should the area be reopened toovernight stays.



The Shape of the Place. Improve the value and use of open space. Conserve the physical environment in a way that ensures we have a healthy

and attractive community

A Connected Central Coast. Provide for a diverse range of movement patterns

The Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure. Invest in and leverage opportunities from our natural environment. Contribute to the preservation of the natural environment.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Council confirm its decision not to permit overnightstays at Lions Park, Penguin, and that the area be made available for day-use only.”

Cr Howard moved and Cr Carpenter seconded, “That the Council confirm its decision notto permit overnight stays at Lions Park, Penguin, and that the area be made available forday-use only.”

Carried unanimously

107/2015 Dog control - Fixing of registration fees for the 2015-2016 financial yearand other fees under the Dog Control Act 2000




“PURPOSE

This report considers the fixing of dog registration fees for the 2015-2016 financialyear and other fees as required under the Dog Control Act 2000 (the Act).

BACKGROUND

The Dog Control Amendment Act 2009 provides for the Council to set dogregistration fees and other associated animal fees such as kennel licences,dangerous dog licences and so on. This report enables the registration fees to beset and the registration forms and tags to be issued to dog owners before thecommencement of the registration period, and other associated animal fees to beset for the 2015-2016 financial year.

DISCUSSION

The dog control legislation requires that all dogs over the age of six months beregistered with a local council and it provides for councils to set fees for thepurpose of registration and management of the Act. All dogs over six months ofage must be registered with a local council; the period of registration being 1 July to30 June each year.

The dog registration system enables the Animal Control Officer to identify a dog’sowner and records information to enforce the regulations and provisions of the dogcontrol legislation.

The Council will continue to offer a discounted fee in the following instances:

. should the dog registration be paid prior to 31 July 2015 for the2015-2016 financial year - as an incentive to maximise dog registrations asat 1 July 2015;

. should the dog be sterilised - to encourage the reduction in the instances ofunwanted or abandoned dogs;

. should the dog be obedience trained - to promote the value of obediencetraining;

. should the dog be a registered working, pure bred, greyhound or huntingdog;

. should the dog be owned and registered by a pensioner; and



. newly registered dogs that have either recently been purchased or are up tosix months of age.

The Council will continue to provide the registration services free of charge in thefollowing instances:

. should the dog be a registered and appropriately trained guide, hearing orcompanion dog (limited to one per person); and

. should the dog registration be transferred from another Tasmanian council.

In the past financial year the Council employed a contractor to check on all CentralCoast properties for unregistered dogs. This also included the issuing ofinfringements for any unregistered dogs. This exercise resulted in a significantincrease in the number of registered dogs which has allowed the Council to maintainthe dog registration fees for 2015-2016 at the same level as the previous year whileonly fees relating to the impounding of dogs at large have been increased to reflectthe impact on both the community and other animals that dogs at large do have.

The proposed fees continue to reflect the cost of providing the service throughincreases in the cost of transporting dogs safely (and with a minimum of stress onthe animal), together with the demand for out of hours services, notably the numberof dangerous dog incidents, and the usual cost of living increases that affect thisservice.

The Council will also be undertaking an in-house program to pursue infringementsfor dogs that are not reregistered within the required timeframe. This willbe undertaken immediately after the end of the discount period, beginning on1 August 2015.

In setting the community service obligation component the Council has consideredfive rationales which include the following questions:

. is it considered a public good?;

. is it a private good that has public benefits?;

. the relative need for the service;

. the ability to pay for the service; and

. the essential nature of the service.

The Council considers that while the ownership of dogs is a private good it doeshave some public benefits, such as companionship, social, therapy, security andrecreational benefits. The Council believes that there is a need for the service andthat the community sees a high need for the policing of dogs in public areas such asbeaches, streets and through legislative requirements. The Council recognises the



essential nature of the service in that the community expects that dog controlshould be provided to ensure quality of life for residents within the municipal area.

The Council also provides a discount period as an incentive to responsible dogowners who endeavour to meet the relevant legislative requirement to register theirdog at the start of the financial year. Under the Act dogs are required to beregistered as at 1 July each year and while the Council sends out registrationrenewals at the start of June each year to facilitate timely registration, the Councilalso extends the discount period for the payment of registration through to the endof July each year to assist responsible dog owners in meeting the cost of thatregistration. The Council offers discounted fees to persons who acquire a dog partway through the year and refunds part of the registration cost of deceased dogswhere it is appropriate to do so.

CONSULTATION

The Central Coast Council falls within the upper range of the mid-sized councils andthe proposed dog registration and associated fees fall within the upper range of feescharged by those councils.


The proposed fee structure is based on retention of the current dog controlprocedures and is calculated to meet the projected cost of dog control in 2015-2016 with the exception of the community service obligation to be met from rates.

A copy of the fee structure for the 2014-2015 financial year is appended to thisreport.



The Shape of the Place. Conserve the physical environment in a way that ensures we have a healthy

and attractive community

A Connected Central Coast. Improve community well-being

Council Sustainability and Governance. Improve corporate governance. Improve service provision.



