Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – 4 JUNE 2012 1 

COUNCIL MEETING 

MONDAY 4 JUNE 2012 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE 

1. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES .......................................................................................................3 

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES...........................................................................................................3 

3. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATION............................................................................................................3 

4. COUNCIL WORKSHOPS.....................................................................................................................3 

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS OF ALDERMAN OR CLOSE ASSOCIATE............................................4 

6. TABLING OF PETITIONS ...................................................................................................................5 

7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME...................................................................................................................6 

7.1 PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON NOTICE..............................................................................................6 

7.2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE ....................................................................................6 

7.3 ANSWERS TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE........................................................6 

7.4 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE................................................................................................6 

8. DEPUTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC..................................................................................7 

9. MOTIONS ON NOTICE ......................................................................................................................8 

9.1 NOTICE OF MOTION – ALD JAMES 

BEGONIA STREET, LINDISFARNE......................................................................................................8 

10. REPORTS FROM OUTSIDE BODIES ..................................................................................................10 

10.1 REPORTS FROM SINGLE AND JOINT AUTHORITIES.........................................................................10 

� SOUTHERN TASMANIAN COUNCILS AUTHORITY 

� COPPING REFUSE DISPOSAL SITE JOINT AUTHORITY 

� SOUTHERN WASTE STRATEGY AUTHORITY 

10.2 REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVE BODIES.....18 

11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS ..................................................................................................................29 

11.1 WEEKLY BRIEFING REPORTS .........................................................................................................29 

11.2 DETERMINATION ON PETITIONS TABLED AT PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS ...............................30


11.3 PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS 

11.3.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION D-2010/37 - 93 TANUNDAL STREET, HOWRAH - SWIM CENTRE 

HEAT PUMP ENCLOSURE................................................................................................................32 

11.3.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION D-2012/26 - 465 AND 465A CLIFTON BEACH ROAD, CLIFTON 

BEACH - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO CLUBHOUSE .............................................................48 

11.3.3 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SD-2010/79 - 8 JETTY ROAD, SOUTH ARM - 1 LOT ............................65 

11.3.4 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SD-2012/9 - 64 KINGS ROAD, CAMBRIDGE - 2 LOTS AND BALANCE..82 

11.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE - NIL ITEMS 

11.5 ASSET MANAGEMENT - NIL ITEMS 

11.6 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - NIL ITEMS 

11.7 GOVERNANCE 

11.7.1 ESTIMATES 2012/2013.................................................................................................................104 

11.7.2 ROSNY HILL NATURE RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.........................................178 

11.7.3 RESPONSE TO LGAT - STATUTORY WASTE LEVY ........................................................................212 

11.7.4 SOUTH ARM PENINSULA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY CENTRE – FUTURE 

MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................................................226 

11.7.5 SOUTH ARM CALVERTON HALL AND RECREATION GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT......................233 

12. ALDERMEN’S QUESTION TIME.....................................................................................................238 

12.1 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE ......................................................................................................238 

12.2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE ................................................................................238 

12.3 ANSWERS TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE....................................................238 

12.4 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE............................................................................................238 

13. CLOSED MEETING........................................................................................................................239 

13.1 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

13.2 REPORTS FROM SINGLE AND JOINT AUTHORITIES 

13.3 SPORTING FACILITY – LEASE AGREEMENT 

BUSINESS TO BE CONDUCTED AT THIS MEETING IS TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH 

IT IS SET OUT IN THIS AGENDA UNLESS THE COUNCIL BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DETERMINES 

OTHERWISE


1. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES 

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

(File No 10/03/01) 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 May 2012 and the Special council Meeting 

of 21 May 2012, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed. 

3. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATION 

4. COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 

The following workshops were conducted by Council since its last ordinary Council Meeting: 

PURPOSE DATE 

Rosny Hill 

Draft Rates 

Howrah Bowls Club Grant Application 21 May 

Planning Scheme 

Presentation by Director of Local Government 28 May 


That Council notes the workshops conducted.


5. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS OF ALDERMAN OR CLOSE ASSOCIATE 

File No 

In accordance with Regulation 8 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 

2005 and Council’s adopted Code of Conduct, the Mayor requests Aldermen to indicate whether 

they have, or are likely to have a pecuniary interest (any pecuniary benefits or pecuniary 

detriment) or conflict of interest in any item on the Agenda.


6. TABLING OF PETITIONS 

(File No 10/03/12) 

(Petitions received by Aldermen may be tabled at the next ordinary Meeting of the Council or 

forwarded to the General Manager within seven (7) days after receiving the petition. 

Petitions are not to be tabled if they do not comply with Section 57(2) of the Local Government 

Act, or are defamatory, or the proposed actions are unlawful.


7. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Public question time at ordinary Council meetings will not exceed 15 minutes. An individual 

may ask questions at the meeting. Questions may be submitted to Council in writing on the 

Friday 10 days before the meeting or may be raised from the Public Gallery during this segment 

of the meeting. 

The Chairman may request an Alderman or Council officer to answer a question. No debate is 

permitted on any questions or answers. Questions and answers are to be kept as brief as 

possible. 

7.1 PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 

(Seven days before an ordinary Meeting, a member of the public may give written notice 

to the General Manager of a question to be asked at the meeting). A maximum of two 

questions may be submitted in writing before the meeting. 

Questions on notice and their answers will be included in the minutes. 

Nil. 

7.2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 

The Mayor may address Questions on Notice submitted by members of the public. 

Nil. 

7.3 ANSWERS TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 

Nil. 

7.4 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

The Chairperson may invite members of the public present to ask questions without 

notice. 

Questions are to relate to the activities of the Council. Questions without notice will be 

dependent on available time at the meeting. 

When dealing with Questions without Notice that require research and a more detailed 

response the Chairman may require that the question be put on notice and in writing. 

Wherever possible, answers will be provided at the next ordinary Council Meeting. 

Questions without notice and their answers will not be recorded.


8. DEPUTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 

(File No10/03/04) 

(In accordance with Regulation 38 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 

2005 and in accordance with Council Policy, deputation requests are invited to address the 

Meeting and make statements or deliver reports to Council)


9. MOTIONS ON NOTICE 

9.1 NOTICE OF MOTION – ALD JAMES 

BEGONIA STREET, LINDISFARNE 

(File No 10/03/05) 

In accordance with Notice given Ald James intends to move the following Motion: 

“1. That with a view to improving the traffic flows and road safety in Begonia Street, 

Malunna and Beach Roads, Lindisfarne, Council authorises the General Manager 

to undertake the following actions: 

� liaise with the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) to 

approve a change in speed limit to 40kph for the road sections along Malunna 

and Beach Roads, from the Lincoln Street / Malunna Road intersection to the 

Malunna Road / Begonia Street intersection and install 40kph repeater signs 

at regular intervals along these road sections and 

� initiate the Local Government (Highways) Act Section 31(1) – (3) process to 

implement a one-way west to east bound traffic flow, between the eastern 

property boundary of 164 Begonia Street and the junction of Begonia Street 

and Flagstaff Gully Road. 

2. That the General Manager provides an updated officer report on the progress and 

timing of the proposed capital works sponsored by the Federal Government at the 

junction of the East Derwent and Tasman Highways, Rose Bay”. 

EXPLANATORY NOTES 

In the officer’s report associated with Begonia Street on the 5 September 2011 Council 

Meeting agenda, it was noted that when giving consideration to the gravel section of 

Begonia Street the report stated: 

‘…there would seem to be 2 key issues: 

� strategic function of Begonia Street in the road network; and 

� road safety. 

Closely aligned to these 2 key issues are 2 principal objectives that should be 

considered as part of any assessment of the key issues. These 2 principal objectives 

can be summarised as: 

� arterial traffic should be confined to arterial roads with residential roads 

handling only residential traffic; and 

� any upgrade or modification to the road network should reduce risk of 

conflict.’ 

/contd on Page 9…


NOTICE OF MOTION – ALD JAMES 

BEGONIA STREET, LINDISFARNE /contd… 

In terms of the 2 principal objectives, the one-way traffic flow is an attempt to dissuade 

arterial traffic from using a residential road, and to reduce conflict. 

The physical changes needed to implement the one way proposal are minimal in terms of 

technical difficulty and financial cost; only signage is required. Costly re-routing 

infrastructure is not required, as a motorist who travels along the Flagstaff Gully Link 

Road and finds the changed traffic conditions will be able to turn around at the turning 

circle near the quarry. The changes could be easily reversed if they were found to be 

unsuccessful. 

If the Transport Commission gives its permission, the alteration could be in place within 

a few months, and it would be relatively easy to police. 

This motion does not interfere with the last Council decision in relation to Begonia Street 

on 5 September 2011 which included the resolution that: 

‘…Council not lodge an application to widen and seal the gravel section of Begonia 

Street as part of the current round of Black Spot funding and reassess the matter 

once the proposed subdivision is commenced and the necessary DIER arterial road 

junction treatments have been constructed.’ 

Some ideas suggested at the recent public meeting have already been canvassed with the 

Council officers and DIER, i.e. the stop sign and the 2 tonne limit. It has been 

determined by DIER that the first suggestion is not warranted, and Council officers have 

advised that the second suggestion is likely to create unforeseen consequences including 

some service vehicles and motor homes being unable to use Begonia Street. 

R H James 

ALDERMAN 

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS 

Council can initiate the Section 31 process under the Local Government (Highways) Act. 

After statutory consultation and Council’s consideration of the representations, the 

approval of the one way traffic proposal rests with the Transport Commission.


10. REPORTS FROM OUTSIDE BODIES 

This agenda item is listed to facilitate the receipt of both informal and formal reporting 

from various outside bodies upon which Council has a representative involvement. 


Provision is made for reports from Single and Joint Authorities if required 

Council is a participant in the following Single and Joint Authorities. These Authorities are 

required to provide quarterly reports to participating Councils, and these will be listed under this 

segment as and when received. 

� SOUTHERN TASMANIAN COUNCILS AUTHORITY 

Representative: Ald Doug Chipman, Mayor or nominee 

Quarterly Reports 

Not required. 

Representative Reporting 

� COPPING REFUSE DISPOSAL SITE JOINT AUTHORITY 

Representatives: Ald Don Cusick 

(Ald Sharyn von Bertouch, Deputy Representative) 


The Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority has distributed its Quarterly Report 

for the period January to March 2012. 

In accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) 

Regulations 2005 the Report will be tabled in Closed Meeting. 

Representative Reporting 

/contd on Page 11…


� SOUTHERN WASTE STRATEGY AUTHORITY 

Representative: Ald Richard James 

(Ald Sharyn von Bertouch, Proxy) 


The Southern Waste Strategy Authority has distributed its Quarterly Report for the 

period January to March 2012 (Attachment 1). 


That the Report of the Southern Waste Strategy Authority for the Quarter ending 

31 March 2012 be received by Council. 

Representative Reporting

Quarterly Report – March 2012 

1. Summary 

This report on the general and financial performance of the Southern 

Waste Strategy Authority (SWSA) for the March 2012 quarter is 

provided to member councils, in accordance with Section 36B of the 

Local Government Act 1993. 

2. General Performance 

2.1 Projects 

� The SWSA Project Officer advises that federal funding for the 

Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) has been dropped. 

He recently joined the Australian Education for Sustainability 

Alliance at an advocacy day in Canberra. The main objectives for the 

day were: 

To achieve a public commitment, and plan from all political parties 

by April 2013 to support and enhance quality Education for 

Sustainability by realising AESA’s policy platform by 2015 in order to 

achieve best practice. 

Additionally the Alliance wants the government to strengthen EfS by 

a funding commitment for its policy platforms and to have the other 

parties support its policy platform in their election policies. 

The AESA will create a pathway to strengthening the following policy 

areas:

a. The National Curriculum 

b. The Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative 

c. Tertiary Sustainability 

d. Professional Development.. 

� The new website www.taswaste.com.au is continuing to be 

expanded with the number of hits being maintained at a high level. 

Significant follow up phone calls in the office are received from 

persons who have initially accessed the website. 

� The Household Hazardous Waste Co-ordinator (at LGAT) has 

reported that there are insufficient funds left to conduct a collection 

similar to the current year. This has occurred because the volumes 

collected last November were far in excess of previous years and 

consequently the disposal costs were significantly higher. The past 

arrangements have been 4 collection days per cycle (2 North, 2 

South). This would mean that the cost for 2012/13 would be slightly 

over $200,000 and with SWSA meeting 49% of the LG cost. If there 

was only 1 collection in the South the cost would be about $150,000 

with $50,000 of State money currently being held by LGAT, which 

would leave approx. $100,000 to be met by LG.. If SWSA’s 

proportion was reduced to 33% because of the reduction in 

collections, the amount SWSA would have to pay would be within 

the proposed budget allocation for 2012/13. The Board has agreed 

to put this proposal to a meeting of Regional Waste Groups to be 

held in May. 

� The Organics collection trials in the North and North West are 

continuing and Hobart City Council is proposing to commence one in 

the near future in South Hobart. 

� The Project Officer reports that, following the recent free e-waste 

drop-off held across the State, approximately 140,000 kg of product 

was collected (which was in excess of the 30,000kg per site 

required). Despite the disorganisation preceding the event and the 

short time frame for promotion, the weekend went ahead smoothly. 

Some Council feedback is that the event was not adequately 

publicised and many members of the public were not aware of it. 

The Board had previously been advised of officers’ concerns 

regarding this matter who can only concur with regarding the 

publicity. 

2

This will be the only collection funded by Apple but the new 

Commonwealth Scheme will commence shortly although it is unclear 

when it may reach Tasmania. The three Regional Waste Groups 

have agreed to meet in the near future to discuss a uniform state 

wide implementation of the scheme as SWSA is already receiving 

approaches from commercial enterprises (suppliers of collection 

services) regarding future collections. 

� The “Groundswell” composting trial is progressing well at Barretta 

(Kingborough). The VRM inoculant has been purchased and the 

current site is being cleared of existing composting heaps. SWSA 

will continue to work closely with Kingborough Council to progress 

the trial to its conclusion. 

2.2 Governance 

� The Waste Advisory Committee met in February and the final 

minutes have not as yet been made available. The minutes will be 

distributed to Councils when available. WAC has decided to convene 

a workshop of participants in the waste industry to commence the 

review of the State Waste and Resources Management Strategy as 

well as plan for future initiates in Waste Management. The date of 

the next meeting has not yet been set but it is envisaged it will take 

place early in the new financial year. 

� The mooted State mandated Waste Levy discussions progress; 

Alan Garcia (LGAT) has held preliminary discussions with State 

Representatives using the Blue Environment discussion paper as a 

basis. 

It is anticipated that a final proposition if one can be reached will be 

considered by the July General Meeting of LGAT. 

In the meantime the Chairman and CEO will endeavour to visit all 

Members as soon as there is a firm proposition to explain the details 

of the proposals to elected members around late May/early June. 

� The Board last year decided to seek cheaper options regarding the 

preparation of the Financial Statements for 2011/12. Following some 

investigations, it was agreed that the Statements would be produced 

internally in 2011/12 which would be the least cost option for SWSA 

and that the situation would be reviewed later in the year to 

determine the success or otherwise of this alternative. 

3

� Veolia MRF Gate Prices – The CEO and Project Officer recently held 

separate meetings with both Veolia and Aussie Waste regarding 

future increases in the gate price at Veolia’s MRF’s. Aussie Waste is 

concerned by the significant jump being proposed by Veolia in a 

relatively short period of time. It doesn’t feel that this proposed 

increase gives fair warning and adequate time to advise its 

customers. 

Veolia has defended this move, citing a drop in commodity prices, an 

increase in export freight costs and the foreign exchange rate having 

an effect on sales value. 

This is further exacerbated by the fact the Victorian Government has 

introduced a tax on freight coming into the Port of Melbourne. Veolia 

advised that the Commonwealth has made $M20 available to 

Tasmania to offset the shipping increases. The Chair has written to 

the State Minister who will recommend the distribution of these 

funds requesting that an appropriate amount be made available to 

offset the increase in price for shipping recyclate to the mainland. 

The CEO recommended that Aussie Waste seek some expert 

independent advice on the matter. 

In addition the CEO has contacted the other Regional Waste Groups 

in an endeavour to co-ordinate a unified response to Veolia’s 

demands. 

Councils serviced by Aussie Waste will be immediately affected and 

the increases will gradually flow through to Veolia customers. 

This matter will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of Regional 

Waste Groups. 

3. Financial Performance 

3.1 Profit & Loss 

Following this Report is the Profit and Loss (Budget Analysis) for the 

Financial Year 2011/12 to March 31 st 2012. 

This Analysis shows that the year to date has a surplus of $68,860 

compared to the budgeted surplus of $37,148 for the same period. 

The significant variations are:- 

Income 

There are no significant variations in income. 

Expenditure 

Parking – No account was received in March. Two months will be 

paid in April 

4

Advertising Expenditure is $25,858 under budget. This has come 

about because of the good value package deals we have been able 

to obtain from Southern Cross. A new advertising campaign has 

commenced but there will be some savings in this account at 30 th 

June. This can be used to offset the over-expenditure on the HHW 

Program. 

Consultants and Contractors is $11,439 under budget. At this stage 

there is no indication that further expenditure will be required on 

consultants during the balance of the year. 

General Expenses is $1,724 over budget. The cost of registration for 

the Waste Conference has been included and it is anticipated that 

the account will be in balance by 30 th June. 

Households Hazardous Waste Programs is $11,581 over budget. 

Because of the huge increase in volume collected, the actual cost far 

exceeded what was anticipated. This will be an over-expenditure for 

the year. 

Motor Vehicle Expenses (MVX-DES) is $2,100 over budget. A major 

service including the purchase of 4 tyres has meant this item is 

over-expended. The Board was advised of this possibility when it 

was decided not to replace the existing vehicles. 

Printing, Postage & Stationery is $450 over budget. A misallocation 

has been identified and a journal entry will be prepared transferring 

about $1000 to Travel & Entertainment. 

Subscriptions are $221 over budget. Most of these expenses are 

annual amounts which occur in the first half of the year. The account 

should be back in balance by end of June 

Travel & Entertainment is $7944 under budget. This will used for 

travel to the Waste Conference. Note comment re printing which will 

also be charged against this account. 

Overall the financial report is satisfactory and SWSA will be able to 

pay all bills as they fall due. 

5

David Sales 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

24 th May 2012 

6


10.2 REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER 

REPRESENTATIVE BODIES 

AUDIT COMMITTEE 

(File No 07/02/12) 

Chairperson’s Report – May 2012 

The Audit Committee met on 16 May 2012 and I attach a copy of the draft Minutes of the 

Meeting for tabling at Council’s Meeting (Attachment 1). 

The May 2012 meeting focused on the remaining projects in the 2011/12 Annual Audit 

Programme, with a final report being received on Project 27 - Development Applications and 

Compliance. A number of process improvements were identified from this audit and 

implementation of management action plans associated with these findings will be monitored by 

the Committee. No significant matters were raised in these audits that warranted further 

investigation. 

Importantly, the Committee received an update and presentation on the progress to-date of the 

implementation of the objectives envisaged in Project 26 – Long Term Financial and Asset 

Management Sustainability Planning. It is recognised by the Committee that additional work on 

the Project will occur over the ensuing months. Furthermore, Council’s own consideration on 

this important policy and financial strategy has yet to occur. The Committee is keen to ensure 

that it adds value to this most important project and assists Council to best position Clarence in 

terms of its long term financial sustainability. To this end the Committee intends to continue to 

overview this project as a standing agenda item throughout the 2012/13 period. 

The Committee also gave consideration to a variety of other potential projects for the 2012/13 

Annual Audit Programme. A mixture of projects has been identified which are listed below and 

now recommended for confirmation by the Council: 

1. Risk Management - Public Events 

The Council organises and conducts a number of significant public events during each 

calendar year particularly over the summer months eg Seafarers Festival, Carols by 

Candlelight, Jazz festival etc. Inherent with the conduct of such events issues of public 

safety and public liability are important risk management considerations.


The review would look at the efficiency and effectiveness of current practices in the 

management of events benchmarked against industry standards and guidelines for public 

event management with an emphasis on risk and public safety. 

2. Review of Council Office OH&S Responsibilities 

The Council has a clear legal responsibility to all persons occupying/visiting its facilities. 

Its workplaces are required to cater not only for a large number of office-based staff, but 

Aldermen, committee members and the public. Office accommodation is incorporated in 

several locations including the Council offices, depot, Family Day Care facility and 

School House Gallery. These facilities have varying characteristics: The Council offices 

are some 40 years old with the last meaningful alteration being undertaken in the mid 

1990’s (the area currently occupied by Integrated Assessment); the Council Chambers 

and reception area is essentially original; the Council depot is a similar vintage and has 

undergone little significant change; the Family Day Care facility was constructed within 

the last 10 years; and the School House Gallery was designed as a replica heritage 

structure. 

The needs of both the organisation and the Council itself have not diminished over time 

and the offices in particular have experienced a continual increase in demand and need 

for space. It would be appropriate to assess the various office and public spaces in 

respect of OH&S obligations to staff, Aldermen, committee members and general public. 

Advice would need to be obtained with respect to such an assessment. However, it 

would likely consider issues such as appropriate areas of space, access/egress, corridors 

and other elements of physical layout, security, fire systems, temperature and air quality 

control, and electrical, data and communication wiring. Issues such as public access, 

capacity and DDA compliance are also matters relevant particularly in respect to the 

Council Chamber and meeting environments which were designed before many of the 

current regulations on such matters were in place. 

3. Child Care, School Holiday Programme and Out of School Hours Care 

Council operates a range of services in respect to the delivery of children support 

services within the community. These programmes are funded/administered by the 

Commonwealth and State Governments (with Council as the delivery agency) and entail 

service delivery, reporting, claims processing obligations for Council.


The review would focus on processes and controls relating to financial transactions 

(including billing, payments, and debt management), and administrative requirements 

associated with receipt of grants, subsidies and parent fees as well as including 

attendance registration, activity management and risk management. 

4. HR/Payroll 

To assess that appropriate controls are in place in regard to all payroll activities and that 

statutory and other registers and records are adequately maintained. The review could 

also consider whether appropriate Human Resource policies are in place and are 

administered in accordance with statutory and other requirements. 

Whilst a similar audit project on this subject was undertaken in 2006 a number of staff 

changes in this work area have occurred in the intervening period and it may now be 

timely to again consider this area. 

The Committee is now seeking that the Council now endorse the above Audit Programme for 

2012/13. The Committee is next due to meet in September 2012 with the view to appointing 

service providers to undertake audit projects. It is anticipated that the work on the programme 

will be able to commence before the end of the calendar year. 


A. That the Chairperson’s Report be received by Council and notes that the Committee will 

maintain an on-going overview on the implementation of Project 26 - Long Term 

Financial and Asset Management Planning and Sustainability Planning; and 

B. That Council endorses the following matters as the basis of the Audit Committee’s Audit 

Programme for 2012/2013. 

1. Risk Management - Public Events; 

2. Review of Council Office OH&S Responsibilities; 

3. Child Care, School Holiday Programme and Out of School Hours Care; and 

4. HR/Payroll. 

Attachments: 1. Minutes of Audit Committee Meeting (8) 

Ron Ward 

CHAIRPERSON

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AUDIT COMMITTEE HELD IN 

THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECEPTION ROOM AT THE COUNCIL 

OFFICES, BLIGH STREET, ROSNY PARK ON WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2012 

Note: this meeting was initially scheduled for Wednesday, 9 May 2012 and was, with the agreement of 

the Committee members, rescheduled to 16 May 2012. 