CONCLUSION

It is recommended that dog registration fees be fixed for the financial year1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 in respect of all dogs over the age of six months, at thefollowing rates:

DESCRIPTION INCENTIVE RATE(IF PAID ON OR BEFORE

31 JULY 2015)

FULL RATE(IF PAID AFTER

31 JULY 2015)

Unsterilised dog $52.00 $94.00

Sterilised dog* $30.00 $40.00

Greyhound registered with theTasmanian Greyhound RacingBoard*

$30.00 $53.00

Pure Bred dog* (kept forbreeding whose owner is theholder of a current stud prefixrecognised by the TasmanianCanine Association)

$30.00 $53.00

Working dog kept for thepurpose of working farmstock*

$30.00 $53.00

Hunting dog* $30.00 $53.00

Guide, Hearing or Companiondog

Nil Nil

Newly registered dog(purchased through the year)– first year of registration only

**Pro-rataregistration rate


Newly registered dog (up tosix months of age)* for thefirst year of registration only

**Pro-rataregistration ate


Registration fee for eachDeclared Dangerous Dog

$220.00 $250.00



Pensioners rate*** $25.00 $30.00

Transfer of dog registrationfrom another TasmanianCouncil for the sameregistration period (evidencemust be provided)

Nil Nil

Discount for ObedienceCertificate****

$1.00 $1.00

. *Proof of evidence must be provided at the time of registration (such as aveterinarian certificate, Tasmanian Canine Association certificate, GreyhoundRacing Board certificate, current membership of a recognised hunting dogorganisation).

. **Pro rata registration rate – The rate is calculated as the Full Rate divisibleby 12 and multiplied by the number of months or part thereof remaining inthe financial year 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, or taken to be the IncentiveRate, whichever is the lesser. Note: the pro-rata registration rate does notapply where the owner has neglected to register a dog prior to beingimpounded.

. ***Pensioners rate – The pensioner’s rate applies to ONE dog only (owned bya pensioner at the one property). Evidence such as the Pension ConcessionCard must be sighted at the time of payment.

. ****Discount for Obedience Certificate – Proof of evidence must be providedat the time of registration - a current certificate of obedience proficiency hasbeen provided from an approved dog training organisation which has beenaccepted as a provider of an appropriate obedience certificate.

And that the following fees for the management of the Dog Control Act 2000 alsobe fixed:

DETAILS AMOUNT ($)

Impounding fee (1st impoundment)* $25.00

Impounding fee (subsequent)* $75.00

Daily pound fee (per week day or any partthereof)**

$42.00



Out of hours release fee (additionalcharge). Note: available in specialcircumstances only and if an appropriateauthorised person is available.

$90.00

Investigation of nuisance complaint (non-refundable)

$25.00

Kennel Licence Application (initial) (notincluding dog registration)

$115.00

Kennel Licence renewal (per year) $47.00

Replacement tag (each) $5.00

Dangerous dog collar (each) Purchase price(plus 5% admin. fee and GST)

Dangerous dog sign (each) Purchase price(Plus 5% admin. fee and GST)

. *Charged for the collection and short-term (less than 12 hours)impoundment.

. **Charged for long-term (12 hours or more) impoundment and in addition tothe Impounding fee.”


“A schedule of fees fixed for the 2014-2015 financial year has been circulated to allCouncillors.”

Cr Carpenter moved and Cr Viney seconded, “That dog registration fees be and arehereby fixed for the financial year 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 in respect of all dogs overthe age of six months, at the following rates:

DESCRIPTION INCENTIVE RATE(IF PAID ON OR BEFORE

31 JULY 2015)

FULL RATE(IF PAID AFTER

31 JULY 2015)

Unsterilised dog $52.00 $94.00

Sterilised dog* $30.00 $40.00



Greyhound registered with theTasmanian Greyhound RacingBoard*

$30.00 $53.00

Pure Bred dog* (kept for breedingwhose owner is the holder of acurrent stud prefix recognised bythe Tasmanian Canine Association)

$30.00 $53.00

Working dog kept for the purposeof working farm stock*

$30.00 $53.00

Hunting dog* $30.00 $53.00

Guide, Hearing or Companion dog Nil Nil

Newly registered dog (purchasedthrough the year) – first year ofregistration only



Newly registered dog (up to sixmonths of age)* for the first yearof registration only

**Pro-rataregistration ate


Registration fee for each DeclaredDangerous Dog

$220.00 $250.00

Pensioners rate*** $25.00 $30.00

Transfer of dog registration fromanother Tasmanian Council for thesame registration period (evidencemust be provided)

Nil Nil

Discount for ObedienceCertificate****

$1.00 $1.00

. *Proof of evidence must be provided at the time of registration (such as aveterinarian certificate, Tasmanian Canine Association certificate, Greyhound RacingBoard certificate, current membership of a recognised hunting dog organisation).

. **Pro rata registration rate – The rate is calculated as the Full Rate divisible by 12and multiplied by the number of months or part thereof remaining in the financialyear 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, or taken to be the Incentive Rate, whichever is thelesser. Note: the pro-rata registration rate does not apply where the owner hasneglected to register a dog prior to being impounded.



. ***Pensioners rate – The pensioner’s rate applies to ONE dog only (owned by apensioner at the one property). Evidence such as the Pension Concession Card mustbe sighted at the time of payment.

. ****Discount for Obedience Certificate – Proof of evidence must be provided at thetime of registration - a current certificate of obedience proficiency has beenprovided from an approved dog training organisation which has been accepted as aprovider of an appropriate obedience certificate.

And that the following fees for the management of the Dog Control Act 2000 also be fixed:

DETAILS AMOUNT ($)

Impounding fee (1st impoundment)* $25.00

Impounding fee (subsequent)* $75.00

Daily pound fee (per week day or any part thereof)** $42.00

Out of hours release fee (additional charge). Note:available in special circumstances only and if anappropriate authorised person is available.

$90.00

Investigation of nuisance complaint (non-refundable) $25.00

Kennel Licence Application (initial) (not including dogregistration)

$115.00

Kennel Licence renewal (per year) $47.00

Replacement tag (each) $5.00

Dangerous dog collar (each) Purchase price(plus 5% admin. fee and GST)

Dangerous dog sign (each) Purchase price(Plus 5% admin. fee and GST)

. *Charged for the collection and short-term (less than 12 hours) impoundment.

. **Charged for long-term (12 hours or more) impoundment and in addition to theImpounding fee.”

Carried unanimously

E N G I N E E R I N G S E R V I C E S


ENGINEERING SERVICES

108/2015 Tenders for green waste processing – Resource Recovery Centre

The Director Engineering Services reported as follows:

“PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider the tenders received for the processing ofgreen waste at the Council's Resource Recovery Centre (RRC).

BACKGROUND

The Environmental Engineer reported as follows.

‘The Council’s RRC incorporates an inert landfill, in which the disposal oforganic material is not permitted. As such green waste, which incorporatesgarden waste, timber and similar material, is stockpiled on the site formulching.

The current contract for the mulching of green waste was arranged throughDulverton Waste Management and expired in late 2014.

DISCUSSION

The public tender process, including preparation of tender documentation,liaison with tenderers and assessment of tenders, was conducted byDulverton Waste Management. An extract from the Dulverton WasteManagement tender report, dated 16 March 2015, is provided below.

“1. BACKGROUND

Dulverton Waste Management (DWM) called tenders for the “Mulch Only orMulch and Removal of Green Waste” on behalf of the Cradle Coast WasteManagement Group (CCWMG). This tender was called for a three yearperiod with an option for an additional two year period.

The facilities included:. Burnie WTS. Port Sorell WTS. Sheffield WTS. Spreyton WTS. Ulverstone WTS (Resource Recovery Centre). Wynyard WTS



. White Hills WTS

. Wilmot WTS

Current management arrangements for green waste differ according to thesite. At some locations the green waste is mulched and managed on-site; atother locations the green waste is mulched and transported to the DulvertonOrganics Recycling Facility located at Dawsons Siding Road, Dulverton forfurther processing.

Existing contractual arrangements for management of green waste expired in2014 and Dulverton Waste Management seeks to establish newarrangements for the future.

DWM will continue to provide contract administration services for amanagement fee of 3%. Services include receiving of invoices and oncharging each facilities portion to the applicable Council.

2. TENDERING PROCESS

Tenders were called on Saturday 21st February 2015, with an advertisementappearing in the Advocate Newspaper.

At the close of tenders on Monday 3rd March 2015, three tenders werereceived as follows:

1. Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening – Mulch & Remove Tender2. Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening – Mulch Only Tender3. MDG Contracting – Alternate Tender for Transport Only



3. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

# TENDERER NAME/TENDERTendered Rate $/m3 ex GST

Burnie Port Sorell Sheffield Spreyton Ulverstone Wynyard White Hills Wilmot

1Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening/

Mulch and removal16.83 12.20 10.88 10.88 12.93 15.64 26.75 13.93

2Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening/

Mulch only6.94 6.94 6.94 6.94 6.94 7.14 9.25 7.94

3MDG Contracting/

Alternate tender transport only9.79 5.16 3.84 3.84 5.89 8.40 17.40 5.89



Councils are to consider the above rates to determine the most economicaloption of either Mulch & Removal (Tender 1) or Mulch Only (Tender 2),tendered by Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening.

An analysis of the rates received against the Alternate Tender submitted byMDG Contracting reveals a saving of $0.10/m3 for transport if a combinationon Mulch Only (Tender 2) and Alternate Tender Transport Only (Tender 3) isselected.

The administration and operational efficiencies achieved by combining themulch and removal of green waste (Tender 1) into one contract outweighsthe $0.10/m3 saving (Tender 2 and 3 combination), due to the elimination ofeach Council having to organise the logistics for the green waste removal.

4. CONCLUSION

Two confirming tenders were received by Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening,who have provided a reliable green waste mulching service to four CCWMGCouncils from 2009 to date. Therefore DWM is satisfied with recontractingFieldwicks Crushing and Screening for future mulching services.

The Alternate Tender for Transport Only, provided by MDG Contracting, willnot be considered in this contract process but Councils are to use theinformation provided to assist them in determining the best option suited tothem.

5. RECOMMENDATION

That this report be provided to each Council who is to advise their preferredoption, from the list below, by 30 April 2015:

1. Mulch & Transport service to be provided by Fieldwicks Crushing &Screening;

2. Mulch Only service to be provided by Fieldwicks Crushing &Screening; or

3. Will not participate in a regional green waste mulching contract.”

CONSULTATION

This item has followed a public tendering process.




The amount expected to be spent on this contract can be accommodatedwithin the 2014-2015 budget allocation for the processing and mulching ofgreen waste, noting that the tendered rates are actually slightly lower thanthose accepted in 2009.



The Shape of the Place. Conserve the physical environment in a way that ensures we have a

healthy and attractive community

The Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure. Develop and manage sustainable built infrastructure. Contribute to the preservation of the natural environment

Council Sustainability and Governance. Improve service provision.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Fieldwicks Crushing & Screening be awarded thetender for green waste mulching services at the GST inclusive tender rate of$7.635 for the mulch only service and $14.223 for the mulch and transportservice.’

The Environmental Engineer’s report is supported.”

Cr Broad moved and Cr van Rooyen seconded, “That the tender from Fieldwicks Crushing& Screening for a green waste mulching service at the GST inclusive rate of $7.635 formulch only service and $14.223 for the mulch and transport service be accepted.”