HOUR CALLED: 4.00 pm 

PRESENT: 

The meeting commenced at 4.05 pm 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Mr R Ward (Chairperson) 

Mr P Brown 

Mr J Mazengarb (arrived 4.21pm) 

Ald H Chong 

Ald M McManus 

Ald S von Bertouch (Proxy) 

IN ATTENDANCE: General Manager 

(Mr A Paul) 

Corporate Secretary 

(Mr A van der Hek) 

Manager Integrated Assessment 

(Mr Ross Lovell)

AUDIT COMMITTEE – 16 May 2012 2 

1. APOLOGIES 

Mr J Mazengarb for late arrival. 

Mr F Barta 

2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

MINUTES 

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Audit Committee dated 3 April 2012 have been circulated to 

Committee Members. 


That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Audit Committee dated 3 April 2012, as circulated, be 

confirmed. 

Decision: It was RESOLVED 

3. ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN FOR 20011/12 

“That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Audit Committee dated 3 April 

2012, as circulated, be confirmed”. 

The following Projects make up the 2011/2012 Annual Audit Plan programme formally adopted 

by the Council: 

� Project 25 - EFT Transactions; (Final report dealt with at 3 April 2012 meeting) 

� Project 26 - Long Term Financial and Asset Management Sustainability Planning; 

� Project 27 - Development and Building Applications and Compliance; 

� Project 28 - GST – Meeting Obligations and Maximising Benefits (Including Division 

81 Review); (Final report dealt with at 3 April 2012 meeting) 

� Project 29 - Insurance Covers (Final report dealt with at 3 April 2012 meeting). 

Projects 25, 28 and 29 have been previous dealt with by the Committee and actions arising now 

form part of the Management Action Plan.


3.1 Project 26 - Long Term Financial and Asset Management Sustainability Planning 

Project 26 - Long Term Financial and Asset Management Sustainability Planning is 

designed to provide guidance to Council in its strategic approach to its future financial 

and the management of its asset. 

An updated Scope/Implementation Plan for Project 26 – Long Term Financial and Asset 

Management Sustainability Planning, prepared by the Corporate Treasurer was received 

at the last meeting of the committee. Background material on this project was provided. 

The General Manager provided a specific presentation to the Committee on the financial 

sustainability issues facing the Council and addressed other matters arising from the 

Implementation Plan. 

Mr Mazengarb arrived at the Meeting at this stage (4.21pm). 

Project 26 Recommendation 

A. That the update and presentation prepared by the Corporate Treasurer on 

Scope/Implementation Plan for Project 26 – Long Term Financial and Asset 

Management Sustainability Planning be received. 

B. That the Project be the subject of further review as to its implementation at 

subsequent meetings. 


“A. That the update and presentation prepared by the Corporate 

Treasurer on Scope/Implementation Plan for Project 26 – 

Long Term Financial and Asset Management 

Sustainability Planning be received. 

B. That the implementation of the Project be the subject of 

on-going review as a standing item at subsequent meetings. 

C. That the financial sustainability modelling under the 

Project be the subject of further specific consideration by 

the Committee at its February 2013 meeting prior to the 

Council’s consideration of its 2013/14 annual budget”. 

3.2 Project 27 - Development Applications and Compliance 

Based on the nature of the matters to be reviewed under this Project it was agreed by the 

Committee that it be undertaken “in-house” by the Corporate Support Group under the 

direction of the Corporate Secretary. 

Conduct of the Audit involved 4 members of the Corporate Support group, namely, 

Corporate Secretary, Corporate Lawyer, Council Lawyer and Risk Management Coordinator.


A copy of the final report on Project 27 - Development Applications and Compliance 

was attached. 

The Manager Integrated Assessment Mr Ross Lovell was present for the consideration of 

this item. 

The Corporate Secretary provided an overview on the undertaking of this project and he 

and Mr Lovell answered questions from the Committee arising from the audit report. 

Project 27 Recommendation 

That the progress Report from the Corporate Secretary on Project 27 – Development 

Applications and Compliance be noted. 


“A. That the Report from the Corporate Secretary on Project 27 

– Development Applications and Compliance be received. 

B. That the agreed Management Action Plan be endorsed and 

be the subject of review as to implementation at 

subsequent meetings”. 

4. CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN FOR 2012/13 

To allow for early commencement of next year’s audit programme the Committee may wish at 

this stage to consider suitable items (usually up to 4 items) for inclusion in the Annual Audit 

Plan for 2012/13. These considerations would also extend to any other matters that members 

may wish to put forward. 

While the audit plan is purely a matter for the Committee to determine and recommend to 

Council, suggested topics for inclusion in the 2012/13 programme include: 

� Fleet Management (including lease of plant) 

� Debt Collection 

� HR/Payroll 

� Materials Handling 

� Stores Management 

� Risk management – Public Events 

� Child Care, School Holiday Programme and Out of School Hours Care 

� OH&S Review of Council Premises


Brief outlines for these projects were provided. The outlines provided should be regarded as an 

indicative description only, as full scoping of the projects would still need to be undertaken. The 

level of importance and value of the identified projects does, however, vary. 

Additionally, to assist the Committee’s consideration of projects, a schedule of audit projects 

previously undertaken by the Committee was attached. 

As has been the focus in previous audits, it is considered important that any of the audit projects 

undertaken are not simply compliance and/or fault finding in nature, but rather, focused at 

providing the Committee and the organisation with valuable input and advice on enhancements 

and improvements. 


A. That the Committee considers and determines on the suitable projects that it wishes to 

recommend for inclusion in the 2011/2012 Annual Audit Plan. 

B. That following Council’s adoption of the Plan, service providers/auditors be requested to 

prepare scoping documentation in respect to the new auditable matters together with 

details of the resourcing and expertise that the service providers/auditors propose to 

utilise on the projects, for consideration by the Committee. 


“A. That the following projects be listed for consideration in setting 

the Annual Audit Plan for 2013/14: 

- Asset Performance; and 

- Carbon Tax implications. 

B. “That the Committee recommends to the Council that the 

following projects be included on the Audit Plan for 

2012/13: 

- Risk Management - Public Events; 

- OH&S Review of Council Premises/Facilities; 

- Child Care, School Holiday programme and Out of School 

Hours Care (including registration, activity management 

and risk management); and 

- HR/Payroll. 

C. That following Council’s adoption of the Plan, service 

providers/auditors be requested to prepare scoping documentation 

in respect to the audit projects together with details of the 

resourcing and expertise that the service providers/auditors 

propose to utilise on the projects, for consideration by the 

Committee”.


5. ACCOUNTING POLICY AND ANNUAL STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS 

The opportunity for the Committee to view and have possibly input into the Council accounting 

policy was recently raised by the Committee. Additionally the Committee also sought to 

preview the Annual Statement of Accounts before final submission. 

This matter was listed for the Committee to discuss the timeframe for when this input could be 

facilitated based on the requirement on Council to finalise these processes. In respect to these 

requirements, the General Manager provided further clarification to the meeting particularly on 

the timing difficulties associated with the deadline for finalisation of the annual accounts for 

submission to the Auditor General. 


A matter for the Committee to determine. 


6. MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 

“A. That, as suggested, the draft Accounting Policies policy be 

distributed to Committee members for comment prior to 

preparation of the 2012/13 Financial Statements; 

B. That for information purposes, the draft (as submitted) of the 

Financial Statements be distributed to Committee members at the 

same time as being submitted to the Auditor General; 

C. That a copy of the final Financial Statements be distributed to 

the Committee as part of its normal consideration of the Auditor 

Generals external audit; and 

D. That the Chairperson liaise with the Corporate Secretary on 

identifying suitable meeting dates in September and November to 

best suit the annual Statement of Accounts and external audit 

programme”. 

An updated Management Action Plan, including (as highlighted) management plan actions 

arising from Projects 25, 28 and 29, was provided. 

The Committee will see that the plan has included an outstanding action arising from Project 16 

- Emergency Management as a reminder to receive update reports from the Emergency 

Management Committee following testing exercises conducted on the Clarence Emergency 

Management Plan. 

The Management Action Plan also includes any updated management actions undertaking in the 

interim period.



That the advice be noted. 


“A. That the advice be noted; and 

7. SIGNIFICANT INSURANCE/LEGAL CLAIMS 

B. That the General Manager and Corporate Secretary follow up on 

the status of the alternative backup power supply proposed under 

the Management Action Plan for Project 19 and provide a further 

report on this matter to the next Committee meeting”. 

There has been no claims activity since the last report to the Committee. 

Claims review meetings between the insurers and Council staff, occur on an infrequent basis. At 

the next available time, the need to continue with the long term listed matters will be raised with 

the insurers. 


That the advice be noted. 


8. ANY FURTHER BUSINESS 

“That the advice be noted”. 

Mr Mazengarb suggested that the Committee work towards establishing a full year calendar for 

its 


“That to achieve a full year calendar of meetings, the Committee meetings 

be scheduled to occur on at least a quarterly basis and that the 

Chairperson and the corporate secretary liaise on the development of a 

suitable meeting schedule for 2012/13”.


9. TIME, DATE, PLACE OF NEXT MEETING 

Note: The Audit Committee is constituted by the Council as a Special Committee under the 

provisions of Section 24 of the Local Government Act 1993. The Committee’s charter provides 

for the purpose of the Committee and the manner in which it is to conduct its meetings. There 

are no further obligations on the Committee under the Local Government Act as to meeting 

conduct and timing of meetings of the Committee and as such these matters are at the discretion 

of the Committee. 


That the Committee determine a suitable date (depending on the outcomes determined under 

Item 5) for the scheduling of the next Audit Committee Meeting. 

Decision: It was NOTED 

“That the timing for the next 2 meetings of the Committee and for the 

forthcoming year was as decided under Items 5 and 8”. 

There being no further business the Meeting was declared closed at 5.37pm


11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 

11.1 WEEKLY BRIEFING REPORTS 

(File No. 10/02/02) 

The Weekly Briefing Reports of 14, 21 and 28 May 2012 have been circulated to Aldermen. 


That the information contained in the Weekly Briefing Reports of 14, 21 and 28 May 2012 be 

noted.


11.2 DETERMINATION ON PETITIONS TABLED AT PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS- 4 JUNE 2012 31 

11.3 PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS 

In accordance with Regulation 25 (1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) 

Regulations 2005, the Mayor advises that the Council intends to act as a Planning Authority 

under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, to deal with the following items:


11.3.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION D-2010/37 - 93 TANUNDAL STREET, 

HOWRAH - SWIM CENTRE HEAT PUMP ENCLOSURE 

(File No T004-93) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to consider the application made for a heat pump 

enclosure at a swimming centre at 93 Tanundal Street, Howrah. 

RELATION TO PLANNING PROVISIONS 

The land is zoned Residential under the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 (the 

Scheme). In accordance with the Scheme the proposal is a Discretionary 

development. 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

The report on this item details the basis and reasons for the recommendation. Any 

alternative decision by Council will require a full statement of reasons in order to 

maintain the integrity of the Planning approval process and to comply with the 

requirements of the Judicial Review Act and the Local Government (Meeting 

Procedures) Regulations 2005. 

Council is required to exercise a discretion within the statutory 42 day period which 

has been extended to expire on 6 June 2012. 

CONSULTATION 

The proposal was advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and 1 

representation was received raising the following issues: 

� noise; 

� emissions; 

� visibility; 

� maintenance of fence; and 

� Council approvals. 


A. That the Development Application for the Swim Centre Heat Pump Enclosure 

at 93 Tanundal Street, Howrah (Cl Ref D-2010/37) be approved subject to the 

following conditions and advice. 

1. GEN AP1 – ENDORSED PLANS.


2. Noise emitted from the heat pump must not exceed the noise levels as 

described in the Environmental Management and Pollution Control 

(Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations, 2004 so as not to interfere with the 

amenity of the area. A report from a suitably qualified person 

verifying the noise levels as not exceeding the Environmental 

Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous Noise) 

Regulations, 2004 is to be submitted to Council within 30 days of 

completion of the works. Should the report recommend that additional 

measures are necessary to achieve compliance with the Regulations 

these works must be undertaken and completed within 60 days of the 

date of the acoustic report. 

B. That the details and conclusions included in the Associated Report be recorded 

as the reasons for Council’s decision in respect of this matter. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ASSOCIATED REPORT 

1. BACKGROUND 

The swim centre (currently known as the Seahorse Swim Centre) was approved in 

1980 under Permit DA 34/80. 

Council has received complaints over a number of years concerning the noise created 

by the swimming pool’s heat pump. Council officers inspected the site on 26 October 

2011 and found that the noise from the heat pump was 5dB(A) above the noise levels 

allowed under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous 

Noise) Regulations, 2004. A private acoustic specialist recommended that the noise 

emissions could be reduced through construction of an enclosure and housing around 

the heat pump. The enclosure is not exempt from requiring a Planning permit and has 

partially been erected already. 

2. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS 

2.1. The land is zoned Residential under the Scheme. 

2.2. The proposed development for Active Recreation is a Discretionary use in the 

Residential zone. 

2.3. The relevant parts of the Planning Scheme are: 

� Section 2 – Planning Policy Framework;


� Section 3 – General Provisions; 

� Section 6 – Residential Zone. 

2.4. Council’s assessment of this proposal should also consider the issues raised in 

any representations received, the outcomes of the State Policies and the 

Objectives of Schedule 1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act, 1993 

(LUPAA). 

3. PROPOSAL IN DETAIL 

3.1. The Site 

The site is 617m 2 in area and is located on the northern side of Tanundal 

Street, from which all access is obtained. The site currently contains a single 

dwelling with a covered swimming pool at the rear. The pool operates as a 

commercial swim centre providing private and group tuition to adults, babies, 

children and juniors. The pool is heated by a heat pump located in the northwestern 

rear corner of the property. 

3.2. The Proposal 

The existing heat pump is 1.198m in height above natural ground level. The 

proposal is for the construction of an enclosure made of sound reducing 

materials including a Hebel wall, 2.56m in length along the northern rear 

boundary, 6.3m in length along the western side boundary and a maximum 

height of 2.3m to the truss peak. In accordance with the recommendations of 

an acoustic specialist, additional housing constructed of noise reducing 

materials would be built directly around the heat pump. The maximum height 

of the structure would be a chimney 2.7m above natural ground level. 

4. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 

4.1. Planning Policy Framework [Section 2] 

The relevant elements of the Planning Policy Framework are contained in 

Section 2.2.3 (a) (i) – Residential Land Use. In particular, a Key Objective 

includes protecting the safety and amenity of residential areas adjacent to 

sensitive or conflicting land uses and environments.


Reference to these principles is also contained in the discussion below. 

4.2. General Decision Requirements [Section 3.3.1] 

The relevant General Decision Requirements of this part are as follows. 

“(a) General requirements: 

(iii) The Planning Policy Framework; 

(iv) The Purposes of the Zone; 

(v) The Specific Decision requirements of the Zone, 

Overlay or Specific Provision; 

(vii) Any representation made in accordance with Section 

43F(5) or Section 57(5) of the Act. 

(b) Amenity Requirements: 

(ii) Any pollution arising from the site in terms of noise, 

fumes, smell, smoke or ventilation”. 


4.3. Residential Zone 

The subject site is zoned Residential under the Scheme. The purpose of the 

Residential zone includes allowing for a limited range of community and other 

non-residential uses to serve local community needs. Active Recreation is a 

Discretionary use in this zone. 

� Use and Development Standards 

Clause 6.1.3 provides Use and Development Standards against which 

all Development Applications within the zone must be assessed. 

Compliance with these standards is summarised at Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Use and Development Standards of the Residential zone 

Outdoor 

Space 

Services 

Site Cover 

Required Proposed Complies? 

minimum of 

123.4m 2 

water and sewer 

connection 

maximum of 

246.8m 2 

no reduction of 

existing outdoor 

space area of 51m 2 

connections 

already exist 

no increase to 

existing site cover 

which is 330m 2 

no 

yes 

no


Building 

Height 

Setback – 

Northern 

Rear 

Setback – 

western side 

maximum of 7.5m 

the maximum 

height of the 

proposed heat 

pump enclosure is 

2.7m above 

natural ground 

level 

yes 

0m 0m yes 

0m 0m yes 

In summary, the proposal complies with the standards relating to 

building setbacks, height and services. The site has existing non- 

conforming site cover and outdoor space, however, as the proposed 

enclosure is unroofed and used for the swim centre, the proposed 

development will not increase the existing non-conformity of the site 

cover or outdoor space provided on the property. 

� Specific Decision Requirements 

Clause 6.1.4 provides the following Specific Decision Requirements 

which are relevant to the proposal. 

“(h) Appropriate separation should be provided between 

buildings to ensure adequate solar access and 

privacy”. 

The panels of the sound enclosure would be maximum height of 1.8m 

above natural ground level, which is the same height as a standard 

boundary fence. Boundary fences under the Scheme are exempt to 

2.1m above natural ground level. Any walls exceeding this height are 

required to comply with building setback requirements. 

Notwithstanding this, the proposed enclosure will not cause any undue 

impact on adjoining properties through loss of privacy or solar access, 

as additional overshadowing will be minimal (predominantly cast upon 

the subject site) and the wall will prevent casual overlooking.


“(k) Non-residential use and development should respect the 

residential amenity of the area”. 

The intent of the proposed enclosure is to reduce the noise emissions 

created by the swim centre’s heat pump in respect of the residential 

amenity of the area. 

In summary, the proposed development complies with the 

requirements of the Residential zone in so far as adjacent properties are 

affected. 

4.4. External Referrals 

No external referrals were required or undertaken as part of this application. 

5. REPRESENTATION ISSUES 


representation was received. The following issues were raised by the representor. 

5.1. Noise 

Concern was raised that the noise levels recorded by the acoustic specialist 

show that the heat pump exceeds permitted levels. This has detrimentally 

impacted on the amenity of the adjoining northern residence, in particular the 

rear bedroom as the heat pump runs during the night and also it has impacted 

on the outdoor recreation areas. It is also noted that there is yet no gate to the 

enclosure and it is questioned how such a gate could be effective at reducing 

noise. 

Concern is also raised that the opening and closing of the door to the 

swimming pool is very noisy. 

� Comment 

The partially constructed Hebel sound enclosure is not effective alone 

at reducing noise emissions to an acceptable level. The proposal is to 

construct a sound-reducing structure within the enclosure over the heat 

pump with an aim to further reduce noise.


The noise consultant’s report included with the application states that 

in addition to this, the cooling fans could be slowed, an appropriate 

door installed and (potentially) partial roofing of the enclosure. 

It is recommended that the proposed structure be approved subject to a 

condition requiring a follow up report be provided within 30 days from 

a suitably qualified person assessing the effectiveness of the structure 

and verifying that the noise levels do not exceed the Environmental 

Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations, 

2004. If the levels are still found to be excessive, Council may require 

further mitigation measures. 

With respect to the opening and closing of the door to the pool, Council 

has previously required the pool door to be kept closed at all times to 

reduce noise and the chlorine odour coming from the pool. Council’s 

Environmental Health Officer has reminded the owners of this 

requirement. Notwithstanding this, it is not relevant to the subject 

Development Application. 

5.2. Emissions 

Concern is raised that the condensation or mist expelled by cooling fans may 

drift over the fence onto adjoining properties. 

� Comment 

The heat pump creates condensation, which is directed to the ground, 

rather than vapour and this will not affect the adjoining property. 

5.3. Visibility 

It is observed that the structure being built around the heat pump is of a height 

which will be visible above the fence. 

� Comment 

The proposed “chimney” would be a minor protrusion above the 

structure housing the heat pump, setback approximately 3.5m from the 

rear boundary line and would reach a maximum height of 2.7m above 

natural ground level.


Although visible above the 1.8m high Hebel boundary wall, it will not 

cause a loss of views from any adjoining properties. 

5.4. Maintenance of Fence 

Concern is raised that the sound enclosure is erected against the existing 

boundary fence which restricts the ability to access the fence for repairs and 

maintenance. 

� Comment 

Maintenance of any boundary fencing behind the sound enclosure is a 

civil matter between the respective property owners. 

5.5. Council Approvals 

Concern is raised that the Hebel fence was erected without Council approval 

and that in light of Council’s subsequent inspections it was assumed approval 

had been granted. If it were known that the structure was not approved, the 

noise complaints would have been raised earlier. 

� Comment 

When the development was brought to Council’s attention, the owner 

was advised that the enclosure for the swimming pool heat pump 

required a Planning Permit. Retrospective approval is now sought to 

enable completion of the enclosure and also to remedy the noise 

impacts on adjoining residential properties. 

6. STATE POLICIES AND ACT OBJECTIVES 

6.1. The proposal is consistent with the outcomes of the State Policies, including 

those of the State Coastal Policy. 

6.2. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Schedule 1 of LUPAA. 

7. COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

There are no inconsistencies with Council’s adopted Strategic Plan 2010-2015 or any 

other relevant Council Policy.


8. CONCLUSION 

The proposed development will only improve the existing impact on surrounding 

residential amenity and ideally resolve the noise complaints received by Council. 

It is therefore recommended that the proposed development is approved subject to the 

conditions outlined above. 

Attachments: 1. Location Plan (1) 

2. Proposal Plan (5) 

3. Site Photo (1) 

Ross Lovell 

MANAGER INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT

Subject Site 

Attachment 1 

Location Plan D 2010/37 93 Tanundal St, Howrah 

Scale : 1:924.016 

Date Printed : 28/5/2012 

Attachments: 93 Tanundal Street Page 1 of 7

Attachment 2 






93 Tanundal Street, HOWRAH 

Attachment 3 

Image 1: View of the heat pump enclosure located at the rear of the existing house. 

Image 2: View of heat pump and partially constructed enclosure. 



11.3.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION D-2012/26 - 465 AND 465A CLIFTON 

BEACH ROAD, CLIFTON BEACH - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO 

CLUBHOUSE 

(File No C029-465A) 


PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to consider the application made for additions and 

alterations to the existing Surf Life Saving Clubhouse at 465 and 465a Clifton Beach 

Road, Clifton Beach. 


The land is zoned Recreation and subject to the Coastal Erosion Hazard and Coastal 

Management Overlays under the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 (the Scheme). In 

accordance with the Scheme the proposal is a Discretionary development. 








has been extended to expire on 5 June 2012. 

CONSULTATION 



� existing pine tree; and 

� location of the bins and water tanks. 


A. That the Development Application for alterations and additions to Clubhouse 

at 465 and 465a Clifton Beach Road, Clifton Beach (Cl Ref D-2012/26) be 

approved subject to the following conditions and advice. 

1. GEN AP1 – ENDORSED PLANS. 

2. The building structural design is to incorporate the recommendations 

for building foundations described in Section 11.4 – Building 

Foundations of the Geo-Environmental Solutions “Coastal 

Vulnerability Assessment – Clifton Beach Surf Life Saving Club, 

Clifton Beach” dated March 2012. 

3. ADVICE 5 – FOOD SPECIFICATIONS ADVICE. 


as the reasons for Council’s decision in respect of this matter.


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION D-2012/26 - 465 AND 465A CLIFTON BEACH 

ROAD, CLIFTON BEACH - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO CLUBHOUSE 

/contd… 

________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

The Surf Life Saving Club was built in the early 1970’s. Since that time there have 

been 2 additions approved to the Club, the most recent being the Surf Life Saving 

Tower in 1999. 