Carried unanimously

109/2015 Stage 1 and Stage 2 design tenders – Dial Sports Complex development(168/2013 – 17.06.2013)


“The Assets Group Leader has prepared the following report:



‘PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider design tenders received for Stage 1(preliminary design) and Stage 2 (detailed design) for the Dial SportsComplex development.

Stage 1 – preliminary design is to define the location and levels of the twoovals; understand the cut and fill requirements of the site; landscaperequirements; car park layouts and access roads concepts; and developconcept drawings (floor plans, elevations and perspectives) of the facilities tofacilitate community consultation.

Stage 2 – detailed design is the finalisation of the preliminary stage designfollowing community consultation. This consists of detailed drawings andspecifications of the ovals, facilities and associated infrastructure to facilitateplanning approval, building approval and calling of tenders for construction.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the Dial Sports Complex Master Plan 2013, adopted at theCouncil meeting held on 17 June 2013 (Minute No. 168/2013), to developtwo AFL size ovals, clubroom and associated ancillary facilities at the DialSports Complex, tenders were called for preliminary and detailed design witha number of engineering and architectural consulting services to progressthe design and documentation of the project.

Project Plan - estimated construction costs (exc. GST) applicable to thesedesign services are as follows:

Year 1 - $2.2m.Year 2 - $2.2m.Year 3 - $2.3m.

Total Estimate - $6.7m.

Concept plans were required as part of the tender submission along with arevised site layout (if necessary), quantity surveyor costings of the conceptdrawings and any other documents to support the tender.

It is the intention to use these concepts as the basis for detail design.

The following services were included in the design tender:

. architectural;

. geotechnical;

. structural engineering;

. civil engineering;



. mechanical/electrical/fire engineering;

. hydrological/hydraulics engineering;

. traffic engineering;

. environmental;

. urban landscape design;

. planning.

Tenders were called on Saturday, 24 January 2015 and closed at 2.00pm onTuesday, 24 February 2015.

The tender was advertised in The Advocate newspaper and used theCouncil’s website portal, Tenderlink, to ensure the widest coverage possible.

There were nine tenders received.

Tenders received are as follows (including GST):

TENDERERSTAGE 1

PRELIMINARY DESIGN$

STAGE 2DETAILED DESIGN

$TOTAL

$

JAWS Architects 53,416.00 228,685.60 282,101.60

David Denman &Associates 109,013.00 173,188.00 282,201.00

6tyO Pty Ltd 114,467.00 178,058.00 292,525.00

Philp LightonArchitects 90,300.00 218,730.00 309,030.00

Carroll & CockburnArchitects 125,698.00 184,603.00 310,301.00

Tasmanian ConsultingService Pty Ltd 65,627.00 270,735.00 336,362.00

ARTAS Architects 115,390.00 246,400.00 361,790.00

Theresa L. Hatton 100,750.00 313,270.00 414,020.00

CBM SustainableDesign Pty Ltd 136,050.00 290,875.00 426,925.00

ESTIMATE 200,000.00



DISCUSSION

Assessment of tenders has been undertaken in accordance with the Councilweighted tender assessment method based on:

. relevant experience;

. previous performance of similar projects;

. technical skills;

. resources and methodology;

. management skills;

. time performance;

. price;

. quality management systems including OHS systems.

Based on the above criteria the Tender Evaluation Panel for the projectidentified the top four ranking tenderers.

These top four ranked tenderers were Carroll & Cockburn Architects, PhilpLighton Architects, 6tyO Pty Ltd and ARTAS Architects who were thenrequested to present their methodology, rationale, design concepts etc. tothe Dial Sports Complex Project Team.

This Team is comprised of the General Manager, Assets Group Leader,Director Engineering Services, Director Corporate & Community Services,Community Services Group Leader, Regulatory Services Group Leader, WorksGroup Leader, Building Projects Coordinator, Recreation Facilities Traineeand Finance Group Leader.

Following the assessment by the Tender Evaluation Panel and thepresentations by the top four ranked tenderers, ARTAS Architects wasidentified as the highest ranking tenderer.

Although not the lowest tendered amount, it was assessed that the proposedmethodology underpinned by a partnering philosophy using an integratedteam approach, rationale behind the design of the grounds and facilities,value for money, development of the design concepts and overall approachto the project would provide the best solution for the development of theDial Sports Complex development.

ARTAS Architects has had previous experience in the design anddevelopment of recreation and other facilities.



CONSULTATION

There has been consultation with stakeholders and the community duringthe development of the Dial Sports Complex Master Plan and there will becontinuing consultation during the preliminary and detailed design stages.

This item has followed a public tendering process.


The total budget in the 2014-2015 Estimates for Stage 1 - preliminarydesign is $200,000, exclusive of GST.

The budget for Stage 2 – detailed design will be allocated within the 2015-2016 Estimates.

In addition, an allowance of $20,000 will be allocated in the 2015-2016Estimates to cover building and quantity surveyor services andbuilding/planning application fees.



The Shape of the Place. Improve the value and use of open space. Encourage a creative approach to new development

A Connected Central Coast. Connect the people with services

Community Capacity and Creativity. Facilitate entrepreneurship in the business community. Cultivate a culture of creativity in the community

The Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure. Develop and manage sustainable built infrastructure

Council Sustainability and Governance. Improve service provision.



CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the tender from ARTAS Architects for the sum of$331,900 (excluding GST) [$361,790 including GST] for the preliminary anddetailed design of the Dial Sports Complex development be accepted andapproved by the Council.’