2.1. The land is zoned Recreation and subject to the Coastal Erosion Hazard and 

the Coastal Management Overlays under the Scheme. 

2.2. The proposal is a Discretionary development because Community Buildings 

are Discretionary within the Recreation zone. It is also Discretionary due to 

the requirements of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay. 


� Section 2 – Planning Policy Framework; 


� Section 6 – Recreation Zone; and 

� Section 7 – Coastal Erosion Hazard and Coastal Management 

Overlays. 




(LUPAA).



3.1. The Site 

The site is a regularly-shaped lease area on the eastern side of the cul-de-sac 

end of Clifton Beach Road and fronts onto Clifton Beach. There is an existing 

Surf Life Saving Clubhouse on-site with associated car parking. The existing 

clubhouse is a 2 storey building with storage and changerooms on the lower 

level and an open clubroom and deck area on the upper level. 


The proposal is for additions and alterations to the existing Surf Life Saving 

Club at Clifton Beach. 

It is proposed to increase the ground floor area by 231.7m² from 258.9m² to 

490.6m². The new floor area will be drive-through storage. It is also proposed 

to amend the layout internally but not to introduce any new uses (it is noted 

that this element does not require Building approval). 

It is proposed to increase the upper floor area by 144m² from 185m² to 329m². 

The kitchen is to be relocated out to the northern side of the building, toilets 

will be installed where the kitchen was and a small office and archive will be 

located at the eastern end of the floor. The maximum building height will 

remain at 6.65m and the flat roof form will not be altered. 

A lift will also be installed on the western side of the building to meet the 

current Disability Discrimination Act requirements. 

There is currently room for 15 car parking spaces (with a gravel seal) within 

the lease area which is sufficient to satisfy Section 8.1 of the Planning 

Scheme. This was also considered appropriate construction by Council’s 

Engineers. 

It is also proposed to relocate the water tanks from the eastern boundary of the 

leased area to the north-western corner of the building.


A small storage shed and a shipping container are also to be removed from the 

site. 




Section 2.2.3 (d) (iv) – Recreational and Community Facilities. In particular, 

the Key Issues include the following. 

“The need to integrate recreational and community facilities into 

residential neighbourhoods. 

The need to ensure that in coastal areas recreational and 

community facilities are located in a safe and environmentally 

sound manner and in a way that responds to the identified and 

anticipated effects of climate change”. 

These issues are addressed through the following Strategies. 

“Ensure that in coastal areas: 

� Public access to and along the coast, from both land and 

water, is maintained and enhanced where it does not conflict 

with the protection of natural and cultural coastal values, 

health and safety and security requirements. Access will be 

directed to identified access points and uncontrolled access 

with potential to cause significant damage to the fragile 

coastal environment will be prevented. 

� Community facilities, such as life saving facilities and 

essential emergency services, parking facilities, toilet blocks, 

picnic sites, rubbish disposal containers, boat ramps and 

jetties are provided at appropriate locations to enhance 

recreational amenity of the area. 

� Recreational use of the coastal zone is encouraged where 

activities can be conducted in a safe and environmentally 

responsible manner. 

� Recreational uses do not adversely affect sensitive coastal 

ecosystems and landforms or are located in designated areas 

where such effects can be remedied or mitigated. 

Development takes into account the identified and anticipated 

impacts of climate change”. 

Reference to these principles is contained in the discussion below.




“(a) (iv) The Purpose of the Zone. 

(v) The Specific Decision Requirements of the Zone, 

Overlay or Specific Provision. 

(vii) Any Representation made in accordance with Section 

43F(5) or Section 57(5) of the Act”. 

Reference to these principles is contained in the discussion below. 

4.3. Recreation Zone 

The purpose of the Recreation zone is to recognise land that may be utilised 

for recreation and to provide for uses which support this or which may be 

interim uses that will not prejudice future recreational activities. 

There are no Use and Development Standards that are applicable to the 

proposal, the only relevance being a requirement to assess any proposal in 

accordance with the Specific Decision Requirements for the zone. 

The relevant Specific Decision Requirements for the proposed additions and 

alterations are as follows. 

“(b) Development should be compatible with the recreation uses”. 

The proposal is for additions and alterations to a recreational club and as such 

is consistent with the zone. 

“(g) Development should maintain existing significant views from 

the surrounding area”. 

The proposed additions are to the east of the existing building where there are 

no residences likely to be impacted. The water tanks to be installed to the 

west are unlikely to impact on views from the dwellings behind due to their 

being located in the low point and the dune in front and dwellings behind 

being at a higher elevation to enable maintenance of views over the top.


“(h) Sufficient car parking is to be provided on-site to meet 

differing levels of service and recreational needs. Safe and 

convenient access is to be provided to all parking areas”. 

Car parking is provided in accordance with Section 8.1 of the Scheme. There 

is also additional car parking provided on the adjacent Council land to ensure 

that there is an excess of parking for the requirement of the area. 

Further discussion of these issues is included below. 

4.4. Overlays 

Coastal Erosion Hazard 

The purpose of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay is to identify areas which 

may be subject to erosion, recession or wave run-up related to coastal 

processes and to control their impacts on coastal infrastructure and 

development. 

The relevant Decision Requirements for the Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay 

include the following. 

“(a) Suitable mitigation measures are to be used dependant upon 

the nature and assessable risk of the hazard”. 

An assessment was provided with the application which clearly identified the 

risks associated with the site and proposed mitigation measures to ensure that 

the proposed redevelopment is not adversely impacted by the effects of these 

risks. This report and its recommendations are supported by Council’s 

Engineering Officers and a condition is proposed to reiterate this. 

Coastal Management 

The purpose of the Coastal Management Overlay is to protect the natural and 

cultural values of the coast through promoting sustainable use and 

development. 

The relevant Decision Requirements for the Coastal Management Overlay 

include the following.


“(c) Public access to the coast is to be facilitated through 

applications where possible. 

(e) The use or development should be coastal dependant and 

appropriate to a coastal location”. 

The proposed additions to the Surf Life Saving Club facilitate access to and 

utilisation of the waterfront through the provision of a focal point for people 

wishing to recreate on and around the water. Further, the site has existing 

fencing around the established beach access points to ensure that there are no 

“informal” accesses created to the beach that may adversely impact on coastal 

flora and fauna. 






5.1. Existing Pine Tree 

The representor was concerned that there is a large Pine tree within the lease 

area that is in close proximity to the public car park. They were concerned 

that it creates mess and a potential safety risk in the public car park and that it 

impacts upon views from surrounding residential properties. They have 

requested that the tree be removed. 

� Comment 

There are 3 large pine trees along the western boundary of the Surf Life 

Saving Club lease area, as well as a Sheoak and an Eucalypt tree. All 

of these trees appear to be in good condition. It would appear that the 

representor’s views are far more greatly impacted on by the existing 

vegetation on the adjacent lot than they are by these trees. As such, in 

the absence of a report indicating that the trees are dangerous or a more 

detailed description of which tree should be removed, this is not 

considered a necessary requirement for the development to proceed.


5.2. Location of the Bins and Water Tanks 

It is suggested by the representor that the proposed location of the water tanks 

and rubbish bins will result in them being closer to the residential development 

than the current location. The representor was concerned that this will result 

in a “localised polluted atmosphere”. It was suggested by the representor that 

they should be located along the same boundary that they were previously 

(eastern lease boundary). 

� Comment 

Currently the water tanks are located on the eastern boundary of the 

Club’s lease area. It is proposed to extend the building to this 

boundary and as such the water tanks and bins need to be relocated. 

The rubbish bins are currently located approximately where they are 

proposed under the application. 

The proposed relocation will see the water tanks moved from being 

approximately 35m from the dwelling to the east and approximately 

50m from the nearest dwelling to the north of the site to being 

approximately 45m from the nearest dwelling to the north and 

approximately 70m from the nearest dwelling to the east of the site. As 

such, the water tanks will in fact be further from residential dwellings 

than they currently are. 

In any event, the vegetation currently on-site would have a similar 

impact upon the existing views from surrounding properties. 

The proposed location of the water tanks and rubbish bins meets the 

Use and Development Standards for the Recreation zone and as such 

should be approved. 




6.2. The proposal is consistent with the Objectives of Schedule 1 of LUPAA.



7.1. There are no inconsistencies with Council’s adopted Strategic Plan 2010-2015 

or any other relevant Council Policy. 

7.2. Developer contributions are not required. 

8. CONCLUSION 

The proposal is for additions and alterations to the existing Surf Life Saving Club at 

456 Clifton Beach Road, Clifton Beach. The proposal meets the Use and 

Development Standards for the zone and Overlays applicable to the site as discussed 

above and as such is recommended for conditional approval. 




Ross Lovell 


Attachment 1 

Location Plan D 2012/26 465 & 465a Clifton Beach Road, Clifton Beach 

Subject Site 

Scale : 1:1500 


Attachments: 465 & 465a Clifton Beach Rd Page 1 of 8

Attachment 2 







Attachment 3 

465 Clifton Beach Road, CLIFTON BEACH TAS 7020, 465A Clifton Beach 

Road, CLIFTON BEACH TAS 7020 

Site viewed from the top of the dune, in front of the beach 



11.3.3 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SD-2010/79 - 8 JETTY ROAD, SOUTH ARM - 

1 LOT 

(File No SD-2010/79) 


PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to consider the application made for a 1 lot subdivision at 

8 Jetty Road, South Arm. 


The land is zoned Village and subject to the Coastal Management and Coastal Erosion 

Hazard Overlays under the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 (the Scheme). In 

accordance with the Scheme the proposal is a Discretionary development. 








expires on 6 June 2012. 

CONSULTATION 



� construction on the dune system; 

� risk associated with future tidal events; 

� development of adjoining properties; 

� wastewater disposal; and 

� property boundaries on the beach. 


A. That the Subdivision application for 1 lot at 8 Jetty Road, South Arm (Cl Ref 

SD-2010/79) be approved subject to the following conditions and advice. 

1. GEN AP1 – ENDORSED PLANS. 

2. GEN AP3 – AMENDED PLAN [the no build zone A-B-C-D]. 

3. GEN F2 - COVENANTS [no new development is to occur within the 

area A-B-C-D on the plan]. 

4. GEN POS1 – POS CONTRIBUTION [2]. 

5. No part of the building is to be located within the right-of-way.


6. ENG A3 – COMBINED ACCESS [MSD2-02]. Replace second 

sentence with “A 5.5m wide x 7.5m long sealed driveway also must be 

constructed which then may reduce to a width of 3m for the balance of 

the right-of-way]”. 

7. ENG M2 – DESIGNS SD. Delete “road design” and “road stormwater 

drainage”. 

8. ENG M8 – EASEMENTS. 

9. ENG S1 – INFRASTRUCTURE. 

10. ENG S2 – SERVICES. 

11. ENG S4 – STORMWATER CONNECTION. 

12. GEN M2 – NO WORKS. 

13. ADVICE - An application for a Building Permit including any 

demolition work must be submitted and approved before the 

commencement of any works to the existing buildings. 

14. ADVICE - As a consequence of the development, the street numbering 

allocated to each lot/unit will be as set out in the following table: 

Lot/Unit Number 

1 8 Jetty Road 

2 8A Jetty Road. 



________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

No relevant background. 


2.1. The land is zoned Village and subject to the Coastal Management and Coastal 

Erosion Hazard Overlays under the Scheme. 

2.2. Subdivision is Discretionary development in accordance with Clause 3.1.4.





� Section 6 – Village Zone; 

� Section 7.3 – Coastal Management Overlay; and 

� Section 7.4 – Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay. 




(LUPAA). 


3.1. The Site 

The site is 2060m 2 in area and located on the northern side of Jetty Road, 

South Arm. The property currently supports a double storey dwelling 

constructed in 1957, situated to the front of the lot. There is also a 6m x 6m 

steel outbuilding located in the north-eastern rear corner, accessed via a gravel 

driveway which runs along the eastern side boundary. A boat shed is located 

in the north-western corner at the beach front. To the northern rear of the 

dwelling is levelled outdoor space which has been established on a secondary 

dune and currently supports lawn, garden, coastal vegetation and pathways 

leading to the beach. The dune face which is present immediately outside of 

the western property boundary has not recovered from a recent storm surge 

event and is a physical indicator of erosion hazard in this area. 


The proposal is for a subdivision to create an internal lot (“Lot 2”) 1050m 2 in 

area. Lot 1 would be 1010m 2 in area and contain the existing house. Lot 2 

would be accessed via a 6m wide right-of-way over Lot 1 and would contain 

the existing sheds.


To provide for an unobstructed right-of-way, any minor protrusions of the 

existing house within the right-of-way would be demolished. 

The proposal also includes the provision of a “no-build” zone on the western 

side of Lot 2 and a covenant on the Title that no buildings will be allowed to 

be developed marked A-B-C-D on the plan. The no-build zone is 

approximately 431m 2 in area and would leave approximately 619m 2 of the site 

which may be developed subject to compliance with Planning requirements. 




Section 2.2.3 (a) Settlement (i) – Spatial Patterns. In particular, the Key 

Objectives and Strategies include the following. 

“� The long term guidance for managing climate change effects; 

� The protection of natural heritage values from inappropriate 

development; [and] 

� Applying appropriate overlays to regulate use and 

development in coastal areas that are affected by climate 

change”. 





(ii) The provisions of any State Policy. 

(iii) The Planning Policy Framework. 

(iv) The purposes of the Zone. 





(e) Environmental Requirements: 

(iv) The need to contain development within siting 

envelopes.


(f) Subdivision Requirements: 

(i) The suitability of the land for subdivision. 

(ii) The existing use and potential for future development of 

the land and its surrounds. 

(v) The size and shape of each lot in the subdivision. 

(x) The design and siting of existing and future buildings”. 


4.3. Village Zone 

The purpose of the Village zone is to provide for residential and associated 

development in outlying small communities and to ensure the character and 

sensitive nature of those places are protected and enhanced. 

Use and Development Standards 

The following Use and Development Standards under Clause 6.4.3 are 

applicable to the proposal. 

(c) Lot Size 

The minimum lot size in the Village zone is 1000m 2 . The proposed lot 

sizes are 1010m 2 and 1050m 2 which comply with this standard. 

(d) Dimensions of Lots 

All lots including the balance must have a minimum frontage (either 

by fee-simple or right-of-way) of 6m and be able to contain a circle of 

18m diameter clear of any easements, the front boundary setback or 

any other Title restrictions. Both of the proposed lots have a minimum 

6m wide frontage (Lot 2 by a right-of-way over Lot 1) and are able to 

contain an 18m diameter circle, which complies with this standard. 

(g) Site Coverage 

The maximum site coverage in the zone is 30%. The existing house to 

be contained on Lot 1 (1010m 2 ) is 127m 2 in area. This equates to 

12.8% site cover on the proposed lot and complies with this standard.


(h) Building Setbacks 

The minimum side building setback in this zone is 2.5m. The existing 

dwelling is currently set back approximately 6m from the side 

boundary. The proposal seeks to access Lot 2 via a 6m wide right-ofway 

over Lot 1. To ensure the right-of-way is unobstructed, any 

protrusions of the existing dwelling (including the verandah) are 

proposed to be demolished. 

As there will be no change to the location of the existing side boundary 

line, the proposed building complies with the minimum building 

setback requirements of this standard. 

Specific Decision Requirements 

The following Specific Decision Requirements under Clause 6.4.5 are relevant 

to the proposal. 

“(d) Lots sizes should be varied to suit differing levels of 

residential, service and recreational needs”. 

The proposed lot size is consistent with this requirement as it will create 2 lots 

of approximately 1000m 2 in an area where lot sizes range from 465m 2 to 

3195m 2 . 

“(r) An internal lot access strip should include adequate width to 

accommodate a suitable passing bay and a visitor car 

parking space which is visible from the street”. 

The proposed right-of-way to Lot 2 is 6m wide which is sufficient width to 

accommodate both a passing bay and area for parking. 

“(s) An internal lot should have adequate frontage to ensure 

appropriate provision for wheelie bin collection, without 

inconvenience to neighbouring properties”. 

The proposed internal lot complies with the minimum 6m wide frontage and 

will have enough area to conveniently locate wheelie bins.


“(t) An internal lot should include adequate width to provide a 

landscaped strip between the driveway and the abutting fence 

lines, except where there is to be a shared driveway with the 

adjoining lot”. 

The proposed internal lot will provide a 6m wide right-of-way, however, the 

driveway is permitted to reduce to a width of 3m after the passing bay at the 

front of the property and will leave area available for landscaping. 

“(u) Subdivision should ensure that based on a 1 in 100 year 

event natural drainage paths and significant stormwater 

catchment areas are protected from inappropriate 

development. This relates to development within drainage 

lines which may impede restrict or adversely affect natural 

drainage flows”. 

There are no substantial drainage paths or large catchments that would be 

affected by subdivision or normal development of the lots created and the 

proposal is therefore consistent with the above. 

In summary, the proposal complies with the requirements of the zone. 

4.4. Coastal Management Overlay 

The Coastal Management Overlay applies to the western half of the site. The 

purpose of this Overlay is to implement the provisions of the State Coastal 

Policy by protecting the natural and cultural values of the coast and promoting 

sustainable use and development of the coast. 

The application must be considered against the following Specific Decision 

Requirements of the Overlay (Clause 7.3.4). 

“(a) The development should have regard to any coastal hazard, 

cultural or historic resource or feature of conservation value, 

including flora or fauna habitats”.


The subject application is for subdivision only and does not propose any 

development at this point in time. Although the site has not been surveyed by 

a coastal expert to confirm the extent of any frontal dune system across the 

site, the proposal recognises the hazards associated with coastal development 

and proposes a covenant to Prohibit development on the western side of the 

site as marked A-B-C-D on the subdivision plan. The area marked A-B-C-D 

comprises the frontal dune and a further buffer area. Any proposal to develop 

a dwelling within the remaining area of the Coastal Management Overlay that 

is not covered by the no-build zone would be required to demonstrate that it is 

not located within any frontal dune system. 

“(b) The coastal environment should be protected, especially 

including water quality, shoreline change, erosion or areas 

of visual sensitivity”. 

Any future development proposals on either lot will be required to 

demonstrate compliance with the Overlay requirements of the Scheme and 

show appropriate treatment of the coastal environment. 

“(c) Public access to the coast is to be facilitated through 

applications where possible”. 

It is not necessary to facilitate public access through this site, however, a 

public open space contribution should be required in accordance with Council 

Policy. 

“(d) The coastal area should be stabilised and made safe where 

necessary”. 

As discussed above, no works are currently proposed and therefore these 

measures are not necessary at this point in time. 

“(e) The use or development should be coastal dependent and 

appropriate to a coastal location”.


Through provision of a no-build zone on the beach-side of Lot 2, the 

subdivision proposal can be appropriate to the coastal location. Additionally, 

any future development will be required to be designed to comply with the 

requirements of the Scheme. 

4.5. Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay 

The purpose of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay is to identify areas which 

may be subject to erosion, recession or wave run-up related to coastal process 

and to promote sustainable coastal development. 

A permit is required under this Overlay for all use and development, including 

subdivision. The site is specifically subject to the CEH (2050) and CEH 

(2100) areas. 

The Application Requirement under Clause 7.4.4 of the Overlay required that 

a report was provided from an engineer with suitable experience in coastal, 

civil and/or hydraulic engineering demonstrating that the following Specific 

Decision Requirements of this Overlay are satisfied. A report by a civil 

engineer was provided addressing these requirements and indicates that the 

proposed Lot 2 will be able to be developed taking into consideration risks 

from coastal processes whilst minimising disturbance to the existing ground 

conditions. Council’s Engineers consider this approach acceptable. 






5.1. Construction on the Dune System 

Concern is raised that the proposed vacant lot is predominantly sand and 

contains a dune system and any future works on this lot may cause instability. 

This in turn may affect the stability of adjoining properties.


� Comment 

There is sufficient area for development to occur on Lot 2 and be 

wholly located outside of a frontal dune system within the Coastal 

Management Overlay. Any future Development Application on the 

vacant lot would be required to demonstrate that any development 

within the Coastal Management Overlay is not within a frontal dune 

system, as this is Prohibited development under the Scheme. Any 

development within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay will require an 

engineering report showing erosion hazards can be mitigated through 

structural or siting methods and that the development will not increase 

the level of risk to the life of the users of the site or hazard for 

adjoining properties. 

5.2. Risk Associated with Future Tidal Events 

Based upon past events, concern is raised that any future building on the site 

will become a victim of the sea as the dunes continue to retreat. It is said that 

the 50m distance from high water mark is very subjective and if it was based 

upon the highest event last year, the 50m distance would reach behind the shed 

in the north-eastern rear corner. 

� Comment 

The site is subject to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay which 

identifies that the site may be subject to erosion, recession or wave runup 

related to coastal processes. The purpose of this Overlay is to 

control impacts on development from coastal hazards, so any future 

development will have to be appropriately designed to mitigate this 

risk. 

5.3. Development of Adjoining Properties 

Concern is raised that an application to build on the adjacent property at 10 

Jetty Road, South Arm was refused by Council within the last 5 years as a 

result of the many conditions of building on sand dunes adjacent to the sea.


� Comment 

A Development Application (D-2004/135) was made upon 12 Jetty 

Road in 2004 proposing to develop a Single Dwelling requiring 

variation to the high water mark and side setbacks under the Eastern 

Shore (Area 2) Planning Scheme 1986. 

The application was never determined by Council as the application 

was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 

5.4. Wastewater Disposal 

Concern is raised that the wastewater from any future building will enter the 

beach and put the public at risk. 

� Comment 

A wastewater report was submitted with the application demonstrating 

that all wastewater can be disposed of appropriately within the site 

boundaries. 

5.5. Property Boundaries on the Beach 

Concern is raised that over time the dune face to the beach will break down to 

a manageable slope and will result in the western boundary of the subdivision 

being on the beach. 

� Comment 

The current Title has boundaries extending to the dune face at the 

beach. This situation may occur as a result of coastal processes even if 

the subject subdivision never proceeds and the Title boundaries remain 

as existing. The covenant agreed to by the developer will Prohibit 

further development within this area of the site. 




6.2. The proposal is consistent with the Objectives of Schedule 1 of LUPAA.



There are no inconsistencies with Council’s adopted Strategic Plan 2010-2015 or any 

other relevant Council Policy. If approved, a standard developer contribution is 

required to comply with Council’s Public Open Space Policy. 

8. CONCLUSION 

The application for a 1 lot subdivision at 8 Jetty Road, South Arm complies with the 

Use and Development Standards of the zone and applicable Overlays. The issues 

raised in the representation are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the 

application and it is therefore recommended for conditional approval. 



3. Draft Plan Showing No-build Zone Marked A-B-C-D (1) 


Ross Lovell 


Subject Site 

Attachment 1 

Location plan SD 2010/79 8 Jetty Rd, South Arm 

Scale : 1:1489.111 


Attachments: 8 Jetty Road Page 1 of 5

Attachment 2 


Attachment 3 

Note: A-B-C-D = proposed no build zone 


8 Jetty Road, SOUTH ARM 

Attachment 4 

Image 1: Site viewed from Jetty Road showing existing house and outbuilding. 

Image 2: Site viewed from western rear boundary (adjacent beach) 


Image 3: View of the hind dune located on northern side boundary of Lot 2. 

Image 4: View facing west across Lot 2. 



11.3.4 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SD-2012/9 - 64 KINGS ROAD, CAMBRIDGE 

- 2 LOTS AND BALANCE 

(File No SD-2012/9) 


PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to consider the application made for a 2 lot Subdivision 

and balance at 64 Kings Road, Cambridge. 


The land is within 2 zones being the Rural zone and the Landscape and Skyline 

Conservation zone. The site is subject in part to the Vegetation Management Overlay 

under the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 (the Scheme). In accordance with the 

Scheme the proposal is a Discretionary development. 








expires on 6 June 2012. 

CONSULTATION 


representations (1 in support) were received raising the following issues: 

� compliance with Tasmania Fire Service Guidelines for Development in Bushfire 

Prone Areas; 

� width of frontage; 

� existing roadway; 

� future subdivision opportunities; and 

� width of Kings Road and surface. 


A. That the Subdivision application for 2 lots and balance at 64 Kings Road, 

Cambridge (Cl Ref SD-2012/9) be refused for the following reasons. 

1. The proposal is Prohibited as it does not satisfy the requirements of 

Clauses 6.8.3(c) and 6.10.3(c) of the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 

in that all lots would not have a minimum frontage of 6m. 

2. The proposal does not comply with Council Policy C3.13 Shared 

Rights-of-Way.


3. The lots proposed in the Subdivision do not comply with the qualities 

of a minimum lot as provided for under Section 109 Subsection (3)(h) 

and (i) of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous 

Provisions) Act, 1993. 



________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

The subject property was created by subdivision approved by Council on 26 May 

1997 by reference 96/0741. The approval enabled the creation of the proposed and 2 

neighbouring lots. 

The proposal plan originally submitted as part of that application showed a singular 

right-of-way to service the 3 lots. This plan was not considered acceptable by 

Council and an amended plan was submitted which provided a separate 3.6m wide 

right-of-way to each lot, which formed the approved plan. 


2.1. The land is within both the Rural zone and the Landscape and Skyline 

Conservation zone and is subject in part to the Vegetation Management 

Overlay under the Scheme. 

2.2. The Council Policy C3.13 Shared Rights-of-Way is relevant to the proposal in 

terms of the number of rights-of-way providing access at this location. The 

Policy states as follows. 

“Where lots have frontage and/or access by way of shared rights 

of way with other lots, a maximum usage of four lots sharing such 

accesses shall be regarded as “reasonable vehicular access” for 

the purposes of Section 109(f) of the Local Government (Building 

and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993”.


The implications of this Policy in terms of the proposal will be considered in 

detail below, in terms of the number of rights-of-way existing. It is noted, 

however, that the Policy has been consistently applied by council for in excess 

of 30 years and was applied when the existing property was created in 

accordance with the Policy by subdivision in 1997. Further, the Local 

Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1993 provide that 

in respect to the subdivision of land in any building area, lots must have a 

minimum frontage of 3.6m. 

2.3. The proposal is a Discretionary development as it relates to the creation of 

new lots within the Rural zone. 




� Section 6.8 – Rural Zone; 

� Section 6.10 – Landscape and Skyline Conservation Zone; and 

� Section 7.1 – Vegetation Management Overlay. 




(LUPAA). 


3.1. The Site 

The site is located at 64 Kings Road, Cambridge and comprised in CT 

130283/1 which has a total area of 63.86ha. The location of the property is 

illustrated by the location plan at Attachment 1 and illustrated by the site 

photos at Attachment 3.


The property has an access strip with a width of 9.214m to Kings Road. This 

access strip is encumbered by 3 rights-of-way which provide access to the 3 

separate properties that comprise the same Sealed Plan. 

The site supports an existing dwelling and associated outbuildings and access. 

A large proportion of the site is comprised of native vegetation, whilst some 

sections of grassed areas occupy the north-eastern portion of the site, as does a 

small vineyard. 

The site slopes generally down to the north and approximately in the centre of 

the parcel is a natural watercourse which feeds to a dam to the west of the 

dwelling. A constructed access way also traverses the site, which supports 2 

rights-of-way benefitting the other 2 properties on the same Sealed Plan and 

provides access to the dwelling. 


The proposal is for the subdivision of the subject property into 3 resultant lots 

of 22ha, 21.55ha and 20.31ha in size. The layout of the proposal is illustrated 

by the proposed plan of subdivision at Attachment 2. 

It is proposed that the lots be accessed via the existing right-of-way 

arrangement. The existing dwelling and associated infrastructure and 

outbuildings are contained within the boundaries of the proposed Lot 2. 




Section 2.2.3(c)(iii) – Rural Industry. In particular, the Key Objectives and 

Strategies include the following. 

Objectives 

“� To ensure that agricultural land as defined in the State 

Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 remains 

available for agricultural production.


Strategies 

� To maintain and enhance the landscape character of the 

rural areas and encourage both the retention of existing 

vegetation and revegetation. 

� To protect farmland from fragmentation into non-productive 

units including rural residential living or hobby farms”. 

“� Protect agricultural land as defined in the State Policy on the 

Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 and prevent 

encroachment by residential uses, especially in the Coal 

River, Richmond and Cambridge Areas. 

� Identify strategic location criteria for assessing any rural 

residential encroachment into rural areas”. 

The proposal relates to land described by the broadscale Grose 1999 mapping 

of the State as a combination of Classes 4, 5 and 6 land which is not described 

as prime agricultural land by the relevant State Policy. 

Also relevant is Section 2.2.3(b)(i) – Natural Heritage. In particular, the Key 

Objectives and Strategies include the following. 

Objectives 

Strategies 

“� To protect natural environments from the impacts of 

development encroachment, including the spread of pest 

animals and plants. 

� To ensure that land use planning and development is 

consistent with catchment management strategies. 

� To protect biodiversity and important conservation values”. 

“� Limit the removal of important native vegetation within the 

City. 

� Maintain urban growth boundaries to ensure that ad hoc 

growth does not prejudice important natural values”. 

It is considered that the proposal would have minimal impact upon the 

landscape character of the rural area. Reference to these principles is also 

contained in the discussion below.








(b) Amenity requirements: 

(i) The character of the locality, the existing and future 

amenities of the neighbourhood. 

(iii) Landscaping, illumination and treatment of the site 

generally. 

(d) Design suitability requirements: 

(ii) The position and scale of buildings in relation to 

boundaries or to other buildings, their density, 

character, height and harmony in design of facades. 

(iv) The existing character of the site and the buildings 

and vegetation it contains. 

(e) Environmental requirements: 

(i) If the land is not sewered and no provision has been 

made for the land to be sewered, the capacity of the 

land to treat and retain all sewage and sullage within 

the lot boundaries of each lot. 

(iii) The compatibility of the development on the 

surrounding land uses. 

(vi) The impact on important wildlife corridors and flora, 

fauna, landscape features of the area and 

introduction of pests, plants or animals. 

(f) Subdivision requirements: 

(i) The suitability of the land for subdivision. 

(ii) The existing use and potential for future development 

of the land and its surrounds. 

(iii) The subdivision pattern having regard to the physical 

characteristics of the land including existing 

vegetation, natural drainage paths and significant 

stormwater catchment areas. 

(iv) The density of the proposed development. 

(v) The size and shape of each lot in the subdivision. 

(x) The design and siting of existing and future buildings. 

(xi) The availability and provision of utility services”.


The relevant requirements of both the Rural zone and the Landscape and 

Skyline Conservation zone will be addressed in detail below, however, it is 

noted that the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of the 

area has been considered as part of this assessment in terms of possible 

impacts and design suitability. Reference to these principles is contained in 

the discussion below. 

4.3. Rural and Landscape and Skyline Conservation Zones 

The western portion of the subject property is within the Rural zone, the 

Purpose of which is as follows. 

“(a) To implement the Planning Policy Framework. 

(b) To encourage: 

(i) An integrated approach to land management. 

(ii) Development of new sustainable rural enterprises 

through value adding to products at source. 

(iii) Protection and enhancement of the bio-diversity of the 

area. 

(c) To ensure residential living in a rural environment is 

compatible with rural land uses. 

(d) To ensure that rural activities have priority over residential 

activities. 

(e) To ensure that subdivision promotes effective land 

management practices and infrastructure provision and 

avoid inappropriate fragmentation. 

(f) To provide for rural industries that promote the economic 

development of the region”. 

The western portion of the subject property is situated within the Landscape 

and Skyline Conservation zone, the Purpose of which is described as follows. 


(b) To identify and protect areas of landscape or conservation 

significance, including forested skylines, prominent 

ridgelines and hills that contribute to important vistas or 

provide a natural backdrop, and a contrast to the urban 

development in the Hobart Metropolitan area.


(c) To encourage development and the use of the land which is in 

accordance with sound management and land capability 

practices, and which takes into account the environmental 

sensitivity and the bio-diversity of the locality. 

(d) To ensure use or development is in accordance with sound 

management and land capability practices and which 

protects the environmental sensitivity and bio-diversity of the 

locality. 

(e) To manage areas that are unsuitable for future urban 

development due inherent physical and environmental 

constraints and the need to avoid the inefficient provision 

and utilisation of urban services”. 

The zoning of the subject property is illustrated by Attachment 4. 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant Use and Development 

Standards of both zones, at Clauses 6.8.3 and 6.10.3. The proposal is 

consistent with the relevant standards of both zones, with the exception of the 

dimension (frontage) requirements of both zones at Clauses 6.8.3(c) and 

6.10.3(c). Given that the proposal does not satisfy these Clauses it is 

Prohibited under the Scheme. This issue will be discussed in detail below. 

Were the proposal not Prohibited, however, the following Specific Decision 

Requirements of the zone at Clause 6.8.4 of the Scheme would typically be 

relevant. 

“(a) The development is to suit the capability of the land, 

addressing site quality attributes including soil type, soil 

fertility, soil structure, soil permeability, aspect, contour and 

drainage patterns. 

(d) Areas of significant vegetation, habitat, threatened species or 

threatened communities should be maintained where 

possible. 

(h) Lot sizes are to be sufficient to suit differing levels of rural, 

service and recreational needs.


(n) Subdivision should ensure that based on a 1 in 100 year 

event natural drainage paths and significant stormwater 

catchment areas are protected from inappropriate 

development. This relates to development within drainage 

lines which may impede, restrict or adversely affect natural 

drainage flows”. 

Similarly, were the proposal not Prohibited the following Specific Decision 

Requirement at Clause 6.10.4 of the Scheme would also be relevant, in 

addition to those discussed above. 

“(b) Development should be an appropriate use, design and 

location so as to not fetter the agricultural use on the land or 

nearby properties”. 

The proposal is considered to be broadly consistent with the relevant Specific 

Decision Requirements, as described. 

It is considered, however, that the proposal does not comply with Clauses 

6.8.3(c) and 6.10.3(c) of the Scheme which require that all lots, including the 

balance, must have a minimum frontage of 6m. Frontage is defined by the 

Scheme as follows. 

“The minimum distance required to provide legal right of access, 

whether by fee simple or right-of-way, to the lot from a public 

road, excluding land that is required as the sole and principal 

means of access to any other lot as necessary to give that lot the 

qualities of a minimum lot”. 

The applicant submits that, based on the above definition, the proposed Lot 1 

would have a “frontage” of greater than 190m and Lots 2 and 3 would each 

have a “frontage” of greater than 700m. 

Internal legal consideration has been given to this interpretation of the above 

definition of frontage and it is considered to not be correct or reasonable. To 

create 3 new parcels from the subject property it would be necessary to 

provide either direct frontage to Kings Road, or a right-of-way access of at 

least 6m in width, per new lot, to Kings Road.


As noted above, the subject property has an access strip with a width of 

9.214m to Kings Road which is encumbered by 3 rights-of-way which provide 

access to the 3 separate properties that comprise the same Sealed Plan. This 

leaves the site with an available frontage as defined by the Scheme of 3.6m. 

What this application proposes is to add a further 2 properties to this existing 

access arrangement, claiming that “when Lot 1 on Sealed Plan 130283 (64 

Kings Road, Cambridge), is subdivided into 3 lots as proposed, each of them 

will inherit the existing Rights-of-Ways”. 

This is an incorrect interpretation as the rights-of-way relate to Lots 2 and 3 

also of the same Sealed Plan. They cannot be inherited by the proposed lots as 

Lots 2 and 3 of the same Sealed Plan are not part of this Subdivision 

application and their accesses cannot be compromised. 

It is further noted that the Scheme is specific in terms of the frontage 

definition, in that land required as the sole and principal means of access for 

any other lot cannot be considered frontage. The impact of this is that the 

existing rights-of-way cannot be compromised and that 3 new rights-of-way of 

a minimum of 6m in width must therefore be provided from the boundaries of 

each of the proposed lots to Kings Road. This is not proposed, nor is it 

proposed to include additional land to facilitate this. 

It is therefore considered that the proposed subdivision does not satisfy Clause 

6.8.3(c) of the Scheme and is therefore Prohibited. Advice was sought as part 

of this assessment from Council’s Solicitor, who confirms this position. 

It is further noted that Section 109 of the Local Government (Building and 

Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1993 describes the qualities of a minimum lot 

in terms of the subject property as “having reasonable vehicular access from 

the carriage-way of a road to a boundary”.


Reasonable access, as described above by Council Policy C3.13, would allow 

for up to a maximum of 4 lots having shared rights-of-way. The only means 

of achieving this proposal would be to create a further 2 rights-of-way and 

increase the width of the existing right-of-way, which would result in a total of 

5 rights-of-way. This would be in conflict with Council Policy. 

4.4. Vegetation Management Overlay 

The site is subject in part to the Vegetation Management Overlay, the Purpose 

of which is as follows. 


(b) To protect areas of significant vegetation and bushland 

habitat including forested skylines, prominent ridgelines and 

hills which contribute to important vistas and in particular 

those which create a natural backdrop to the urban setting 

for the City. 

(c) To protect and enhance areas of high, very high and 

extremely high vegetation significance and bushland habitat. 

(d) To ensure that development is sited to minimise the loss of 

native vegetation. 

(e) To maintain and enhance habitat and corridors for 

indigenous fauna”. 

The proposal does not, as noted, incorporate the clearing of vegetation on-site 

and therefore does not require a permit under this Overlay. 

That said the future development of the site in terms of the building envelopes 

proposed for the 2 vacant proposed lots would require clearing at the time of 

development. Such clearing would be subject to a Development Application 

at that stage and would involve consultation with the Department of Primary 

Industries, Water and the Environment in terms of the presence of threatened 

species on the site. 


The proposal was referred to the Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) as part of the 

advertising process and comments were received on 7 May 2012.


The proposal has been assessed by the TFS as being compliant with the 

Tasmania Service Guidelines for Development in Bushfire Prone Areas. It 

was noted that no dwellings are proposed at this time and that a bushfire 

management plan for any development on the lots would be required at that 

time to ensure compliance with the Guidelines. 



representations (1 in support from the TFS, as discussed above) were received. The 

following issues were raised by the representors. 

5.1. Width of Frontage 

Concern was expressed by the representors regarding the lack of width of 

frontage proposed. 

� Comment 

As discussed above in detail, the proposal does not satisfy the frontage 

requirements of the Scheme and cannot be approved for this reason. 

5.2. Existing Roadway 

Comments were made with respect to the maintenance and use of the existing 

roadway that comprises the rights-of-way over the subject property. 

� Comment 

The issue of maintenance of the roadway is a shared matter between 

the relevant landowners and is a civil matter. It is not specifically 

relevant to this proposal. 

Despite this, the existing arrangement was put in place through the 

approval of the original subdivision in 1997 and it would seem 

unreasonable to put further maintenance burdens on the other owners in 

the same Sealed Plan.


5.3. Future Subdivision Opportunities 

Comments were made in terms of this subdivision being allowed and what 

opportunities may open for other landowners in the Kings Road area. 

� Comment 

As discussed in detail, the proposal is not possible in terms of the 

frontage requirements of the Scheme. The subdivision of any lots must 

satisfy the requirements of the Scheme and any proposal would be 

considered as such. 

5.4. Width of Kings Road and Surface 

Concern was expressed regarding the condition of Kings Road and the impact 

of additional traffic on the road and safety of users. 

� Comment 

The condition of Kings Road is considered to be acceptable in terms of 

the likely additional traffic to be generated by a further 2 dwellings, 

should the proposal be supported by Council. 




6.2. The proposal is consistent with the Objectives of Schedule 1 of LUPAA. 


As discussed above, the proposal is inconsistent with Council Policy C3.13 – Shared 

Rights-of-Way. This Policy relates to the maximum number of rights-of-way 

permissible and highlights 4 as the maximum number allowed. As the proposal 

proposes access to a total of 5 properties, it would therefore be in conflict with this 

Policy.


8. CONCLUSION 

The proposal is for the subdivision of an existing property at 64 Kings Road, 

Cambridge into 3 resultant lots. The proposal relies upon a narrow strip for access to 

the proposed lots and the same access strip is already encumbered by rights-of-way to 

2 neighbouring properties. For this reason and as a result of insufficient frontage 

width, the proposal is for a Prohibited development under the Scheme and should 

therefore be refused. 




4. Zoning Plan (1) 

Ross Lovell 

MANAGER INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT 

Council now concludes its deliberations as a Planning Authority under the Land Use 

Planning and Approvals Act, 1993.

Subject 

Site 

Attachment 1 

Location Plan - 64 Kings Road, Cambridge 

Scale : 1:19836.966 


Attachments: 64 Kings Road Page 1 of 5

Attachment 2 



64 Kings Road, CAMBRIDGE 

Attachment 3 

Site viewed from end of Kings Road, viewed looking west 

Kings Road and access strip to site, viewed looking west 


Attachment 4 

Zoning Plan - 64 Kings Road, Cambridge 

Scale : 1:9918.754 



CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – CUSTOMER SERVICE- 4 JUNE 2012 101 

11.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE 

Nil Items.

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – ASSET MANAGEMENT- 4 JUNE 2012 102 

11.5 ASSET MANAGEMENT 

Nil Items.

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT- 4 JUNE 2012 103 

11.6 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

Nil Items.

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL – GOVERNANCE- 4 JUNE 2012 104 

11.7 GOVERNANCE 

11.7.1 ESTIMATES 2012/2013 

(File No 10-02-04) 


PURPOSE 

To consider the Estimates, incorporating the Capital Expenditure Programme, for the 

2012/2013 financial year, together with an updated List of Fees and Charges. 

RELATION TO EXISTING POLICY/PLANS 

Consistent with Council’s adopted Strategic Plan 2010-2015. 


Council is required to adopt Estimates for each financial year. 

CONSULTATION 

No issues to be addressed. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 

The Estimates provide statutory authorisation for recurrent and capital expenditure for 

2012/2013. Based on the draft estimates, the required increased rating effort to meet 

the proposed functional outcomes is 3.2% excluding the effects of carbon pricing and 

the State Government Fire Services Contribution. A further 0.7% has been allowed to 

meet additional costs imposed on Council as a result of legislated pricing of carbon 

emissions, giving a total increase in net rating requirement of 3.9%. 


A. That the Estimates for 2012/2013 as attached as Attachment 1 be adopted. 

B. That the Capital Expenditure Programme for 2012/2013 attached as 

Attachment 2 be adopted. 

C. That the new List of Fees and Charges attached as Attachment 3 be adopted. 

NB: An Absolute Majority is required for a decision on this matter. 

________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

1.1. Draft Estimates, Capital Expenditure Programme and List of Fees and Charges 

for 2012/2013 have been prepared arising from a series of Council Workshops 

which considered a range of initiatives and issues likely to have an impact on 

the organisation in the coming year.


1.2. Council is required to adopt Estimates for each financial year. 

2. REPORT IN DETAIL 

2.1. The draft Estimates (refer Attachment 1) provide the high level financial 

framework within which Council will operate for the 2012/2013 financial 

year. They are presented on a programme basis and meet Council’s statutory 

obligations under the Local Government Act, 1993. The draft Estimates are 

consistent with the detailed programme budgets discussed by Council at its 

series of Workshops on the issue, with minor adjustments made as definite 

amounts (eg final rates growth) become known. 

2.2. The draft Estimates require a net increase in rating income of 3.9% on 

2011/2012 levels net of growth. Growth had been estimated at 2.1% during 

Council’s budget deliberations, however, final supplementary valuations 

received resulted in actual growth of 2.2%. This is a strong result when 

compared to the long term average (1.6% over 15 years). 

2.3. The net increase excludes the effects of the State Government’s Fire Services 

Contribution, which had an increase of 1.4%. The relatively small movement 

in this levy has the effect of reducing the overall percentage rate increase (ie 

including Council’s requirements and the Fire Levy) so that the aggregate shift 

is 3.4%. It is this lower amount which will be reflected on rate notices, 

although clearly varying from property to property. 

2.4. The increase in required total rating effort is above the March Consumer Price 

Index (Hobart) of 2.1%, against which Council rate movements are frequently 

compared. However, a range of issues needs to be taken into account in 

considering this comparison. Most significantly, the CPI is predominantly 

made up of goods and services which are irrelevant in considering Council’s 

cost structure. In particular, the low CPI figure was driven by a 30% reduction 

in fruit prices for the quarter.


2.5. Major factors affecting Council’s rating requirement include a further stage of 

budget “repair” following water reform, further increased effort in funding 

infrastructure renewal and the introduction of carbon pricing by the Australian 

Government. 

2.6. Transitional issues associated with water reform – in particular the short term 

loss of dividend revenue from equity in Southern Water – continue to have an 

impact on the recurrent estimates. The 2011/2012 Estimates were supported 

by an amount of $400,000 from reserves in response to these issues. 

Aldermen considered a strategy to eliminate this reserve support over coming 

years and the 2012/2013 Estimates contain support of $167,000 with this 

amount planned to reduce to nil in 2013/2014. The draft Estimates therefore 

require rating effort of $233,000 to meet this difference. 

2.7. The draft Estimates also provide for an increase in the level of additional 

effort dedicated to infrastructure renewal funding. Modelling considered by 

Aldermen during preparation of the draft Estimates confirmed a long term 

shortfall in renewal funding. A strategy to address this shortfall was 

considered and this strategy is reflected in the draft Estimates. An additional 

amount of $150,000 in increased funding is proposed for 2012/2013, together 

with an inflation adjustment of $168,000 to maintain the value of the existing 

level of effort in real terms, giving a total nominal increase of $318,000. 

These amounts assume that new funding (real terms) will rise to $350,000 

each year from 2014/2015 and rely on future dividends from Southern Water 

being applied entirely to infrastructure renewal. 

2.8. Through this mechanism, the draft Estimates continue Council’s Policy of 

moving to full funding of future infrastructure renewal. 

2.9. Closely related to Council’s strategy for funding infrastructure renewal is 

interest earned on investments. This is estimated to increase by $600,000 

against the 2011/2012 estimate due to the level of Council’s cash holdings, 

which have largely been driven by Council’s infrastructure renewal strategy 

and a range of funded capital projects which have yet to be completed.


However, the increase in revenue is entirely off-set by the amount 

appropriated to the Infrastructure Renewal Reserve, representing interest 

earnings on those funds, being increased. Through this mechanism the 

Infrastructure Renewal Reserve retains its value in real terms, assumptions 

made in long term financing modelling are met and the net rating requirement 

has effectively been insulated from the effect of cyclical movements in interest 

rates. 