Cr Howard moved and Cr Carpenter seconded, “That the tender from ARTAS Architects inthe sum of $361,790 (including GST) for the preliminary and detailed design of the DialSports Complex development be accepted.”

Carried unanimously

110/2015 Sulphur Creek rail crossing and boat ramp (328/2013 – 21.10.2013)


“The Engineering Group Leader has prepared the following report:

‘PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide feedback to the Council oncommunity consultation in regard to the Sulphur Creek boat ramp, prior todetermining future usage or restrictions for the area and providing aresponse to TasRail in regard to ongoing usage of the crossing.

BACKGROUND

A report was presented to the Council meeting held on 21 October 2013(Minute No. 328/2013) in regard to safety issues for TasRail at the crossing.At that meeting the Council resolved to consult with the community withregard to whether the Sulphur Creek boat ramp should be closed due tosafety concerns and to provide a further report back to the Council.

DISCUSSION

In order to consult with the community an advertisement was placed inThe Advocate newspaper on Saturday, 21 February 2015, a sign was erectedat the site and an article placed on the Council’s website. The wording was:



“Sulphur Creek Boat Ramp

The Central Coast Council is considering options for access to thearea adjacent to and including the Sulphur Creek boat ramp to assistsafe crossing of the railway line.

In order to assess usage of the area the Council would like to hearfrom you on how often you use this area or the ramp.

Please contact the Council’s Engineering Services Department ontel. 6429 8970 or email [email protected] if you wish toprovide information.

Responses will be received until Friday, 6 March 2015.”

Six phone responses and three email responses were received.

All were in regard to usage of the boat ramp and are listed below:

WHICH AREA FREQUENCY COMMENTS

Boat ramp Fifteen times in thelast three months –14’ aluminium boat.

. Has seen others using thisramp.

. Shame to see it closed.

. Better in easterly weather thanPenguin.

. Penguin only good at high andlow tides, not in between.

. This ramp best between halfand high tide.

. Can be utilised in emergency,other ramps may be too faraway.

. Blythe River ramp is no good,especially at low tide.



Boat ramp Regularly whenweather okay, saymonthly.

. Aluminium dinghy.

. Most tides it’s useable.

. Use for heading out netting.

. Penguin ramp no good at mosttides.

. Has suggested in the past thatthe Penguin ramp should havebeen on the Johnsons Beachside of the point.

. Not happy for closure.

. Could be used for emergencyaccess when Penguin notuseable.

Boat ramp Regularly whenweather and tidesagreeable, will usefor a whole week butthen not for a while,average fortnightly.

. Commercial fisherman, one ofapproximately seven who usethe boat ramp.

. Find Penguin boat rampawkward to use unless tides areright.

. Would like to see ramp stayopen, unless there is an optionto relocate. Previously able tolaunch from a spot near thefertiliser yard.

. Can be difficult when lots ofcars are in car park.

Boat ramp Summer time, onceor twice a week.

. Blythe no good below half tide.

. This ramp more practical andsafe than Blythe.

. Penguin not good either.



. 14’ aluminium mainly.

. Suggested this ramp should beupgraded.

Boat ramp Summer time,weekly – 18’ boat.

. Sulphur Creek boat ramp easierto use than Penguin.

. Ulverstone boat ramp hard touse at weekends, very busy, canbe dangerous with yacht clubevents in the river.

. Disappointed if this boat rampclosed.

. If Sulphur Creek to be closed,Penguin would need upgradingand extending or another boatramp constructed (perhapswhere campers stay, oppositethe old saw mill/railwayplatform).

. Visibility to the west can bedifficult when exiting; can betricky with trucks parkingoutside Highway Halt.

Boat rampand picnicarea

Boat ramp –generally weeklyduring summer andalso to set craypotsduring season, notused the ramp muchthis summer asfamily member hasbeen working away.

Picnic area –monthly.

. Boat ramp constructed by localresidents and boat users,approved by Penguin Council.

. Maintenance of picnic area andboat ramp undertaken regularlyby Penguin Council, rockswould be cleaned off rampwhen they came to mow thelawn around the picnic area,this changed when Councilsamalgamated.

. Notes this ramp better thanBurnie to launch boat.



. Since Tioxide closed water isclearer and believes this has ledto more people using the boatramp.

Boat ramp,rockformations

Regular user of boatramp since 1975.

. Boat ramp used by kayakersand small boat owners (14’ andunder).

. Larger boats can only use athalf tide to full tide and full tideto half.

. Rarely have to wait for trainwhen entering or exiting area.

. Only an issue if a large truck orcaravan parks close to accesson northern side of PreservationDrive obscuring view whenleaving park area.

. Attended working bees aroundarea (Coastcare?).

. Taken visitors to view unusualrock formations, notes touristsand school study groups visitarea to study rock formations.

. Small park is used by picnickersand people having purchasedfood from shop.

. Great shame if Sulphur Creekresidents lost this town asset.

Boat ramp Regularly. . Convenient boat ramp.

. Provides good calm weatheraccess to local coastline forsmall boats.

. Most disappointed to see anychanges made.



Boat rampand adjacentareas

Regularly. . Uses boat ramp to launch rooftop tinny to fish in area.

. Boat too small to launch atPenguin and motor to Midwayor Sulphur Creek.

. Take grandchildren to area toview Little Penguins.

. Believes closing access wouldbe detrimental to communityand unnecessary.