2.10. As noted above, the Fire Services Contribution which Council is obliged to 

pay to the Tasmania Fire Service has increased by some 1.4% against 

2011/2012. The contribution will be $3.94 million, an increase of $55,000. 

2.11. Waste collection and recycling expenses are expected to increase markedly in 

2012/2013. Collection expenses are estimated at $2.305 million, or an 

increase of 12%. This is largely driven by the cost of disposal at the Copping 

landfill site charged to Council by the Joint Authority operating that facility. 

The Copping gate fee rate per tonne in 2011/2012 is $40 and advice is that this 

will increase to $52 in 2012/2013. Kerbside recycling costs and greenwaste 

collection costs, being the other major items in this category, are estimated to 

increase by 3%. Waste costs overall will rise by 8%. 

2.12. The Australian Government has enacted a range of legislation which 

introduces a price on carbon for some 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia, 

becoming effective on 1 July 2012. This legislation also provides for a range 

of payments to individuals and in some cases, industry, to support them in 

meeting additional costs arising from carbon pricing. Council is not expected 

to incur a direct cost from this measure, however, will be exposed to a range 

of increased costs as the carbon price works its way through the supply chain. 

A major issue facing Council is that the precise effect of carbon pricing on its 

cost structure cannot be predicted accurately. Its final effect will depend on 

the extent to which primary “payers” pass on the cost, the extent to which 

these businesses participate in Council’s supply chain and how downstream 

producers and suppliers build the additional cost into their pricing.


Discussions with key suppliers who are likely to be affected by cost shifts 

indicate that their own cost (and hence pricing) structures are unclear post 1 

July 2012. 

2.13. Studies undertaken to date vary markedly in the predicted effect of carbon 

pricing on Local Government. The NSW economic regulator has reported an 

estimate of 0.6%, Federal Treasury predicts an effect on CPI of 0.7%, 

Municipal Association of Victoria members have been advised a figure of 

0.8% and media reports have put the cost increase at up to 3%. 

2.14. It is clear that the 2 primary cost drivers for Local Government in relation to 

carbon pricing are electricity and larger landfill sites (annual emissions in 

excess of 25,000 equivalent tonnes of carbon). Council’s annual electricity 

charges are in the order of $1.2 million. An effect of 10% (which has been 

suggested for mainland Councils) would therefore give additional costs of 

$120,000. There is potential, however, for Tasmania’s power pricing to be 

less affected than other States due to its extensive use of hydro power 

generation. In relation to landfill, the Copping site is expected to exceed the 

25,000 tonne threshold. However, a facility is to be established at the site to 

extract methane gas, generate electricity and feed this into the grid. Advice 

from the Authority is that this will at least off-set any effects from carbon 

pricing. Pricing of waste disposal at Copping has been priced accordingly. 

2.15. Given this range of information on carbon pricing and having regard to other 

cost pressures affecting Council’s estimates such as waste charges and 

infrastructure renewal funding, it is recommended that Council provide for the 

effects of carbon pricing at the lower end of the range of estimates. While this 

creates the potential for further cost increases in 2013/2014 (a small additional 

increase is anticipated in any event), it ensures that Council is not likely to 

over-recover in 2012/2013, a matter which is expected to receive close 

attention from the regulators. On this basis, the overall effect on the rating 

requirement provided by the draft Estimates in relation to carbon pricing is 

0.7%.


2.16. Significant items contained in the draft Estimates include: 

� continuation of the financing strategy for infrastructure renewal, 

additional $318,000; 

� increased investment income ($600,000) and corresponding increase in 

interest attributed to the Infrastructure Renewal Reserve ($600,000); 

� $1.47 million for sealed road maintenance; 

� $504,000 for unsealed road maintenance; 

� $1.012 million for street lighting; 

� $386,000 for stormwater inspection and repair; 

� $3.58 million for kerbside waste, recycling and greenwaste collection; 

� $175,000 for maintenance to tracks and trails; 

� $174,000 to address graffiti issues; 

� $864,000 for general sportsground maintenance; 

� $1.27 million for parks and playground maintenance; 

� $65,000 to develop a new Planning Scheme; 

� additional resourcing to support Council’s ranger services, 

administrative support and business systems development; 

� $87,000 to provide a full time fire management crew (additional 6 

months per year). 

2.17. A separate schedule of the proposed Capital Expenditure Programme is 

provided with this report as Attachment 2. The programme provides for 

works to the value of $14.38 million and is fully funded from a range of 

capital funding sources including State Grants Commission, infrastructure 

renewal funding, capital contribution from rates, road grants, specific purpose 

grants, and asset sales/equity contributions. 

2.18. Significant to the programme is a continued emphasis on road and footpath 

renewal. Major projects contained within this programme include: 

� $1.2 million footpath and kerb/gutter renewal; 

� $1.75 million road resealing; 

� $3.5 million road reconstruction; 

� $516,000 signalised intersection at Alma Street/Cambridge Road;


� $300,000 multi-user pathway at Esplanade, Lindisfarne (Stage 2); 

� $230,000 rural footpath – Seven Mile Beach to Cambridge (Stage 2); 

� $177,000 Seven Mile Beach footpaths; 

� $410,000 stormwater upgrade – Lower River Street/Alexandra 

Esplanade/South Street (Stage 2); 

� $270,000 gross pollutant trap at Simmons Park; 

� $215,000 stormwater upgrade National Fitness Centre to Montagu Bay 

Road; 

� $185,000 upgrade culverts under Prossers Road/Wellington Street 

Richmond; 

� $180,000 Cremorne stormwater improvement; 

� $190,000 public toilet upgrade at DeBomfords Lane; 

� $263,000 Roches Beach/Cremorne Beach dune nourishment; 

� $600,000 Simmons Park upgrade (Stage 2); 

� $160,000 Bellerive Beach Park Master Plan (Stage 2); 

� $200,000 Richmond Oval lighting; 

� $180,000 North Warrane Oval drainage; 

� $150,000 Clarence Aquatic Centre pool resurfacing; 

� $110,000 Sandford Oval upgrade; 

� $100,000 Kangaroo Bay change rooms (Stage 3). 

2.19. No new borrowings are required under the draft Estimates. Council’s total 

debt at 30 June 2012 will be $1.0 million. 

2.20. Council’s List of Fees and Charges (refer Attachment 3) has also been 

considered during the Budget Workshops, with proposed alterations included 

for Council’s consideration. 

2.21. Fee adjustments are generally in line with inflation, however, 2 proposed 

charges received particular attention as part of the Budget Workshop process. 

Gate fees at the Mornington Park Waste Transfer Station (refer Page 35 of 

Attachment 3) are proposed to increase substantially.


This reflects increased costs for disposal at the Copping site and limits the 

increase in community service obligation otherwise payable in respect of this 

activity. It is consistent with the polluter pays principle that individual users 

should pay additional costs rather than being borne by ratepayers generally. 

Significantly, the minimum gate fee has been maintained at its current level 

under the proposal; this has the effect of lowering the weight at which the 

minimum fee no longer applies and at which the per tonnage rate takes over. 

2.22. A proposed new fee discussed during the budget process is a percentage 

charge for credit card transactions. The cost of providing credit card facilities 

is in the order of $70,000 for 2011/2012, however, card payments relate to 

only some 25% of transactions. Consequently, there is an equity issue in that 

all ratepayers currently pay for a facility used by only a minority of ratepayers 

and the specific users and their costs can be identified. Legislation now 

permits user charges for credit card transactions and it is therefore proposed 

that a 1% fee be applied, meeting the marginal and system costs of providing 

the service. A range of alternative payment methods are available should 

ratepayers not wish to pay the fee. If approved, the charge will not apply until 

later in the financial year, since a range of system modifications are required 

for its implementation. Specific advice of any new charge will be included on 

rate notices, in Council newsletters and on Council’s web site. 

3. CONSULTATION 

3.1. Community Consultation 


3.2. State/Local Government Protocol 


3.3. Other 


4. STRATEGIC PLAN/POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

The Local Government Act requires the adoption of Estimates each year.


5. EXTERNAL IMPACTS 


6. RISK AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 

No issues to be addressed beyond meeting the statutory obligation to adopt Annual 

Estimates. 

7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 

The Estimates provide statutory authorisation for recurrent and capital expenditure for 

2012/2013. Based on the draft Estimates, the required net increase in rating effort 

will be 3.4%, or 3.9% excluding the effects of the State Government Fire Services 

Contribution. 

8. ANY OTHER UNIQUE ISSUES 

Following adoption of the Estimates, a draft Annual Plan will be prepared for 

consideration by Council at a future Meeting. Council is required to adopt an Annual 

Plan each year. 

9. CONCLUSION 

9.1. The attached Estimates reflect a range of issues considered by Aldermen 

through the budget development process. 

9.2. The overall increase in rating effort required to meet the proposed expenditure 

levels is 3.4% net of growth or 3.9% excluding the effects of the State 

Government Fire Services Contribution. 

Attachments: 1. Annual Estimates (10) 

2. Capital Expenditure Programme (5) 

3. List of Fees and Charges (50) 

Andrew Paul 

GENERAL MANAGER

GOVERNANCE and COMMUNITY 

Communities and People 11,377 

City Future 2,343 

Natural Environment 6,862 

Governance 9,155 

Corporate Support 3,839 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Roads & Transport 10,042 

Stormwater 2,078 

Facilities Management 3,941 

Plant 2,631 

TOTAL RATING REQUIREMENT 52,268 

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL 

ANNUAL ESTIMATES 2012/2013 

($000) 

EXPENSES REVENUES NET ASSET EXPENSES TFRS TO TFRS FROM NET RATING 

EXPENSES PURCHASES CAPITALISED RESERVES RESERVES REQU'T 

5,688 

1,417 

373 

3,714 

7 

1,285 

692 

525 

2,578 

16,279 

5,689 

926 

6,489 

5,441 

3,832 

8,757 

1,386 

3,416 

53 

35,989 

Less additional Council remissions 40 

Net Rating Requirement 40,132 

Rates Raised 2011/12 Plus Growth 38,812 

Net Increase Including Government Charges 3.4% 

Increase Due to Govt Charges -0.5% 

NET INCREASE 3.9% 

Page 1 

2,965 

477 

9,422 

2,240 

743 

15,847 

391 

59 

1,981 

492 

91 

3,014 

- 

300 

2,355 

- 

2,655 

Attachment 1 

1,461 

92 

167 

50 

7,654 

1,176 

652 

53 

11,305 

6,802 

1,226 

6,815 

7,629 

3,782 

8,544 

1,958 

3,416 

- 

40,172

Clarence City Council Annual Estimates 2012/2013 

COMMUNITIES & PEOPLE 

FINANCIAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 

$'000 

Total Expenses 11,377 

Total Revenues 5,688 

Net Expenses 5,689 

Less Expenses Capitalised 391 

Net Operating Expenses 5,298 

Net Asset Purchases 2,965 

Borrowings 

Transfers to Reserves 

Transfers from Reserves 1,461 

Capital Financing Requirement 1,504 


Capital 

0% 

Other 

51% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 

Share of Total Rate Levy 

Page 2 

Internal 

43% 

External 

57% 

Rates 

49% 

17%


CITY FUTURE 


$'000 



Net Expenses 926 


Net Operating Expenses 926 

Net Asset Purchases 0 

Borrowings 

Transfers to Reserves 300 

Transfers from Reserves 0 

Capital Financing Requirement 300 


Other 

54% 

External 

23% 

Capital 

0% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 3 

3% 

Rates 

46% 

Internal 

77%


NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 


$'000 


Total Revenues 373 





Borrowings 





Other 

6% 

Internal 

16% 

Capital 

0% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 4 

17% 

Rates 

94% 

External 

84%


GOVERNANCE 


$'000 







Borrowings 

Transfers to Reserves 2,355 




Other 

34% 

Capital 

0% 

Internal 

15% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 5 

19% 

Rates 

66% 

External 

85%


CORPORATE SUPPORT 


$'000 







Borrowings 



Capital Financing Requirement -50 


Other 

1% 

Capital 

0% 

External 

49% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 6 

9% 

Rates 

99% 

Internal 

51%


INFRASTRUCUTRE - ROADS & TRANSPORT 


$'000 




Less Expenses Capitalised 1,981 



Borrowings 





Other 

51% 

Capital 

20% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 7 

Internal 

18% 

21% 

Rates 

49% 

External 

62%


INFRASTRUCTURE - STORMWATER 


$'000 







Borrowings 





Other 

49% 

External 

62% 

Internal 

24% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 8 

Capital 

14% 

5% 

Rates 

51%


INFRASTRUCTURE - FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 


$'000 







Borrowings 





Other 

26% 

External 

57% 

Internal 

8% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 9 

Capital 

35% 

9% 

Rates 

74%


PLANT 


$'000 



Net Expenses 53 




Borrowings 

Transfers to Reserves 0 


Capital Financing Requirement -53 

Net Rating Requirement 0 

Internal 

9% 

Funding Mix 

Resource Mix 


Page 10 

0% 

External 

91%

Funding 

Attachment 2 

Clarence City Council 

Annual Plan 2012/2013 - Capital Expenditure Programme 

Expenditure 

$000 

Grants Commission 2,680 

Renewal reserve (renewal projects only) 8,832 

Borrowings - 

Roads to Recovery 468 

Special Grants 139 

Property Sales 238 

Rates for reseal prep transferred from recurrent 400 

Major Development Rates 1,337 

Pool funds reallocated from 11/12 projects 60 

Public Open Space Reserve - 

Car Parking Reserve 135 

14,289 

Active Recreation 987 

Passive Recreation 1,590 

Community Arts 20 

Environmental 391 

Waste 27 

Facilities Management 652 

Roads 8,756 

Stormwater 1,868 

14,290 

Funds Variance (Shortfall) (0) 

Special Grants 

- MAST 34,000 

- Multi User Path Montagu Bay 75,000 

- Begonia/Flagstaff Intersection 20,000 

- Clarence Bicyle Strategy 10,000 

139,000 

Page 1

Capital Programme 2012/2013 

Total Cost 

$ 

Active Recreation 

Clarence Aquatic Centre - Refurbish the pool surface 150,000 

Clarence Aquatic Centre - Refurbish and upgrade female shower amenity block 72,000 

Kangaroo Bay - Sportsfield change rooms 100,000 

Lindisfarne Oval - completion of Wash Down Area 30,000 

Montagu Bay boat ramp - subject of MAST grant 70,000 

North Warrane Oval - Install sub-soil drainage 180,000 

Richmond Oval - Design stage for New Sports Pavilion to cater for DDA, 2 Female / 

2 Male Change Rooms and Umpires 30,000 

Richmond Oval - Upgrade sports ground lighting to Aust Standard 200,000 

Richmond Tennis Club - Construction of a Tennis Hit Up Wall on the Eastern side of 

the court - RAC priority 15,000 

Sandford Oval - Upgrade based on assessment, undertake oval turf maintenance 

work, install bore pump and 25,000l holding tank and instal automated irrigation 

system 110,000 

Wentworth Park - completion of Wash Down Area 30,000 

TOTAL $987,000 

Passive Recreation 

Acton Court Facility - Stage 2 Development, Access road and turning circle, Off 

street parking, Water system, Lookout area 80,000 

Adina Park - Shade and Amenity trees 10,000 

Anulka Park - Replacement of Play Gear and purchase and installation of seating 

and new rubbish bin 22,000 

Anzac Park - Shade and Amenity trees 10,000 

Astor Park - Upgrade Irrigation System 31,000 

Bellerive Beach Park - Master Plan Stage 2 160,000 

Bellerive Boardwalk - public shade structures Stage 2 70,000 

Bellerive/Rokeby/Clarendon Vale - Install replacement exercise equipment 35,000 

Clarence Foreshore Trail - Signage 20,000 

Clifton Beach Park - Replace BBQ's 10,500 

Clifton Play Park - Shade and Amenity trees 5,000 

Construction of steps at 100A Derwent Avenue, from Derwent Avenue to Natone Hill 

Reserve 20,000 

Construction of steps at 160A Derwent Avenue, from Derwent Avenue to Natone Hill 

Reserve 20,000 

Cremorne Beach Park - Install exercise equipment and replace BBQ 35,000 

Cremorne Beach Park - Shade and Amenity trees 10,000 

Duke Park - Upgrade Irrigation System 25,000 

Elinga Park - Replacement of Play Gear and purchase and installation of seating and 

fence along roadside of park 25,000 

Install seats at relevant locations on bus routes and shopping centres; Napoleon 

Street, Clarence Street/Shoreline Drive, Clarence Street/Wentworth Street 15,000 

Lauderdale Canal - Construct toddlers play gear at Lauderdale and fencing 31,000 

Lighting Walkways / Multi-use paths Bellerive Beach Park, Charles Hand Park 40,000 

Montagu Bay Park - Install a BBQ & Shelter 31,000 

Purchase & Installation of directional signage for major parks 9,000 

Replace the existing softfall with recycled rubber softfall throughout Council's 

playgrounds. 53,000 

Richmond - St Johns Circle side - Remove stairs, rehabilitate the area, top soil and 

lawn 30,000 

Richmond - Replacement of Trees Richmond Cemetery 2,000 

Richmond Skate Park - Install drinking fountain at the open area rear of Tennis 

courts 5,000 

Page 2


Total Cost 

$ 

Risdon Vale Community Park - Replacement of teenage play equipment & purchase 

and installation of shelter and seating 60,000 

Simmons Park stage 2 - Rain Garden & U/G Tank, Irrigation, Seniors Equipment, 

Realign Paths, Landscaping/mounding. 600,000 

Tangara Trail - Implement management plan recommendation for installing signage, 

barriers and fencing along with upgrading sections of the trail. 15,000 

Warrane Green Belt - Replacement and improvement of Play Gear and purchase 

and installation of seating 60,000 

Waverly Flora Park - Replacement of Play equipment and construction of retaining 

wall and site works 50,000 

TOTAL $1,589,500 

Community Arts 

Purchase of Public Art 20,000 

TOTAL $20,000 

Natural 

Rosny Hill Management Plan - implementation 21,000 

Upgrading of fire trails 21,000 

Erosion protection and ramp access from Bellerive Beach to Second Bluff 50,000 

Roches Beach Bio-diversity Assessment 11,000 

Roches Beach & Cremorne Beach - Dune Nourishment 263,550 

Survey of Dune Profiles 9,000 

Roscommon Management Plan - Implementation of adopted Plan 10,000 

Sheoak Point Revegetation 5,000 

TOTAL $390,550 

Waste 

Install additional 20 Public Place Recycling bins throughout the City 27,000 

TOTAL $27,000 

Facilities Management 

Design stage - DDA Compliant Public Toilet Pindos Drive Play Park 40,000 

Public Toilet Upgrade-Debomfords Lane 190,000 

Bellerive Boardwalk Landings 20,000 

Richmond Town Hall Supper Room Kitchen Upgrade - RAC priority 50,000 

Deck renewal for Bellerive Boardwalk 10,500 

Council Chambers - replace chiller plant 260,000 

Depot Storage Material Bins 16,000 

Rosny Historic Centre - Construct Extension to existing storage 35,000 

Rosny Barn & Cottage remedial works including minor structural works 30,000 

TOTAL $651,500 

Page 3


Total Cost 

$ 

Roads 

Bus Bays-121 Seven Mile Beach Road and 208/216 Acton Road 40,000 

Rosny Bus Mall - traffic management works 120,000 

Howrah Rec Centre Overflow Car Park 88,000 

Multi Story Car park Rosny Park - Concept investigation 15,000 

Car Park Clarence Street as per DA for 4a Clarence Street 168,250 

Dampier St Soccer Field Car Park Sealing 30,000 

Begonia Street/Flagstaff Gully Intersection - Construct Traffic Calming measure 40,000 

Esplanade, Lindisfarne - Multiuser pathway - Stage 2 300,000 

Clarence Street Cycle Way/Multi User Path - Bellerive to Howrah. Undertake 

community consultation 20,000 

Bicycle U frames 5,000 

Construction of Multi User path Tasman Highway - Stage 2 from Conara Road to 

Riawena Road. 150,000 

Install DDA compliant ramps various 45,000 

Installation of kerb ramps various 20,000 

Installation of kerb ramps - pedestrian refuge 20,000 

Monaco Place - Rock fall fencing 6,000 

Seven Mile Beach footpaths 177,000 

Rural Footpath - Seven Mile Beach to Cambridge, Stage 2 - Estate Drive to 

Cambridge 230,000 

Replace aged kerb and gutter - various 50,000 

Footpath/Kerb and Gutter Remediation Program 1,200,000 

Gravel Road Sealing - Napoleon St Richmond 20,000 

South Arm - seal exist gravel road to jetty and provide footpath 35,000 

Kangaroo Bay-construct signalised intersection Alma Street/Cambridge Road - 

including temporary connection to Kangaroo Bay Drive 516,000 

Queen Street, centre median kerb and gutter replacement between Crown and 

Petchy Streets 75,000 

Road Reseal Program 1,750,000 

Replace treated pine retaining walls with masonry retaining wall near frontage of no 

204 Tranmere Road 40,000 

Major Digouts/ Reconstruction - Annual Program 3,500,000 

Grange Road West - Seal the gravel car park and landscaping of surrounds 20,000 

Laneway Sealing 40,000 

Construct a walking track along Council reserve from 141 Tranmere Road to 580 

Oceana Drive 21,000 

Install traffic island corner Tilanbi and Yarram Streets 15,000 

TOTAL $8,756,250 

Stormwater 

Drainage Minor Construction 52,000 

Pipe open drain at 141 Tranmere Road 31,000 

Stormwater Upgrade from the National Fitness Centre car park to Montagu Bay 

Road 215,000 

Install new headwall and silt trap outside 504 Cambridge Road 7,000 

Cremorne Stormwater Drainage Improvement Works 180,000 

Oscars Place Stormwater extension 50,000 

Upgrade existing 150 mm dia stormwater main in Correa Street 15,000 

Lauderdale Oval - drainage works 30,000 

Simmons Park - Beach Road Outfall 125,000 

Replace the existing 100 dia Stormwater line with 225 dia line at 37 Esplanade 

Lindisfarne 12,000 

Risdon Vale Rivulet - Stage 2 - creek remediation 64,000 

Page 4


Total Cost 

$ 

GPT - Simmons Park 270,000 

Stage 2 - Stormwater Upgrade - Lower River Street - Alexandra Esplanade to South 

Street 410,000 

International Close - Refurbish Soakage Pits 10,000 

Roches Beach Rivulet - Undertake bank stabilisation and rehabilitation works 20,000 

Mountain Bike Park Stormwater Diversion 12,000 

Upgrade culverts under Prosser Road and Wellington Street. Define swales. 185,000 

Increase capacity at Gunning Street to convey Victoria Street Richmond runoff 30,000 

Seven Mile Beach groundwater drainage-main from Woodhurst Road to Acton Creek 100,000 

Upgrade reticulation between Cambridge Road and Shackelton Street and further 

downstream 50,000 

TOTAL $1,868,000 

Page 5 

GRAND TOTAL $14,289,800


List of Fees Effective from 1 July 2012 

ITEM 2011-12 2012-13 (Proposed) % Change 

PLANNING FEES 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 

Preliminary assessment including PD4 check (no charge) 

Advertising & Notification Fee (req for discretionary applications only) $250.00 $260.00 4.0% 