For the period between 18 February and 25 February the area was surveyedonsite between 7.30am and 5.00pm for usage of larger vehicles, towingvehicles and users of the ramp with the following summary of results.

DESCRIPTION NUMBER

Trailered boat using ramp 1Other trailers including caravans 3Campervan 1Rubber dinghy (not trailered) 1

The results suggest this ramp is mainly used by small (less than 16 foot)aluminium dinghies. The consultation suggests more usage than the surveyshowed, however this could be due to many factors.

The comments regarding Penguin and Blythe River boat ramps are worthnoting as if this ramp were to be closed it may become necessary to improvethe existing ramps or consider another more central location forconstruction of an “all tide” facility to replace the three existing facilitieswhich do not appear to meet the needs of the users. This should beconsidered as part of the Open Space Plan implementation strategy.

Design of a compliant access to Australian Standard AS1742 Part 7Railway Crossings is not feasible due to the short distance betweenPreservation Drive and the railway line. Improving the entry and exitmanoeuvre would require limiting of parking adjacent to both sides of theaccess for approximately 20m.



There are effectively three options available for the Council to propose toTasRail.

1 Close the railway crossing.

2 Limit access by trailers by closing off the boat ramp.

3 Upgrade the crossing with signage, line marking and limit parkingeither side of the access.

If the boat ramp is closed some community members will not be pleased.

If parking is limited the shop owners may be annoyed and upset.

If the crossing is closed then the shop owners and the community will not bepleased with the outcome.

TasRail is unlikely to accept any option unless the crossing is closed or it isupgraded for safety. The outcome that is most likely to be suitable to allparties is Option 3 for an upgraded crossing arrangement.

CONSULTATION

Earlier consultation has taken place as indicated in Minute No. 328/2013.

Further consultation has been undertaken as outlined in the abovediscussion, with nine submissions received and onsite survey undertaken.


Costs associated with closing the boat ramp will be minimal. This workwould be able to be carried out within existing budgets.

The cost of upgrading the crossing, estimated at approximately $15,000,could be funded from the Council’s Railway Crossings budget this financialyear.

Train collisions generally have serious results and this crossing would appearto have some potential for a crash given previous incidents. Given thefrequency of near misses with trains and vehicles with trailers, any scope toreduce this risk is worthwhile.





The Shape of the Place. Improve the value and use of open space. Conserve the physical environment in a way that ensures we have a

healthy and attractive community

The Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure. Invest in and leverage opportunities from our natural environment. Contribute to a safe and healthy environment. Develop and manage sustainable built infrastructure. Contribute to the preservation of the natural environment

Council Sustainability and Governance. Improve the Council’s financial capacity to sustainably meet

community expectations.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that:

1 the information from the community consultation in respect of theSulphur Creek boat ramp be received;

2 the Council adopt the option of upgrading the railway crossing withsignage, line marking and limited parking either side of the accessand seek approval for this from TasRail.’

The Engineering Group Leader’s report is supported.”

Cr van Rooyen moved and Cr Howard seconded, “That:

1 the information from the community consultation in respect of the Sulphur Creekboat ramp be received;

2 the option for upgrading the railway crossing with signage, line marking and limitedparking either side of the access be adopted and the Council seek approval for thisfrom TasRail.”

Carried unanimously


CLOSURE OF MEETING TO THE PUBLIC

111/2015 Meeting closed to the public


“The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide that ameeting of a council is to be open to the public unless the council, by absolutemajority, decides to close the meeting or part of the meeting because it wishes todiscuss a matter (or matters) in a closed meeting and the Regulations provideaccordingly.

Moving into a closed meeting is to be by procedural motion. Once a meeting isclosed, meeting procedures are not relaxed unless the council so decides.

It is considered desirable that the following matter be discussed in a closedmeeting:

. Minutes and notes of other organisations and committees of the Council.

This is a matter relating to:

. information provided to the Council on the condition it is kept confidential.”

Cr Broad moved and Cr Viney seconded, “That the Council close the meeting to thepublic to consider the following matter, it being a matter relating to:

. information provided to the Council on the condition it is kept confidential;

and the Council being of the opinion that it is lawful and proper to close the meeting to thepublic:

. Minutes and notes of other organisations and committees of the Council.”

Carried unanimously and by absolute majority

The Executive Services Officer further reported as follows:

“1 The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide inrespect of any matter discussed at a closed meeting that the generalmanager is to record in the minutes of the open meeting, in a manner thatprotects confidentiality, only the fact that the matter was discussed and is


not to record in the minutes of the open meeting the details of the outcomeunless the council determines otherwise.

2 The Local Government Act 1993 provides that a councillor must not discloseinformation seen or heard at a meeting or part of a meeting that is closed tothe public that is not authorised by the council to be disclosed.

Similarly, an employee of a council must not disclose information acquired assuch an employee on the condition that it be kept confidential.

3 In the event that additional business is required to be conducted by a councilafter the matter(s) for which the meeting has been closed to the public havebeen conducted, the Regulations provide that a council may, by simplemajority, re-open a closed meeting to the public.”



GENERAL MANAGEMENT

112/2015 Minutes and notes of other organisations and committees of the Council

The General Manager reported (reproduced in part) as follows:

“The following minutes and notes of committees of the Council and otherorganisations on which the Council has representation have been received:

…

The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 provide in respect ofany matter discussed at a closed meeting that ‘the general manager –

(a) is to record in the minutes of the open meeting, in a manner that protectsconfidentiality, only the fact that the matter was discussed; and

(b) is not to record in the minutes of the open meeting the details of theoutcome unless the council or council committee determines otherwise.’