Single Dwelling Assessment Fee (charged for new dwellings and additions) $250.00 

Outbuildings and incidental residential structures


Planning Scheme Amendments 

Advertising & Notification Fee $1,000 (100% refunded if Council 

refuses to initiate and 30% refunded if 

Assessment Fee (excludes DA fees for S43 applications) 

TPC Costs 

amendment refused by TPC) 

$2,000 ($500 refunded if amendment 

not certified) - if amendment for 

minor changes - e.g. to a use and 

development standard) 

OR $10,000 for other amendments 

($2,000 refunded if amendment not 

certified) 

$272.00 (plus any TPC adjustment 

made during financial year) 

$1,100 (100% refunded if Council 

refuses to initiate and 30% refunded if 

amendment refused by TPC) 

$2,100 ($500 refunded if amendment 

not certified) - if amendment for 

minor changes - e.g. to a use and 

development standard) 

10.0% 

5.0% 

OR $10,000 for other amendments 

($2,000 refunded if amendment not 

certified) 

$280.00 (plus any TPC adjustment 

made during financial year) 2.9% 

STRATA SCHEMES 

Strata Scheme Sealing $265.00 $300.00 13.2% 

Reinspections where development fails first requested inspection $85.00 $87.70 3.2% 

Assessment and issuing of Certificate of Approval for Strata Scheme 

(including amendments etc) 

Community Development and Staged Development Schemes Assessment 

(Where no DA required) 

Community Development and Staged Development Schemes Amendment 

(Where DA required also - DA fees also apply) 

$160 per new strata lot (min $160) $165 per new strata lot (min $165) 3.1% 

$130 per dwelling/ tenancy - 

minimum $180 

$130 per dwelling/ tenancy - 

minimum $210 

0.0% 

16.7% 

$150.00 $165.00 10.0% 

SUBDIVISION FEES 

Advertising & Notification Fee $250.00 $260.00 4.0% 

All fees and charges inclusive of GST where applicable 

Page 2

ITEM 

ASSESSMENT FEE 

2011-12 2012-13 (Proposed) % Change 

For not more than 10 lots $340.00 $350.00 2.9% 

For 11 - 30 lots inclusive $900.00 $950.00 5.6% 

For more than 30 lots $1,700.00 $1,800.00 5.9% 

For review & approval of infrastructure plans 

Request to consider amended plans, prior to expiry of Statutory approval 

period 

Checking of Final plan for sealing 

Request for document signing & or sealing 

Reinspections where development fails first requested inspection 

OTHER PLANNING FEES 

Application for minor amendment under Section 56 or 43K LUPAA 

Petitions to amend Sealed Plans - S103 Local Government (Bld & Misc 

Provisions) Act including sealing fee 

Applications for Certificates of non-contravention of dealings - S90 LG 

(Bld & Misc) Act 

Applications for Adhesion Orders including sealing fee 

Preparation of part 5 agreement 

Deferment of Council's consideration of applications for planning permits 

Any application withdrawn prior to determination 

Any application seeking to authorise use or development already 

undertaken 

ASSET MANAGEMENT FEES (DA's & Subdivision) 

Site Inspection to re-assess previously non approved works 

1% of contract cost or certified 

construct cost - Min fee $240 

1% of contract cost or certified 

construct cost - Min fee $250 4.2% 

50% of applicable Fee 50% of applicable Fee 0.0% 

$280.00 $280.00 0.0% 

$85.00 $85.00 0.0% 

$85.00 $85.00 0.0% 

Permitted DA - $105 

Discretionary DA - $165 

$1,315.00 ($315.00 to be paid on 

application, balance fee of $1,000.00 

to be paid if hearing is to be 

conducted) All fees to be paid by 

applicant. 

Permitted DA - $110 

4.8% 

Discretionary DA - $170 

3.0% 

$1,315.00 ($315.00 to be paid on 

application, balance fee of $1,000.00 

to be paid if hearing is to be 

conducted) All fees to be paid by 

applicant. 0.0% 

$330.00 $350.00 6.1% 

$265.00 $270.00 1.9% 

$500.00 $550.00 10.0% 

$250.00 $250.00 0.0% 

30% of the applicable fee up to a 

maximum of $500 (balance of 

original fee to be refunded) 

Applicable fee for the use or 

development plus 25% of that fee. 

30% of the applicable fee up to a 

maximum of $500 (balance of 

original fee to be refunded) 0.0% 

Applicable fee for the use or 

development plus 50% of that fee. 100.0% 

$85 per additional inspection $87 per additional inspection 2.4% 

Page 3 

All fees and charges inclusive of GST where applicable




BUILDING FEES 

PERMIT AUTHORITY FEES 

Building permit - Class 1 single dwellings $350.00 

$170 (except where a Levy 

under Section 270 of the Act 

$355.00 1.4% 

Building permit - Class 10A work under $12,000 

is not applicable = $80) $85.00 6.3% 

Building permit - Class 10A work exceeding $12,000 $175.00 NEW 

$600 for 2 dwellings plus $615 for 2 dwellings plus 2.5% + 

$120 for each additional $125 for each additional 4.2% 

Building permit Multiple Dwellings or Commercial 

dwelling 

dwelling 

0.2% of estimated cost of 0.2% of estimated cost of 

Levy: prescribed under Part 3 of the Building and Construction Industry works 

works 

Training Fund Act 1990 

E.g. For $100,000 works E.g. For $100,000 works 

Applies for value of work more than $12,000 

Levy = $200 

Levy = $200 0.0% 

0.1% of estimated cost of 0.1% of estimated cost of 

works 

works 

Levy: payable under Section 270 of the Building Act 2000 

E.g. For $100,000 works E.g. For $100,000 works 

Applies for value of work $12,000 or more 

Levy = $100 

Levy = $100 0.0% 

Extension of Time to Building / Plumbing Permit $100.00 $100.00 0.0% 

Certificate of Completion $45.00 $48.00 6.7% 

Sealing of Services (carried out by Council) $150.00 $150.00 0.0% 

Amendment Fee (Re-assessment) $160.00 

In accordance with Schedule 

$160.00 0.0% 

4 of the Building 

In accordance with Schedule 4 

Infringement Notices 

Regulations 

of the Building Regulations 0.0% 

Temporary Occupancy Permit $90.00 $95.00 5.6% 


Page 4

ITEM 

OTHER FEES 


Infrastructure Protection Bond (All new dwellings, commercial buildings & Please refer to fees list for Please refer to fees list for 

substantial additions) Applies to urban areas and Richmond only 

"Infrastructure Bonds" "Infrastructure Bonds" 

Normal building fee plus Normal building fee plus 

Permit to proceed (following illegal works notice) 

$250 

$260 4.0% 

Normal building fee plus Normal building fee plus 

Permit of Substantial Compliance (Processing & Issue) 

$250 

$260 4.0% 

Build over easement request/assessment fee $69.00 $71.50 3.6% 

$650 Inspection and $450 $650 Inspection and $450 

Building Certificate - Class 1 and 10 

each subsequent inspection each subsequent inspection 0.0% 

$1,200 Inspection and $450 $1,200 Inspection and $450 

Building Certificate - Commercial and Industrial 

each subsequent inspection 

50% of permit fee (balance 

each subsequent inspection 0.0% 

of original fee to be 50% of permit fee (balance of 

Any application withdrawn prior to issue of permit 

refunded) 


Hard Copy Paper Print of Permit and Plans Up to (A3) in size - per page $2.50 NEW 

Hard Copy Paper Print of Permit and Plans Over (A3) in size - per page $10.00 NEW 

PLUMBING APPLICATIONS 

Plumbing fees specifically relating to the installation of retro-fit rainwater tanks 

(only) will be waived $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 


Page 5


DWELLINGS, FLATS & OUTBUILDINGS 

Plumbing Permit - Stand Alone & Certificate of Completion $115.00 $175.00 52.2% 

Plumbing Permit Class 10A - Stormwater Only & Certificate of Completion $150.00 $200.00 33.3% 

Plumbing Permit Residential Class 1A and/or Class 10A with fixtures $115.00 $175.00 52.2% 

Plumbing Permit - Lauderdale connection to sewer system only $70.00 $70.00 0.0% 

Lauderdale Sewer Connection Inspection Fee $30.00 $30.00 0.0% 

Special Plumbing Permits non-trade waste (excluding on site systems) $60.00 $65.00 8.3% 

$160 for each dwelling. $165 for each dwelling. 

Unit developments - $160 Unit developments - $165 for 

Residential Sanitary Plumbing Inspection Fee 

for each unit 

each unit 3.1% 


Unit developments - $90 for Unit developments - $95 for 

Residential Stormwater Inspection Fee 

each unit 



General Inspection Fee (Chargeable on all plumbing permits with sanitary Unit developments - $150 Unit developments - $200 for 

fixtures and/or per unit in unit developments) 

for each unit 


Amended permit $120.00 $125.00 4.2% 

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 

Plumbing Permit Commercial Class 2-9 work under $500,000 $150.00 $200.00 33.3% 

0.03% of cost of works. 0.031% of cost of works. 

Plumbing Permit Commercial Class 2-9 work over $500,000 

Minimum $150 

Minimum $155 3.3% 

Commercial Sanitary Inspection Fee $200.00 $210.00 5.0% 

Commercial Stormwater Inspection Fee $100.00 $105.00 5.0% 

General Inspection Fee $150.00 $200.00 33.3% 

Amended permit 

Plumbing Permit - connection of water tank in serviced urban and rural 

$120.00 $125.00 4.2% 

residential areas $25.00 $25.00 0.0% 

Trade waste assessment and agreements connection to Stormwater $200 annual fee NEW 

Page 6 


ITEM 

OTHER PLUMBING FEES 


Copy Sewerage House Connection Plans $15.00 $20.00 33.3% 

Any application withdrawn prior to issue of permit 

50% of permit fee (balance 

of original fee to be 

refunded) 

50% of permit fee (balance of 


SEEPAGE INVESTIGATIONS - GROUNDWATER 

Initial Inspection and Dye Testing $90.00 NEW 

Further request for investigation of groundwater. Minimum charge $270. Fee 

$270 minimum charge + $90 

refunded if Council infrastructure at fault. Additional time charged at hourly 

per hour on the job charge to 

rate. 

nearest 15 minutes. NEW 


Page 7



ITEM 

HEALTH - LICENCE, PERMIT and NOTICE FEES 

Miscellaneous 

Place of Assembly fees - permanent structures/regular public events 


Application fee to licence new premise $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Application for annual renewal of a licence $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Swimming Pools - annual licence fee, follow up inspections including water $75.00 + $75.00 per $78.00 + $78.00 per 

sampling as part of conditions of approval 

Place of Assembly fees - temporary structures/irregular and once off public 

events 

inspection/water sample inspection/water sample 4.0% 

Application fee - per event $127.00 $131.00 3.1% 

Licence Fee (issued for limited period specified) $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Follow up inspections and/or sampling as part of conditions of approval $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Public Health Risk Activity (acupuncturing, tattooing, ear/body piercing) 

Registration of Premises 

$75.00 + Licence Fee 

$28.00 per person 

Registration of Premises 

$78.00 + Licence Fee 

$29.00 per person 

Permit for burial of human remains on private land $165.00 $170.00 3.0% 

Cooling tower registration $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Registration of a regulated system $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Registration of Private Water Supplier $78.00 NEW 

Water Carting Permit - testing & inspection of vehicle used for the sale and $165.00 + $90.00 each $170.00 + $93.00 each 

cartage of potable water 

additional vehicle additional vehicle 3.0% + 3.3% 

Environmental Protection Notices - investigation, issuing and management 

charges 

$75.00 per hour / part 

thereof 


4.0% 

3.6% 


thereof 4.0% 

Page 8

ITEM 

Food Premises Fees 

Food Premises Registration Licence 


Payment received by 31 Payment received by 31 

Risk Assessment - Numbers of Food Handlers 1 - 5 

May 

May 

Category A (Commercial) - 6 inspections $552.00 $571.20 3.5% 

Category B (Commercial) - 3 inspections $276.00 $285.60 3.5% 

Category C (Commercial) - 2 inspections $184.00 $190.40 3.5% 

Category CV (Voluntary Organisation) - 1 inspection $92.00 $95.20 3.5% 

Category D (Commercial) - 1 inspection $92.00 $95.20 3.5% 

Category DV (Voluntary Organisation) $28.00 $28.80 2.9% 

Category DN (notification) $28.00 $28.80 2.9% 

Category X (Non Profit Organisation) Exempt from Fees Exempt from Fees 

Payment received after 31 Payment received after 31 


May 

May 











May 

May 








Category X (Non Profit Organisation) Exempt from Fees Exempt from Fees Page 9 





May 

May 

Category A (Commercial) - 6 inspections $1,035.00 $1,071.00 3.5% 









Risk Assessment - Numbers of Food Handlers 11+ 

May 

May 










Risk Assessment - Numbers of Food Handlers 11+ 

May 

May 









Page 10 



Inspection & Certification of Food Transport Vehicles 

$75.00 + travel if required at 


thereof 

$78.00 + travel if required at 


thereof 4.0% 

Food Premises - Pre-purchase Inspection per hour or part thereof $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Improvement Notices or Prohibition Orders - investigation, issuing & mgt 

charges per hour $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Application for report of likely compliance - new food premises (form 49) 

EHO Occupancy Report (Form 50) 

$112.00 per application + 


thereof for assessment fees 










Temporary Food Premises Fees 

Food Stalls/Vans: Raising money for charity Exempt from fees Exempt from fees 

$25 for 1st day + $10 for $26 for 1st day + $10 for 

each additional day to a each additional day to a 

maximum of 6 days (dates maximum of 6 days (dates 

Food Stalls/Vans: Commercial or for profit activity 

must be nominated) must be nominated) 4.0% 

On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems 

Application - special plumbing permit (septic tank application) $186.00 $192.00 3.2% 

$435 + $75 per hour / part $450 + $78 per hour / part 

Application for special plumbing permit (septic tank application) - Commercial thereof 

thereof 3.5% + 4.0% 

Amended Applications $184.00 $190.00 3.3% 

Subsequent Inspection per hour or part thereof $75.00 $78.00 4.0% 

Variation to Existing Permit $92.00 $95.00 3.3% 

Extension to Permit $45.00 $46.00 2.2% 

Hard Copy - Paper Print of Permit and Plans - Up to (A3) in size $2.50 per page NEW 

Hard Copy - Paper Print of Permit and Plans - Over (A3) in size $10.00 per page NEW 


2.7% 

4.0% 

2.7% 

4.0% 

Page 11


Immunisation fees 

(Items do not attract GST) 

Hepatitis B Vaccination - Energix B (Adult) $30.00 $30.00 0.0% 

Hepatitis B Vaccination - Energix B (Junior) $20.00 $20.00 0.0% 

Hepatitis A Vaccination - Havrix (Adult) $70.00 $75.00 7.1% 

Hepatitis A Vaccination - Havrix (Junior) $55.00 $55.00 0.0% 

Hepatitis A and B - Twinrix (Adult) $80.00 $80.00 0.0% 

Hepatitis A and B - Twinrix (Junior) $60.00 $60.00 0.0% 

Chickenpox - Varilrix $65.00 $65.00 0.0% 

Flu Vaccine - Vaxigrip $20.00 $20.00 0.0% 

BOOSTRIX (DTP) $45.00 $45.00 0.0% 

Sharps containers 

Medical Patients No cost No cost 

1.4 litre container $7.00 $7.20 2.9% 

3 litre container $11.00 $11.35 3.2% 

6 litre container $15.00 $15.50 3.3% 

Sharps Collection Fee - Commercial Only 

$1.50 per litre (or part 

thereof) if waste taken to 

Council; $1.50 per litre plus 

$75.00 collection fee for 

Council to collect 

$1.55 per litre (or part 

thereof) if waste taken to 

Council; $1.55 per litre plus 

$78.00 collection fee for 

Council to collect 

Miscellaneous 

Food Probe Thermometers $25.00 NEW 

Food Training Packages $20.00 NEW 

Alcohol Swabs $8.00 NEW 


3.3% + 4.0% 

Page 12

ITEM 

Testing and sampling fees 


Testing of Natural, Environmental and Effluent per sample $50.00 $52.00 4.0% 

Sampling Fees: Bacteriological per sample $50.00 $52.00 4.0% 

$37 per sample + $75 per $38 per sample + $78 per 

Sampling Fees: Private Water Supplies 

hour / part thereof hour / part thereof 2.7% + 4.0% 

Testing & inspection for water quality in Public Pools, payable by Public Pool 

Operator 

$82 per sample + $75 per 

hour / part thereof 


$85 per sample + $78 per 

hour / part thereof 3.6% + 4.0% 

Page 13




ABATEMENT FEES 

Abatement Action $200.00 $250.00 25% 

Impounding fee for illegal agistment on Council Land $165 per day $165 per day 0% 

Request for Withdrawal of Summons $40.00 $40.00 0% 

MPEA Referral Fee $40.00 $40.00 0% 


Page 14




ANIMAL CONTROL 

DOG FEES 

Dog Complaint Fee $65.00 $65.00 0.0% 

Early Discount Rate - payment by 31st July 2012 

Entire Dog $82.50 $85.00 3.0% 

De-sexed Dog $21.30 $22.00 3.3% 

Pure Bred $30.00 $31.00 3.3% 

Greyhound $30.00 $31.00 3.3% 

Pension Discount 20% off applicable fee 20% off applicable fee 0.0% 

Pensioner rate for dogs registered prior to 1/7/03 $16.00 $16.60 3.8% 

Working Dog $30.00 $31.00 3.3% 

Dangerous Dog $437.50 $450.00 2.9% 

Guard Dog $175.00 $180.00 2.9% 

Guide Dog/Hearing Dog No Charge No Charge 0.0% 

Full Fee - payment After 31st July 2012 

Entire Dog $87.50 $90.00 2.9% 

De-sexed Dog $26.30 $27.00 2.7% 

Pure Bred $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 

Greyhound $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 


Pensioner rate for dogs registered prior to 1/7/03 $21.00 $21.60 2.9% 

Working Dog $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 

Dangerous Dog $437.50 $450.00 2.9% 

Guard Dog $175.00 $180.00 2.9% 

Guide Dog/Hearing Dog No Charge No Charge 0.0% 


Page 15


Dog turned 6 months since 1/1/13 - 50% discount of full rate (does not apply to dangerous and guard dogs) 

Entire Dog $43.80 $45.00 2.7% 

De-sexed $13.20 $13.50 2.3% 

Pure Bred $17.50 $18.00 2.9% 

Greyhound $17.50 $18.00 2.9% 


Working Dog $17.50 $18.00 2.9% 

Dangerous Dog $450.00 

Guard Dog $87.50 $180.00 105.7% 

Guide/Hearing Dog No Charge No Charge 0.0% 

Registration after 31st December due to detection by Ranger that dog is 

unregistered or collection from dogs' home - Full fee to apply 

Registration Fees - after 31st December 

Entire Dog $87.50 $90.00 2.9% 

De-sexed $26.30 $27.00 2.7% 

Pure Bred $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 

Greyhound $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 


Pension discount (dogs registered after 1/7/03) $21.00 $21.60 2.9% 

Working Dog $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 

Dangerous Dog $437.50 $450.00 2.9% 

Guard Dog $175.00 $180.00 2.9% 

Guide/Hearing Dog No Charge No Charge 0.0% 

Refunds and Reimbursements 

Death of Dog 

On receipt of Certificate of Euthanasia from recognised veterinary clinic or 

statutory declaration. Refunds are only to apply if application is made in the 

same financial year as registration has been paid 


Page 16

ITEM 

Refund Amount for Deceased Dogs 


75% refund of registration 75% refund of registration 

Dog Deceased within 3 months of registration 

fee paid 

fee paid 0.0% 


Dog Deceased after 3 months and within 6 months of date of registration fee paid 

fee paid 0.0% 


Dog Deceased after 6 months and within 9 months of date of registration fee paid 

fee paid 0.0% 

Dog deceased after 9 months of registration 

De-sexed Dogs 

Applies to dogs registered at the normal registration rate and subsequently 

spayed. Paid only on receipt of certificate of neutering from a recognised 

veterinary clinic. Discount applies to difference between entire fee paid and desexed 

fee 

Refund Amount for Entire Dog being de-sexed 

No refund No refund 0.0% 

Animal de-sexed within 3 months of registration 75% refund of difference 75% refund of difference 0.0% 

Animal de-sexed after 3 months & within 6 months of registration 50% refund of difference 50% refund of difference 0.0% 

Animal de-sexed after 6 months & within 9 months of registration 25% refund of difference 25% refund of difference 0.0% 

Animal de-sexed after 9 months of registration No refund No refund 0.0% 

Attendance at Obedience Course 

Evidence to be provided that dog has satisfactorily completed obedience course 

run by an accredited officer (for the present the Tasmanian Canine Defence 

Association). Only one discount per dog per financial year. Discount applies 

for one year only 

Grade 1- Beginner Puppy Stage - 8 week course 30% 30% 0.0% 

Grade 2 - All on-lead training - 12 week course 40% 40% 0.0% 

Grade 3 - Some off-lead training - 12 week course 70% 70% 0.0% 

Grade 4 - Mostly off-lead training - 12 week course 80% 80% 0.0% 

Trained Dog 50% for the life of dog 50% for the life of dog 0.0% 


Page 17


Dog Adopted from Dogs' Home or RSPCA 

To apply until new registration year only No Charge No Charge 0.0% 

OTHER DOG FEES 

Citronella Spray $20.00 $20.00 0.0% 

$15.00 per week + $50.00 $15.00 per week + $50.00 

Anti Barking Collars 

deposit (refundable) deposit (refundable) 0.0% 

Battery for collar $10.00 $10.00 0.0% 

Replacement of Lost Tag $5.00 $5.00 0.0% 

Sml / Med $50.00; Lge Sml / Med $50.00; Lge 

Dangerous dog collar 

/ExLge $60.00 

/ExLge $60.00 0.0% 

Dangerous dog sign $70.00 $70.00 0.0% 

Release Fee from Dogs Home $30.00 $60.00 100.0% 

KENNEL LICENCE (Prescribed) 

Application Fee $87.00 $90.00 3.4% 

Renewal $87.00 $90.00 3.4% 

Early Payment Fee $62.00 $65.00 4.8% 

Advertising Fee $135.00 $135.00 0.0% 


Page 18




BUSINESS PERMIT - EVENTS 

Commercial Conventions, Functions, Events : (Non Council Sponsored) 

- Richmond Park (Village Green) - per day $565.00 $583.00 3.2% 

- Boardwalk (Bellerive) - per day $565.00 $583.00 3.2% 

- Boardwalk Stage (no side curtains) - per day or part thereof $112.00 $116.00 3.6% 

- Boardwalk Stage (with side curtains) - per day or part thereof $414.00 $427.00 3.1% 

- Other locations - per day or part thereof $335.00 $346.00 3.3% 

Private Conventions, Functions, Events : (Non Council Sponsored) 

- Richmond Park (Village Green) - per day $400.00 $413.00 3.3% 

- Boardwalk (Bellerive) - per day $400.00 $413.00 3.3% 



- Other locations - per day or part thereof $280.00 $289.00 3.2% 

Charitable Conventions, Functions, Events : (Non Council Sponsored) 

- Richmond Park (Village Green) - per day or part thereof $90.00 $93.00 3.3% 

- Boardwalk (Bellerive) - per day or part thereof $90.00 $93.00 3.3% 



- Other locations - per ceremony $90.00 $93.00 3.3% 

Civic Ceremonies Only NB: No receptions to be held on reserves including beaches under Council control 