The details of this matter are accordingly to be recorded in the minutes of theclosed part of the meeting.”


Closure

There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting closed at8.01pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

Chairperson

(lmm:dil)

Appendices

Minute No. 95/2015 - Schedule of Development & Regulatory ServicesDeterminations

Minute No. 98/2015 - Central Coast Interim Planning Scheme 2013 –Representation - The Friends of the Leven Group

Minute No. 102/2015 - Contracts and agreementsMinute No. 105/2015 - Financial statements

StatusTask Name Budget Notes

Works Schedule 2014�2015 $7,882,500CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAMME 2014�15 $7,882,500

Strategic Projects $1,621,000

Reibey Street beautification $100,000 Eastern block

Dial Regional Sports Complex $200,000 Design...

Wharf Redevelopment $176,000 Pontoon

Wongi Lane bus interchange $320,000 Re,arrangement to allow bus facilities

Leven River seawall & pathway $825,000 Bridge to Airforce Park

Property Management $442,000

Russell Avenue $42,000 Footpath, driveways etc.

Dial Road Development $400,000 Surplus to DRSC south of Recreation Drive

Works Depot $75,000

Ulverstone Depot , Washdown Bay $70,000 Design commenced

Painting Program , Stage 2 $5,000 Shed alterations , BSI audit

Emergency Services $99,000

Forth River , Flood Resilience Program $74,000 Extension of existing foreshore protection

Buttons Creek , Flood Resilience Program $15,000

SES , Building & Equipment $10,000

Roads � Urban Sealed $1,162,000

Street Resealing , Preparation $50,000

Street Resealing $170,000

Victoria Street Laneway $2,000

Traffic Management Safety Improvements $20,000

Victoria Street $180,000 Wongi Lane to Reibey Street

Hobbs Parade $130,000 South Side, Helen Street to Queen Street

Jermyn Street $115,000 South end near Trevor Street

Henslowes Road $45,000 West of Southern Cross Drive

Trevor Street $230,000 South Side , 44 to Wrights Road

Cornelia Street $35,000 Goddard Street to Hendriks Street

Safe Cycling Routes $5,000 Reibey Street bicycle racks

Railway Crossings $20,000

Kerb Ramps $40,000

Crescent Street/Reibey Street/Kings Parade Intersection $20,000

Knights Road/Bladen Lee Crescent Intersection Improvements $50,000 Improve sight distance

Main Road Penguin $50,000 Pedestrian Crossing

Roads � Rural Sealed $1,269,000

Road Resealing , Preparation $100,000

Road Resealing $607,000

Raymond Road Landslip $10,000

South Riana Road $327,000 Final stage , lookout to 1512 access

Gunns Plains Road $0 Deferred , Corner stabilisation works

Leith Road $30,000 Embankment stabilisation

Intersection Improvements $20,000 Nietta sight bench

Nietta Drainage $20,000 Culvert upgrade

Zig Zag Road Area Safety Audit $15,000

Traffic Management Safety Improvements $5,000

South Road Guardrail $35,000 Extension from existing to 530 access

Forth Road Safety Improvements $100,000 Carryover , Seal, Linemarking & Property Purchase

Footpaths $263,000

Victoria Street $50,000 Wongi Lane to Reibey Street

Margaret Place/South Road $38,000 Upgrade walkway link

Quadrant , Lions Park $40,000 Reseal

Midway Point , Preservation Drive $0 Deferred , Section of shared pathway opposite 196

Dial Street $5,000 Carryover , Interpretation Signage

Riverside to Nicholsons Point $5,000 Carryover

Crescent Street/Main Street Railway Crossing $125,000 Carryover , install railway crossing behind information centre

Bridges $312,000

Penguin Creek , Browns Lane Replacement $292,000 Replace

Buttons Creek , Edinborough Road Replacement $0 Deferred , Replace

Forth Overflow Painting $20,000 Re,paint steel rail

East Gawler River , Central Castra Road Replacement $0 Carryover , seal roadway

1/07

30/06

30/06

30/06

30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6July August September October November December January February March April May June

Task Progress

Works Programme 2014�2015 (Schedule indicates site construction only)

Page 1 of 3

Date: Fri 10/04/15 19


Carparks $265,000

River Road Recreation Ground $60,000 Reseal

West Ulverstone Recreation Ground $0 Deferred , Reseal

Turners Beach Recreation Ground $40,000 Reseal

Disabled Parking Spaces $25,000 Linked to Strategy outcomes

Carpark Signage $50,000 Linked to Strategy outcomes

Strategy Items $50,000 Furners, Safety, On Street Linemarking

Riana Recreation Ground $40,000 Gravel & Seal

Drainage $153,000

Side Entry Pits $0 Deferred

Amy Street Outfall $12,000 Remove old pipe support & scour pad

South Road/Lyndara Drive $0 Deferred , Upgrade link , Capacity issue

121A South Road $30,000 Upgrade link , Capacity issue

Trevor Street $0 Deferred

116 Main Road $20,000 Replace blocked pipeline

Lloyd Street Drainage $5,000 Connection to No. 22 Lloyd Street

SW Management Plan Outcomes $0 Deferred

Miscellaneous Drainage $15,000

Westland Drive $30,000 Install subsoil drainage

710 Forth Road $10,000 Rearrangement of pipe outlet

Westella Drive $6,000 Carryover , open drain & topsoil

Fulton Street $10,000 Road Crossing to SEP

Household Garbage $636,000

Penguin RDS , Site Rehabilitation $475,000

Ulverstone Transfer Station , Site Rehabilitation $10,000 Site investigation works.