- Richmond Park (Village Green) - per ceremony $57.00 $59.00 3.5% 

- Richmond River Bank Platform - per ceremony $45.00 $46.00 2.2% 

- Boardwalk Stage (no side curtains) - per ceremony $90.00 $93.00 3.3% 


- Other locations - per ceremony $57.00 $59.00 3.5% 


Page 19


Car Club Displays : (Non Council Sponsored / Non commercial organisation) 

- Richmond Park - per day or part thereof $138.00 $142.00 2.9% 

- Boardwalk - per day or part thereof $112.00 $115.00 2.7% 

- Other locations (Excluding Ovals) - per day or part thereof $112.00 $115.00 2.7% 

Temporary Stalls for Council Events* 

All locations charitable stall Nil 

All locations - Non Charitable Stall - 1 day $175.00 $180.00 2.9% 

All locations - Non Charitable Stall - 2 days $250.00 $258.00 3.2% 

All locations - Non Charitable Stall - 3 days $290.00 $300.00 3.4% 

* Includes Temporary food licence 


Page 20




FAMILY DAY CARE 

Carer levy per week $15.00 $20.00 33.3% 

Administration levy 

1 child per week $5.00 $5.20 4.0% 

family (2 or more children) per week $10.00 $10.40 4.0% 

Play session levy per session $7.50 $8.00 6.7% 

Carer Registration $200.00 $200.00 0.0% 

ROSNY CHILD CARE CENTRE 

5 Days/week plus $310.30 for full week 

$327.35 for full week 

($65.47 p/day) 5.5% 

Daily $72.00 $76.00 5.6% 

Morning Session $44.40 $46.85 5.5% 

Afternoon Session $39.00 $41.15 5.5% 

A late fee is charged for children collected after 5.45 pm $20.00 $20.00 0.0% 

OUTSIDE SCHOOL HOURS/HOLIDAY CARE 

After School Care (Permanent and Casual Bookings 

Per Child Per Hour $7.80 $8.20 5.1% 

Per Child Every 1/2 hour after the first hour $4.20 $4.40 4.8% 

Cancellation Fee (per Child) $8.40 $8.80 4.8% 

Non Cancellation Fee (per Child) $10.00 $10.50 5.0% 

Late Collection Fee (per Child every 15mins after 6pm) $21.00 $25.00 19.0% 

Late Payment Fee $21.00 $22.00 4.8% 

Before School Care (Permanent and Casual Bookings) 

Per Child per session $7.80 $8.20 5.1% 

Cancellation Fee (per Child) $8.40 $8.80 4.8% 

Non Cancellation Fee (per Child) $10.00 $10.50 5.0% 

Late Payment Fee $21.00 $22.00 4.8% 

Page 21 



Holiday Care 

Per Child per Day $42.00 $45.00 7.1% 

Cancellation Fee without parent signature (per Child per Day) $26.00 $26.00 0.0% 

Late Collection Fee (per Child every 15 mins) $21.00 $25.00 19.0% 

Late Payment Fee $22.00 NEW 

Holiday Care Excursions $10.00 NEW 

Holiday Care Incursions (guests to program) $5.00 NEW 


Page 22




CLARENCE COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER SERVICE 

Transport - CBD $5.00 $5.00 0% 

Transport - Rural $10.00 $10.00 0% 

Gardening $5.00 $5.00 0% 

Assisted/List Shopping $5.00 $5.00 0% 


Page 23




BELLERIVE COMMUNITY ARTS CENTRE $7.70 per hour; Bond $50 $7.70 per hour; Bond $50 0.0% 

ROSNY FARM (Gardens Only) 

Special tour parties $65.00 $65.00 0.0% 

Private functions incl. wedding ceremonies per hour $125.00 $140.00 12.0% 

Photography Session per hour $70.00 $80.00 14.3% 

Security callout fee for after hours functions per hour $60.00 $70.00 16.7% 

THE BARN 

Exhibitions/Displays 

Not-for-profit groups, Educational Organisations - per day $158.00 $158.00 0.0% 

- per week $790.00 $805.00 1.9% 

Students groups - per day $85.00 $87.00 2.4% 

- per week (7 days) $420.00 $430.00 2.4% 

Commercial exhibitions, Corporate, Government - per day $190.00 $195.00 2.6% 

- per week (7 days) $950.00 $980.00 3.2% 

Full day hire fee includes 

2hrs staff time to assist with 

lighting & display panels & 

provide instruction on 

equipment. Half day hire = 

1hr staff time. Additional 

staff hrs charged at $75.00 

per hr. Additional Tech hrs 

charged at $75.00 per hr 










charged at $78.00 per hr 4.0% 

Page 24

ITEM 

Performance/Recitals/Concerts 

Not-for-profit groups, Educational Organisations 


Setup/rehearsal Days per day $65.00 $68.00 4.6% 

Performance Days - per full day $190.00 $195.00 2.6% 

- up to 4 hours $95.00 $100.00 5.3% 

- per hour $26.00 $26.00 0.0% 

Commercial exhibitions, Corporate, Government 

- per week (7 days) $685.00 $706.00 3.1% 

Setup/rehearsal Days per day $175.00 $180.00 2.9% 

Performance Days - per full day $270.00 $280.00 3.7% 

- per week $1,030.00 $1,060.00 2.9% 









charged at $75.00 per hr 









charged at $78.00 per hr 4.0% 

Charge for heating on Performance Days - per day $50.00 $60.00 20.0% 

- per half day $25.00 $30.00 20.0% 

Bond for Barn Hire $220.00 $220.00 0.0% 

CAMBRIDGE HALL 

Hall Hire - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Functions (Weddings Parties etc) - per function $157.00 $162.00 3.2% 

Bond (No alcohol) $185.00 $190.90 3.2% 

Bond (Alcohol) $317.00 $327.00 3.2% 


Page 25


Cambridge Oval Club Rooms 

Club Rooms Hire (Sporting Events in conjunction with oval 

hire) - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Functions (Non Sporting Events) - per function $157.00 $162.00 3.2% 

Bond (no alcohol) $185.00 $190.90 3.2% 

Bond (alcohol) $317.00 $327.00 3.2% 

GEILSTON BAY COMMUNITY CENTRE 

Hire Charge $12.00 $12.00 0.0% 

Bond $55.00 $55.00 0.0% 

HOWRAH RECREATION CENTRE 

Baudinet Lounge - Function Rates 

Excluding Bar - per hour $35.00 $37.10 6.0% 

Including Bar - per function $138.00 $147.60 7.0% 

Additional Charge After Midnight 

Baudinet Lounge - Conference Rates 

- per hour $35.00 $37.10 6.0% 

Includes the use of the in-house audio visual system, which comprises of a data 

- 1/2 day rate $180.00 $191.30 6.3% 

- full day rate 

Kitchen 

$225.00 $240.20 6.8% 

Includes use of kitchen including crockery, cutlery, urns, microwave, pie warmer $70.00 + 

$72.20 + 

and commercial gas oven (breakages will be paid for) 

$50 cleaning bond $50 cleaning bond 3.1% 

BBQ Hire 

Sunshine, Skyline Rooms and Guide Hall 

$27.50 $28.40 3.3% 

Room Hire - Day (9am-6pm) - per hour $18.00 $19.10 6.1% 

Room Hire - Evening (after 6pm) - per hour $24.50 $26.00 6.1% 

A mobile television/VCR combination is available for hire 

$11.60 $11.90 2.6% 

Special Functions/regular bookings Negotiable Negotiable 0.0% 


Page 26

ITEM 

CLARENCE SENIOR CITIZEN CENTRE 

Centre - Function Rates 


Function Rate (Wedding Receptions, Private Functions etc) 

$150.00 $150.00 0.0% 

Centre - Conference Rates - half day rate $169.40 $169.40 0.0% 

Kitchen 

- full day rate $214.50 $214.50 0.0% 

Includes use of kitchen including crockery, cutlery, urns, microwave, pie warmer 

Function Rate 

Combined Kitchen / Hall Hire 

$50.00 $50.00 0.0% 

Function Rate 

Alma's Bar & Lounge 

$200.00 $200.00 0.0% 

Available for small functions 

Casual Hire Rate 

Negotiable Negotiable 0.0% 

Daily Hire 9:00am - 6:00pm - per hour $18.00 $18.00 0.0% 

Night Hire (After 6:00pm) 

Bonds 

- per hour $25.00 $25.00 0.0% 

Bond (no alcohol) $200.00 $200.00 0.0% 

Bond (alcohol) 

Other 

$300.00 $300.00 0.0% 

Public Liability Insurance Levy - per hour $3.00 $3.00 0.0% 

LAUDERDALE HALL 

Hall Hire per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 



Bond (Alcohol) $317.00 $327.00 3.2% 

LINDISFARNE ACTIVITIES CENTRE 

Centre Hire per hour 

Alcohol - selling of prohibited, can only be consumed with meal 

$11.00 $11.00 0.0% 

Special Occasions - Local (e.g. 100 years function) Negotiable Negotiable 0.0% 

Page 27 



RICHMOND COUNCIL CHAMBERS 

Richmond Council Chambers - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Formal Functions - per half day $195.00 $201.20 3.2% 

Wedding Ceremony Only - per ceremony $157.00 $162.00 3.2% 


RICHMOND HALL 

Hall Hire per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Functions (Weddings, Parties etc) - per ceremony $156.00 $161.00 3.2% 

Hire of Supper Room & Kitchen only 

Locals & Charities per function $27.50 $30.25 10.0% 

Others per function $56.00 $57.80 3.2% 


Bond (Alcohol) $317.00 $327.00 3.2% 

RISDON VALE HALL 

Charity functions Negotiable Negotiable 0.0% 


Kitchen and Supper Room - per hour $5.50 $5.50 0.0% 

Functions $88.00 $88.00 0.0% 

Bond $100.00 $100.00 0.0% 

Bond (Alcohol) $275.00 $275.00 0.0% 

Bowls (Foyer) - per session $7.00 $7.00 0.0% 

Foyer Area $3.50 $3.50 0.0% 

Tennis Court Clubroom - per week $13.00 $13.00 0.0% 

Tennis Court (per court) - per hour $2.00 $2.00 0.0% 

Risdon Vale Bargain Centre - per week $12.00 $12.00 0.0% 

Basement Room includes public liability levy - per week $13.00 $13.00 0.0% 

Pigeon Club includes public liability levy - per week $13.00 $13.00 0.0% 


Page 28


ROKEBY COMMUNITY CENTRE 

Activities Room - per hour - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Gym Day/Night - per hour - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Kitchen - first hour $13.50 $13.90 3.0% 

- per hr thereafter $6.90 $7.10 2.9% 

Receptions (+ bond as below) - per function $135.00 $140.00 3.7% 

Teenage admission (all activities) - per head $0.55 $0.55 0.0% 


Bond (Alcohol) $317.00 $327.00 3.2% 

ROKEBY TRUST HALL HIRE 



Bond (Alcohol) $317.00 $327.00 3.2% 

Wedding Receptions/Formal Functions - per function $157.00 $162.00 3.2% 

SANDFORD HALL 




Bond (Alcohol) $317.00 $327.10 3.2% 

Tennis Court - per hour $6.20 $6.40 3.2% 

SEVEN MILE BEACH COMMUNITY CENTRE (Lewis Park) 

Hire of Centre - per hour $7.90 $8.10 2.5% 

Bond (No alcohol) 

- Alcohol is not allowed to be consumed 

$185.00 $191.00 3.2% 


Page 29


SOUTH ARM CALVERTON HALL 

Locals $85.00 $85.00 0.0% 

Others $105.00 $105.00 0.0% 

Cleaning Bond $55.00 $55.00 0.0% 

Tennis Courts - per hour $7.40 $7.40 0.0% 

Sports Ground - Locals $25.00 $25.00 0.0% 

Sports Ground - Others $45.00 $45.00 0.0% 


Bond (Alcohol) $310.00 $310.00 0.0% 

TRANMERE HALL - Hire Charges (NO ALCOHOL) 



MISCELLANEOUS HALL FEES 

Key/Tag Deposit (Forfeit - if not returned by 12 noon following working day) 

Insurance levy for public liability insurance for informal user 

$35.00 $36.10 3.1% 

groups - per hour $3.00 $3.10 3.3% 

Kiosk Hire (Environmental Health approved kiosk only) 

Hire of Furniture (additional costs for any damage) 

- per hour $8.40 $8.70 3.6% 

- Tables - per table $2.60 $2.70 3.8% 

- Chairs - per chair $0.70 $0.70 0.0% 


Page 30




SPORTS GROUND USE PERMITS 

SOCCER 

Soccer Small Sided Ground hire No Fixed Goals (Effective 1 Oct for 12 

month period) - per hour $3.70 $3.80 2.7% 

Soccer Small Sided Ground hire Fixed Goals (Effective 1 Oct for 12 


Youth (Up to U18) Games / Training (Effective 1 Oct for 12 month 

period) - per hour $15.50 $16.00 3.2% 

Senior Games / Training (Effective 1 Oct for 12 month period) - per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 

AFL 

Junior Games / Training (Effective 1 Oct for 12 month period) - per hour $15.50 $16.00 3.2% 

Senior Games / Training (Effective 1 Oct for 12 month period) - per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 

TOUCH FOOTBALL 

Junior (Effective 1 Oct for 12 month period) - per hour $15.50 $16.00 3.2% 

Senior (Effective 1 Oct for 12 month period) - per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 

Cambridge New Ground - 1010 Cambridge Rd 

Cambridge New Ground (Junior / Youth) Training (Effective 1 Oct for 

12 month period) - per hour $20.80 $21.50 3.4% 

Cambridge New Ground (Junior / Youth) Games (Effective 1 Oct for 12 


CRICKET / HOCKEY 

Junior including practise wickets where applicable - per hour $15.50 $16.00 3.2% 

Senior including practise wickets where applicable - per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 


Page 31


Lindisfarne Oval 

Turf Wickets No1 Ground - (No junior rates) - per hour $40.00 $41.30 3.2% 

Turf Wicket - Special Event Match / Training National / International $705.00 $727.50 3.2% 

Turf Practice Wicket - Special Event Match / Training National / 

International $70.00 $72.20 3.1% 

Turf Practice Wickets (Lindisfarne) - Training (No junior rates) - per hour $14.00 $14.40 2.9% 

Seasonal Turf Practice Wickets (Lindisfarne) - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Synthetic Practice Wickets (Lindisfarne) - per hour $7.00 $7.20 2.9% 

SANDFORD 

Oval (no irrigation) - per hour $7.60 $7.80 2.6% 

Junior (Fee to only apply if oval redeveloped) - per hour $15.50 $16.00 3.2% 

Senior (Fee to only apply if oval redeveloped) - per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 

Casual (Fee to only apply if oval redeveloped) - per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 

- access to toilets - Bond $57.00 $58.80 3.2% 

- access to toilets, supper room & kitchen (dependent on duration) (NO 

ALCOHOL) - Bond $180.00 $185.70 3.2% 

- access to toilets, supper room & kitchen (dependent on duration) 

(ALCOHOL) - Bond $310.00 $320.00 3.2% 


Page 32


MISCELLANEOUS 

Casual Ground Hire - per hour $30.00 $30.96 3.2% 

Use of Ovals associated with adjacent Education Department/ School 

Facilities - Cambridge, Risdon Vale, Rosny College (Licence 

CPI Adjusted annually per CPI Adjusted annually 

Agreement) 

agreement 

per agreement 

Use of Ovals by High Schools/Colleges where no licence agreement 

Senior Ground Hire 

exists 

Wentworth Park - Salacia Ave Training Ground (Up to U18) (Effective 

Senior Ground Hire Rate Rate 

1Oct for 12 month period) 

Wentworth Park - Salacia Ave Training Ground (Senior) (Effective 1 

- per hour $11.60 $12.00 3.4% 

Oct for 12 month period) - per hour $23.00 $23.70 3.0% 

Wentworth Park - Sports Centre hire for sporting activities only - per hour $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Storage Room - per hour $142.50 $147.00 3.2% 

Boot Camp and Fitness Activities on Council Reserves - per hour $10.90 $11.20 2.8% 

CARNIVALS 

School carnivals other ovals (no line marking) - per hour $15.50 $16.00 3.2% 

School carnivals other ovals (basic line mark perimeter line no running 

Fixed Fee $188.00 + Fixed Fee $194.00 + 

lanes & 100m grid only marked) 

School Athletic Carnivals Kangaroo Bay (Summer Only) (Effective 1 

$30 per hour 

$31 per hour 3.2% 

Oct for 12 month period) 

State, National & International events on sportsgrounds additional 

- per hour $31.00 $32.00 3.2% 

cleaning of change rooms / toilets At contract rate At contract rate 

BONDS 

Bond for seasonal users as per Sportsground Use Permit - per season $360.00 $371.50 3.2% 

Surcharge for use of sporting facility without prior booking + Hire Rate $58.00 $59.80 3.1% 


Page 33


KEYS 

Key/Tag Charges Casual Use of Facilities (Forfeit non-return within 

7days) $35.00 $36.00 2.9% 

LIGHTING 

Lighting charges (Rate applies for all winter season bookings from 

5:00pm onwards effective from end of Daylight Saving period) 

Sportsground (additional to ground hire charge) 

- per hour 

per ground $7.10 $7.30 2.8% 

Sportsground - Lighting upgraded to Aus Standard (additional to ground - per hour 

hire charge) 

per ground $14.30 $14.70 2.8% 


Page 34




MORNINGTON WASTE TRANSFER STATION CLARENCE 

DOMESTIC RESIDENT USERS 

Any Resident vehicle under 4.9 tonne GVM 

Minimum Gate Fee $7.00 $7.00 0% 

Recoverables/Recyclables/Tonne $55.00 $80.00 45% 

Green Organic Waste (suitable for mulching)/Tonne $55.00 $80.00 45% 

Contaminated Green Organic Waste/Tonne $60.00 $85.00 42% 

Residual Waste - General Domestic/Tonne $60.00 $85.00 42% 

Residual Waste - General Mixed/Tonne $60.00 $85.00 42% 

Fees for non residential waste set by operator 

REFUSE NEW BINS 

80 Litre MBG $64.00 $66.00 3% 

120 Litre MBG $69.00 $71.00 3% 

240 Litre MBG $76.00 $78.00 3% 


Page 35




ROAD CLOSURE REQUESTS 

Temporary $370.00 $382.00 3.2% 

Permanent for Private Benefit $420.00 $434.00 3.3% 


Page 36



ITEM 

BOARDWALK 


Boardwalk Stage Power Supply 

- per event, or 

- per day or part thereof $19.50 $20.10 3.1% 

Boardwalk boat moorings - short term only (max 7 days per month) - per day or part thereof $30.00 $30.90 3.0% 

Boardwalk Power Supply - short term only 

Other locations 

Use of Reserves for Commercial activities (e.g. Dog Obedience Class 

- per day or part thereof $18.00 $18.60 3.3% 

at South Street Reserve) - per hour $11.00 $11.40 3.6% 

Promotions & product launches $337.00 $347.80 3.2% 

Bond if alcohol consumed $317.00 $327.10 3.2% 

Buskers $42.00 $43.30 3.1% 

Note: Charges for permits only, and does not include items such as 

Portable Toilets, Litter Bins & Skiffs or additional items that may be 

required by permit applicant 

OTHER PUBLIC PLACE FEES 

Consumption of Liquor on Council Reserves (to be approved by 

MCS) $56.40 $58.20 3.2% 

Notation on Licensing Board Permit applications on Council 

premises (to be signed by CS EOGM or MHS) $22.70 $23.40 3.1% 

Request for Notation on Licensing Board Permit for non Council 

properties (to be signed by CS EOGM or MHS) $28.30 $29.20 3.2% 


Page 37




COUNCIL PROPERTIES 

Lease or Licence Application Fee $50.00 $85.00 70.0% 

Lease Preparation Fee $100.00 $100.00 0.0% 

Licence Preparation Fee $50.00 $50.00 0.0% 

Request for Creation of Easements on Council Land $380.00 $380.00 0.0% 

Request for document preparation in relation to property by private individuals 

(e.g. part 5 Agreements) - per hour or part thereof $85.00 $85.00 0.0% 


Page 38



ITEM 

TECHNICAL INSPECTION/WORK/INFORMATION 


Work carried out at a persons request (per s205 Fee) - per hour $84.00 $87.00 3.6% 

Underground Service Locations 

Investigation and assessment of proposals to install infrastructure (not controlled by 

Council) on Council property &/or the road reservation (s205) 

$84 callout fee plus $84/hr 

on job charge to nearest 15 

minutes 



minutes 



minutes 3.6% 



minutes 3.6% 

Traffic Management Plan Assessment fee $84.00 $87.00 3.6% 

Road Crossing Permit $84.00 $87.00 3.6% 

Tree Inspections $168.00 $173.00 3.0% 

Traffic Information Data Extraction 

$84 Base fee plus $84/hr on 

job charge to nearest 15 

minutes 


$87 Base fee plus $87/hr on 

job charge to nearest 15 

minutes 3.6% 

Page 39




OCCUPATIONAL LICENCES 

Helicopter/Hot air balloons landing fee (per flight) $86.00 $88.00 2.3% 

Public Land - Annual rental for Commercial Activity - Use of Footpath 

/Forecourt for Outdoor Dining - per m2 $34.00 $35.00 2.9% 


Page 40




PORTABLE TOILETS * 

Portable Accessible Toilet $1,050 $1,050 + $100 each additional day 0.0% 

Portable Toilet Block (16 unit) $1,550 $1,550 + $100 each additional day 0.0% 

Portable Accessible Toilet - (Not for profit) $525 $300 + $50 each additional day -42.8% 

Portable Toilet Block (16 unit) - (Not for Profit) $825 $650 + $50 each additional day -21.2% 

Bond for cleaning $110 $120 9.1% 

* Hire cost does not include transport and pump costs - Hirer is 

responsible for cleaning 


Page 41




INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS 

Infrastructure Bond establishment fee $265.00 $275.00 3.8% 

Infrastructure Bond administration fee - for extensions or alterations not specified in original 

bond agreement 

Infrastructure Protection Bond (All new single residential dwellings, and additions) 

Infrastructure Protection Bond (All new multiple dwellings, new commercial buildings and 

additions and all demolition/removal works) 

$170.00 $175.00 2.9% 

$830 (Refund at completion 

if road /crossing /footpath is 

left in good condition) 

$1,660 (Refund at 

completion if road /crossing 

/footpath is left in good 

condition) 

$855 (Refund at completion 

if road /crossing /footpath is 

left in good condition) 3.0% 

$1,710 (Refund at 

completion if road /crossing 

/footpath is left in good 

condition) 3.0% 

Infrastructure Protection Bond - Access to work site over Council Land (Refund at completion 

if Reserve/road/crossing/footpath is left in good condition) 

Parking Permit within Council Car Park (Temporary Permit for Building 

$1,660.00 $1,710.00 3.0% 

Works only) per space or part space - per day $14.00 $14.50 3.6% 

Associated Building Site Works Occupation of Council Land - per month per m2 $7.00 $7.25 3.6% 

Skip Bin Permits - per week $26.00 $27.00 3.8% 

Surcharge for occupation of Council land without prior approval + Infrastructure Bond $105.00 $108.00 2.9% 