Resource Recovery Centre , Site Development $5,000 General

Resource Recovery Centre , Under cover storage $2,000

Resource Recovery Centre , Security System $8,000

Resource Recovery Centre , Switchboard Upgrade $5,000

Resource Recovery Centre , Rehabilitation $40,000 Rehabilitate finished levels.

Resource Recovery Centre , Leachate Improvements $50,000 Leachate drainage

Castra Transfer Station , Site Development & Rehabilitation $10,000 Site investigation.

Preston Transfer Station , Site Development & Rehabilitation $6,000

Preston Transfer Station , Safety Improvements $0 Deferred...

South Riana Transfer Station , Site Development & Rehabilitation $5,000 Site investigation.

South Riana Transfer Station , Safety Improvements $20,000 Fall Arrest Gate...

Resource Recovery Centre , Fire Fighting Facility $0 Deferred

Parks $271,500

Beach Access Upgrades $5,000

Beach Road , Coastal Expansion/Tree Line $10,000

Bicentennial Park , West Trail Upgrade $10,000

Fairway Park , Beach Road $10,000

Flagpole Replacements $5,000

Hiscutt Park Siltation Investigation $5,000

Industrial Estate Greenbelt $15,000

Nicholsons Point Redevelopment $35,000

Park Asset Renewals $20,000

Park Signage Upgrades $10,000

Playground Renewals $42,000

Playground Upgrades (Open Space Plan) $14,500

Robins Roost Footpath $15,000

Sulphur Creek Hall Playground $50,000

Public Amenities $287,000

Public Toilet Location/Directional Signage $20,000

Merv Wright Fountain Upgrade $70,000

Public Toilet Signage Upgrade $5,000

Shrine Of Remembrance , Security $3,000

Sulphur Creek Hall Toilets $100,000

Toilet Furniture Upgrade Program $5,000

Toilet Refurbishment Program $20,000

Cemeteries $55,000

30/06

1/07

1/07

1/07

30/06

30/06

30/06

30/06

1/07

1/07

30/06

30/06


Task Progress


Page 2 of 3

Date: Fri 10/04/15 19


Memorial Park , Area E pre,development $5,000

Memorial Park , Entry Upgrade $10,000

Memorial Park , Memorial Garden Extension $15,000

Memorial Park , New Plinths $15,000 Deferred , Adequate plinths available this year , funding reallocated

Memorial Park , Watering System $10,000

Administration Centre $125,000

Carpet Replacement Program $10,000

Lighting Replacement Program $10,000

Painting Program $5,000

Security Upgrade $30,000

Customer Service Counter , 1st Floor $70,000

Cultural Activities $174,000

Ulverstone History Museum , Electrical Upgrade $10,000

Ulverstone History Museum , Façade Replacement Program $10,000

Ulverstone History Museum , Insulation and Amenities $144,000 Awaiting design

Ulverstone History Museum , Weatherproofing $10,000

Control of Animals $25,000

Dog Exercise Area , Penguin $25,000

Housing $140,000

Aged Person Home Units , External Rehabilitation Program $50,000

Aged Person Home Units , Electrial Replacement Program $15,000

Aged Person Home Units , Fencing/Surrounds $10,000 Annlyn Units , Footpath/Pavers

Aged Person Home Units ,Internal Rehabilitation Program $50,000

Aged Person Home Units , HWC Replacement Program $15,000

Cultural Amenities $126,000

Civic Centre , Painting Program $10,000

Ulverstone Wharf Redevelopment , Bollards $20,000

Ulverstone Wharf Redevelopment , Storage Building $96,000

Public Halls and Buildings $45,000

Ulverstone Surf Club , Balcony Structure Repair $5,000

Ulverstone Surf Club , Roof Replacement Program $40,000

Caravan Parks $50,000

Ulverstone Caravan Park , Electrical Upgrade $40,000

Ulverstone Caravan Park , Painting Program $10,000

Swimming Pool and Waterslide $10,000

Waterslide Pump Renewal $10,000

Active Recreation $89,000

Goal Post Renewals $15,000

Recreation Ground Lighting Assessments $6,000

River Park , Ground Resurface $10,000

Ulverstone, Showgrounds, Sports and Leisure Centre , Community Precinct Carpark

$13,000 Deferred

Ulverstone, Showgrounds, Sports and Leisure Centre , Pavillion Refurbishment

$40,000

Poultry Pavillion Review $5,000

Recreation Centres $18,000

Ulverstone, Showgrounds, Sports and Leisure Centre , Domitory Washing Machine

$2,000

Ulverstone, Showgrounds, Sports and Leisure Centre , Office Refurbishment

$6,000

Ulverstone, Showgrounds, Sports and Leisure Centre , Squash Court Lighting Upgrade Program

$10,000

Visitor Information Services $150,000

Ulverstone Visitor Information Centre , Partial Roof Replacement $150,000

Child Care $20,000

Ulverstone Child Care Centre , Internal/external painting program $5,000

Ulverstone Child Care Centre , Shade Sail $15,000

LEGEND $0

Not Started $0

Commenced (Construction or Preliminaries) $0

Complete $0

Deferred $0 Deferred


Task Progress


Page 3 of 3

Date: Fri 10/04/15 19

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL · 4/20/2015 · Life Christian Church - Roofs for Vanuatu...

Documents

Transcript of CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL · 4/20/2015 · Life Christian Church - Roofs for Vanuatu...