Crane/Concrete Pump/Cherry Picker etc Permits on Council Land inc - per 4 hour or part 

Roads 

Infrastructure Protection Bond (Skip Bin - residential dwellings, and 

thereof $68.00 $70.00 2.9% 

additions) 

Infrastructure Protection Bond (Skip Bin - commercial buildings & 

$335.00 $345.00 3.0% 

additions & all demolition/removal works) $1,280.00 $1,320.00 3.1% 


Page 42




REQUEST FOR PHOTOCOPYING (Per Copy) 

Single A4 - up to 10 copies $0.40 $0.40 0.0% 

Double A4 - up to 10 copies $0.50 $0.50 0.0% 

Single A3 - up to 10 copies $0.65 $0.65 0.0% 

Double A3 - up to 10 copies $1.00 $1.00 0.0% 

Single A4 - 10 or more copies $0.25 $0.25 0.0% 

Double A4 - 10 or more copies $0.40 $0.40 0.0% 

Single A3 - 10 or more copies $0.45 $0.45 0.0% 

Double A3 - 10 or more copies $0.60 $0.60 0.0% 


Page 43




DOCUMENT FEES 

Copy of full Council Agenda or minutes Free (as per Regulations) Free (as per Regulations) 0.0% 

Copy of agenda report/working papers - per page $0.40 $0.40 0.0% 

Extract of Council Policy Guide (per extract) $10.00 $10.30 3.0% 

Full copy of Council Policies by CD (to date) $90.00 $93.00 3.3% 

Tender & Contract Documents 

- Minor ($100,000 or less) $70.00 $70.00 0.0% 

- Major ($100,001 or more) $200.00 $200.00 0.0% 


Page 44




REPRODUCTION FEES 

MAPS, PLANS LIS MAP INFORMATION 

Building Plans - class 1& 10 - for all applications on property $16.90 $17.00 0.6% 

Building Plans - class 2 to 9 - for each page. $11.30 $11.50 1.8% 

Drainage Plans $11.30 $11.50 1.8% 

A4 paper copy of any map - 1:2000 $9.90 $10.00 1.0% 

Density rating plan (BW A4 1:2000 only) no charge no charge 

A1 1:5000 map $33.50 $33.50 0.0% 

A0 1:7500 Map $129.80 $130.00 0.2% 

Survey Control (A4) $9.90 $10.00 1.0% 

Large format photocopying of plans - A4 $10.00 $10.00 0.0% 

Large format photocopying of plans - A3 $20.00 $20.00 

Large format photocopying of plans - A2 $40.00 $40.00 



BULK DIGITAL DATA (1-10 parcels) (Min. Charge $25) 

. Base Cadastre (per parcel or per property) $1.58 $1.65 4.4% 

. Kerb & Channel (per parcel) $0.19 $0.20 5.3% 

. Vegetation Map per km2 $22.60 $23.30 3.1% 

. Geology Map per km2 $22.60 $23.30 3.1% 

. Contours per km2 $22.60 $23.30 3.1% 

. Storm Water (per parcel) $0.68 $0.70 2.9% 

. Planning Scheme Zones (per parcel) $0.68 $0.70 2.9% 

. Textual Information $0.19 $0.20 5.3% 


Page 45


BULK DIGITAL DATA (11-100 parcels) 








. Textual Information $0.18 per attribute $0.20 

BULK DIGITAL DATA (101-500 parcels) 








. Textual Information $0.17 per attribute $0.20 

BULK DIGITAL DATA (500 - 1000 parcels) 



. Vegetation Map per km2 $41.00 $23.30 -43.2% 

. Geology Map per km2 $41.00 $23.30 -43.2% 

. Contours per km2 $41.00 $23.30 -43.2% 



. Textual Information $0.15 $0.18 20.0% 

. Update Charge 20% - 30% initial cost 


Page 46


BULK DIGITAL DATA (per additional 1000 parcels) 

. Base Cadastre (per parcel or per property) $1.20 NEW 

. Kerb & Channel (per parcel) $0.18 NEW 

. Vegetation Map per km2 $23.30 NEW 

. Geology Map per km2 $23.30 NEW 

. Contours per km2 $23.30 NEW 

. Storm Water (per parcel) $0.25 NEW 

. Planning Scheme Zones (per parcel) $0.25 NEW 

. Textual Information $0.15 NEW 


Page 47




ADDITIONAL FEES 

Request for Document Signing and/or Sealing Fee $85.00 $85.00 0.0% 

Work carried out at a persons request 

e.g. requests for research, processing for a Council (non planning) discretionary 

decisions; report and document preparation; provision of information and/or 

copies/extracts from council records (including additional information on a 337 

property request ) etc. - per hour or part thereof $85.00 $85.00 0.0% 

Supplementary Information request arising from 337 certificates regarding 

planning permits on adjacent properties - per nominated property $30.00 $32.00 6.7% 

Credit Card Fee - charged as a percentage of transaction value (to commence 

upon implementation of system modifications) 1% New 


Page 48




COUNCIL COMMUNITY BUS 

Per Person: - half day $3.00 $3.00 0.0% 

- full day $5.00 $5.00 0.0% 


Page 49



ITEM 

PUBLICATIONS 


Annual Report - Regulation $3.00 $3.00 0% 

Local Area Plans (inc Richmond Cultural Resource Mgt Plan) $17.00 per volume $17.00 per volume 0% 

Planning Schemes 

$25.00 each. 

Glebe Hill Development Plan 

annexure $32.00 

Other DPOs - free 

$25.00 each. 

Glebe Hill Development Plan 

annexure $32.00 

Other DPOs - free 0% 

History of Clarence $29.95 $29.95 0% 

Stock Thieves and Golfers $25.00 $25.00 0% 


Page 50


11.7.2 ROSNY HILL NATURE RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

(File Nos A008-12A; 12-06-08) 


PURPOSE 

To consider a property report on development within the Rosny Hill Nature 

Recreation Area to enhance the visitor experience and recreational potential of the 

site. 


Council’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 is relevant as is Council’s adopted Rosny Hill 

Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy 2011 in relation to improved visitor 

infrastructure and experience. 


The National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, Nature Conservation Act 

2002 and the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 are relevant. 

CONSULTATION 

The consultation processes under the Land Use Planning Act, 1993 and the Clarence 

Planning Scheme will apply to any development or site enhancement proposals. 


Council’s annual operating plan provides for implementation of Rosny Hill Nature 

Recreation Area Management Strategy actions in regard to maintenance and 

improvements, such as fire management trails and access. An Expression of Interest 

process if endorsed would be funded from budget allocations within the Economic 

Development program. 


A. That Council receives the Opteon Tasmania Property Report – Rosny Hill 

Nature Recreation Area, May 2012 (Report) on Rosny Hill Nature Recreation 

Area (RHNRA). 

B. That Council’s preferred development concept to enhance the visitor 

experience and recreational potential of the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation 

Area include the following commercial use options: 

(a) commercial active recreational activities; 

(b) restaurant with take away food kiosk; 

(c) tourist accommodation and operations; 

(d) conference centre; 

and development of areas outside of the 2 designated development zones in 

the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy may be 

considered provided proposals remain sensitive to and address the 

conservation objectives and constraints of the reserve.


C. That Council authorises the General Manager to undertake the following 

actions in seeking sensitive commercial development and enhancement of the 

RHNRA, as per the findings of the Report: 

(i) seek a long-term head-lease of the RHNRA from the Crown; 

(ii) continue to implement actions within the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation 

Area Management Strategy 2011 to promote increased active 

recreational use of the property and provide infrastructure which will 

facilitate public use; 

(iii) prepare marketing material and preferred development standards to be 

met by proponents for both leases or business licenses; 

(iv) seek Expressions of Interest (EOI) from interested parties for 

commercial uses of the RHNRA consistent with Council’s preferred 

development concepts; 

(v) appoint an EOI evaluation panel and probity officer to review 

Expressions of Interest and recommend to Council a short-list of 

preferred proponents; 

(vi) negotiate lease or license terms with preferred proponents subject to: 

� the proponent obtains a Planning permit and any other required 

business licences prior to lease finalisation; 

� the lessee completes the development within a specified timeframe 

(or failing that the lease is surrendered and other alternative 

proponents are considered). 

________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

1.1. Council became the Managing Authority for the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation 

Area (RHNRA) in September 2009. 

1.2. On 25 July 2011, Council adopted the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area 

Management Strategy 2011 incorporating the following actions: 

(i) Council to explore the market potential for development consistent 

with Council’s Planning Scheme and the site’s status under the 

National Parks and Reserve Management Act, 2002; and 

(ii) the General Manager to pursue any identified developments in 

consultation with the State Government.



2.1. Further to Council’s decision, Council officers sought quotes and property 

consultants Opteon Tasmania were commissioned to prepare a property report 

with a brief to undertake: 

� a review of the site development constraints, including those in relation 

to the National Parks and Reserve Management Act, 2002, Nature 

Conservation Act 2002 and the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007; 

� an analysis of visitor services and enterprise opportunities in the 

context of those constraints; and 

� make recommendations in regard to the: 

� development opportunities that are most likely to be achievable 

and sustainable; 

� land tenure needed to facilitate various types of investment; 

� development footprints within the reserve; 

� infrastructure services that are required or desirable; 

� mechanism and process for going to the market. 

2.2. The property consultant’s report and findings are Attachment 1. The 

following are the key findings of the Report. 

� there is currently a lack of public facilities at the RHNRA and although 

the site has regular visitors, the site is under-utilised and underdeveloped; 

� the RHNRA has some unique attributes which would appeal to 

commercial operations on the site; 

� the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, the Clarence 

Planning Scheme 2007 and the RHNRA Management Strategy permit 

some commercial activities on the site; 

� the site has some sensitive conservation issues which should be 

considered as part of any development proposal;


� there are commercial development opportunities which are considered 

to be consistent with the management strategy and use of the property 

as “public land” for nature conservation and recreational use, which 

could complement and enhance Rosny Hill and the public’s use of the 

Reserve and simultaneously provide the financial capacity for the 

improved use and maintenance of the Reserve. Sensitive commercial 

development should therefore be encouraged; 

� Areas outside of the 2 designated development zones in the 

management strategy should be considered, provided they remain 

sensitive to the other constraints of the Reserve. Proposals should not 

be restricted to defined development zones but rather be assessed based 

on their merits; 

� the conservation value of the Reserve in comparison to other reserves 

(eg National Parks, World Heritage Areas) is comparatively low. 

Conversely the site, due its location in a largely developed area, is well 

suited to the pursuit of recreational land uses and complementary 

commercial activities for the benefit of tourists and the general public; 

� the most likely feasible commercial uses for the site include 

commercial active recreational activities; minor utilities; restaurant 

with take away food kiosk; tourist accommodation and operations. 

2.3. Recommended Process 

The report recommends the following process for going to market to seek 

proponents for the sensitive commercial development of the RHNRA per the 

findings of the report: 

� Council obtains a 99 year head-lease from the Crown for the RHNRA 

at a peppercorn rent; 

� Council considers recommendations of the report and agrees on 

development concepts it believes are appropriate for the site; 

� revision of master plan and design for the site based on Council’s 

preferred future desired character of the site;



� Council undertakes non-commercially viable development to promote 

increased active recreational use of the property and provision of 

services infrastructure which will underpin and facilitate commercial 

development; 

� Council prepares marketing material and defines preferred 

development standards to be met by proponents for both leases or 

business licenses; 

� Council seeks Expressions of Interest from interested parties for 

commercial uses of the RHNRA, consistent with Council’s preferred 

development concepts (the Expression of Interest is to include the 

proponents proposed sub-lease offer); 

� a Council evaluation panel and probity officer are appointed to review 

Expressions of Interest and short-list preferred proponents; 

� Council appoints a commercial real estate agent or property consultant 

to negotiate lease or license terms with preferred proponents; 

� the proponent obtains a Planning permit and any other required 

business licences, prior to lease finalisation; 

� the lessee completes the development within a specified timeframe (or 

failing that the lease is surrendered and other alternative proponents are 

considered). 


Consultation occurred with the broader community in regard to the 

establishment of the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy 

2011. No consultation has yet occurred in relation to specific development of 

the site. The consultation requirements under the Land Use Planning and 

Approvals Act, 1993 and the Clarence Planning Scheme will apply to any 

proposals.



Council as the Managing Authority for the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area 

will liaise with the Crown through the Department of Primary Industries, 

Parks, Water and Environment. 

3.3. Other 

Nil. 


Council’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 includes the following strategy: 

“Identify opportunities for development of key commercial and tourism 

opportunities; 

� Promotion and future development of Rosny Hill;…”. 


Nil. 


6.1. The National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, Nature Conservation 

Act 2002 and the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 apply. 

6.2. It is proposed that the Minister would enter into a long term lease with the 

Clarence City Council under Section 48 of the National Parks and Reserves 

Management Act, 2002. Council would then enter into a sub-lease (as 

approved by the Minister) with any preferred developer/proponent. Any 

development of the Reserve would be via a sub-lease, whilst the Minister also 

has the right to issue business licences. 


No capital funding allocation is proposed at this time. There is, however, provision 

within Council’s annual Operating Plan for implementation of some Rosny Hill 

Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy actions in regard to maintenance and 

improvements, such as fire management trails and access. An Expression of Interest 

process if endorsed is proposed to be funded from budget allocations within the 

Economic Development program.



Nil. 

9. CONCLUSION 

9.1. The report identifies that there are commercial development opportunities at 

Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area which can be consistent with the Rosny 

Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy 2011 and use of the 

property for nature conservation and recreational use, which could 

complement and enhance the public’s use of the area and simultaneously 

provide the financial capacity for the improved use and maintenance of the 

site. 

9.2. The report identifies that the most feasible commercial uses at the site include: 

� commercial active recreational activities; 

� minor utilities; 

� restaurant with take away food kiosk; 

� tourist accommodation and operations; 

� conference centre. 

9.3. The feasibility of commercial development can be further facilitated by: 

� implementation of actions under Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area 

Management Strategy 2011 aimed at increasing active recreational use 

of the area; and 

� the provision of services infrastructure. 

9.4. An important next step is consultation with the State Government (Parks) in 

regard to the report findings and the establishment of a long term lease of the 

site to Council under Section 48 of the National Parks and Reserves 

Management Act, 2002. 

Attachments: 1. Opteon Tasmania Property Report - Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area, 

May 2012 (27) 

Andrew Paul 

GENERAL MANAGER

Consulting Report 

"Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area" 12A Akuna Street 

Rosny, Tasmania 7018 

Prepared For Clarence City Council 

Date Report Issued 10-May-12 

Our Reference 114169 

Integrated Property Services Tas Pty Ltd trading as Opteon (Tasmania) 

ABN 98 136 982 173 

7 Castray Esplanade, Hobart TAS 7000 

T (03) 6220 7555 

F (03) 6224 2331 

E tasmania.info@opteonproperty.com.au 

W opteonproperty.com.au 

Value made visible

Table of Contents 


Rosny, Tasmania 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 3 

2.0 INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................. 6 

3.0 LOCATION ....................................................................................................... 7 

3.1 Regional ................................................................................................. 7 

3.2 Specific Location ....................................................................................... 7 

3.3 Access & Parking ....................................................................................... 8 

3.4 Transport & Infrastructure ........................................................................... 8 

4.0 TENURE .......................................................................................................... 9 

4.1 Legal Description ....................................................................................... 9 

5.0 LAND DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 10 

5.1 Physical Characteristics ............................................................................. 10 

6.0 PLANNING ..................................................................................................... 10 

6.1 Local Planning ........................................................................................ 10 

6.2 Heritage Issues ....................................................................................... 12 

7.0 SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 13 

7.1 Services Infrastructure Required: ................................................................. 13 

8.0 IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 14 

9.0 PHOTOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 14 

10.0 OCCUPANCY & LEASE DETAILS ........................................................................... 16 

10.1 Possible Ground Lease Terms ...................................................................... 16 

10.2 Alternative Casual License Terms ................................................................. 18 

11.0 MARKET DEMAND & LIKELY DEVELOPMENT: .......................................................... 18 

11.1 Market Demand: ...................................................................................... 18 

11.2 Potential Uses: ....................................................................................... 18 

11.3 Sensitive Commercial Development Opportunities: ........................................... 20 

11.3.1 Active Recreation ............................................................................ 20 

11.3.2 Minor Utility ................................................................................... 20 

11.3.3 Restaurant ..................................................................................... 21 

11.3.4 Take Away Food Shop ....................................................................... 21 

11.3.5 Tourist Accommodation ..................................................................... 21 

11.3.6 Tourist Operation ............................................................................ 22 

12.0 DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINTS: ............................................................................. 24 

13.0 MECHANISM AND PROCESS FOR GOING TO MARKET: ................................................ 25 

13.1 Expression of Interest: .............................................................................. 25 

14.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS .................................................................................. 27 

Appendices 

1. Rosny Hill Property Report Project Brief 

2. Certificates of Title and Title Plans 

3. Extract from Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 

4. Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy 

Page 2

1.0 Executive Summary 

Instructing Party Mr Greg Walker, Clarence City Council 

Client / Authorised Party Clarence City Council 


Purpose General consultancy purposes for management of the site 


Property Address "Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area" (RHNA) 12A Akuna Street, Rosny, 

Tasmania 7018 

Property Description The property comprises a nature recreation area with a total site area 

of approximately 20.965 ha. 

Date of Inspection 14-Feb-12 

Certificate(s) of Title Volume 12799 Folio 1 

Registered Proprietor The Crown 

Site Area 20.965 ha 

Zoning “Recreation” 

Volume 236367 Folio 1 

Occupancy Status The property is currently managed by the Clarence City Council as a 

nature reserve. 

Key Assumptions • The instructions and subsequent information supplied contain a 

full disclosure of all information that is relevant; 

Page 3



Key Findings • There is currently a lack of public facilities at the RHNRA and 

although the site has regular visitors, the site is under-utilised and 

under-developed; 

• The RHNRA has some unique attributes which would appeal to 

commercial operations on the site; 

• The National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, the 

Clarence Planning Scheme 2007, and the RHNRA Management 

Strategy permit some commercial activities on the site; 

• The site does have some sensitive conservation issues which 

should be considered as part of any development proposal; 

• There are commercial development opportunities which are 

considered to be consistent with the management strategy and 

use of the property as “public land” for nature conservation and 

recreational use which could complement and enhance Rosny Hill 

and the public’s use of the Reserve and simultaneously provide 

the financial capacity for the improved use and maintenance of 

the Reserve. Sensitive commercial development should therefore 

be encouraged. 

• Areas outside of the two designated development zones should be 

considered provided they remain sensitive to the other constraints 

of the Reserve. Proposals should not be restricted to defined 

development zones but rather be assessed based on their merits. 

• The conservation value of the Reserve in comparison to other 

reserves (eg National Parks, World Heritage Areas) is 

comparatively low. Conversely the site, due its location in a 

largely developed area, is well suited to the pursuit of 

recreational land uses and complementary commercial activities 

for the benefit of tourists and the general public. 

• The most likely feasible commercial uses for the site include 

commercial active recreational activities; minor utilies; restaurant 

with take away food kiosk; tourist accommodation and operations. 

• Following Council obtaining a head lease from the Crown, and 

completion of non-commercially viable recreational development 

the Council should seek Expressions of Interest from interested 

parties for commercial uses of the RHNRA consistent with 

Council’s preferred development concepts; 

Page 4

Date of Advice 14-Feb-12 

Author 

Counter Signatory 

William Reynolds 

AAPI, B.Bus (L.Ec), CPV 

API Member 40064 

Director 

Richard Steedman 

AAPI, B.Comm (Prop), CPV 


Senior Valuer 



Important This Executive Summary must be read in conjunction with the remainder of this 

report. The Executive Summary is only a synopsis designed to provide a brief 

overview and must not be acted upon in isolation to the contents of this report. 

Third Party Disclaimer This report has been prepared for the private and confidential use of our client, 

Clarence City Council for the specified purpose. It should not be reproduced in 

whole or part without the express written authority of Opteon (Tasmania) or 

relied upon by any other party for any purpose and the author shall not have any 

liability to any party who does so. Our warning is registered here, that any party, 

other than those specifically named in this paragraph should obtain their own 

advice before acting in any way in respect of the subject property. 

Counter Signatory The counter signatory confirms that the report is genuine and is endorsed by 

Opteon (Tasmania). The counter signatory may not have formally inspected the 

property or comparable sales. The opinion of value has been arrived at by the 

principal signatory. 

Page 5

2.0 Instructions 

Instructing Party Mr Greg Walker, Clarence City Council 



Property Address "Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area" 12A Akuna Street, Rosny Tasmania 

Date of Instructions 23-Jan-12 

Client / Authorised Party Clarence City Council 

Purpose To consider the market potential that may exist for development 

within the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Reserve 

More specifically the scope of instructions was specified within the Rosny Hill Property Report 

Project Brief as follows: 

“1.2. THE PROJECT AND SCOPE 

The Project work in summary entails the provision of the consultancy services required to prepare 

and deliver a property report addressing the market potential that may exist for development 

within the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Reserve. 

The property report shall include: 

• a review of the site development constraints; 

• an analysis of visitor services and enterprise opportunities in the context of those constraints; 

• recommendations in regard to the: 

o development opportunities that are most likely to be achievable and sustainable; 

o land tenure needed to facilitate various types of investment; 

o development footprints within the reserve; 

o infrastructure services that are required or desirable; 

o mechanism and process for going to the market.” 

Pecuniary Interest We confirm that the author does not have any pecuniary interest that 

would conflict with the proper assessment of the property. 

Documentation Provided Information we have been provided with and relied upon in preparing 

this report includes: 

• Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy; 

• Clarence Planning Scheme 2007; 

• Traffic counts; 

• Aerial photography; 

Scope of Work The scope of work undertaken by the author in completing this advice 

has included: 

• Collation of information from relevant parties regarding the 

subject property; 

• Undertaking our own research regarding the subject property; 

• An inspection of the property; 

• Undertaking market research in terms of the state of economy 

and property market sectors; 

• Consideration of reference material and the issues; 

• Preparation of conclusions and this report. 

Page 6



Full Disclosure Disclaimer Whilst we have attempted to confirm the veracity of information supplied, the 

scope of work did not extend to verification of all information supplied or due 

diligence. Our report has been prepared on the assumption the instructions and 

information supplied has been provided in good faith and contains a full disclosure 

of all information that is relevant. The author does not accept any responsibility or 

liability whatsoever in the event the author has been provided with insufficient, 

false or misleading information. 

A copy of our instructions is attached to this report. 

3.0 Location 

3.1 Regional 

The property is situated within the established, residential suburb of Rosny, which is approximately 

5 kms east Hobart's CBD, on the eastern shore of the River Derwent. Rosny Park is the 

administrative centre for the municipality of Clarence. Shops, schools and other community 

facilities are provided within the immediate area. 

Location Map 

3.2 Specific Location 

SUBJECT �� 

Properties in the immediate vicinity include residential dwellings of varying construction and 

designs. 

Page 7

Aerial Photo 

3.3 Access & Parking 



Vehicular access to the property is via Akuna Street which is a single lane road carrying two way 

traffic. 

A circular road traverses through the site and provides access to the pinnacle of the reserve where 

there is on site car parking. 

3.4 Transport & Infrastructure 

SUBJECT �� 

The property has good access to major arterial roads including the Tasman Highway. 

The Hobart airport is located within approximately 10 kms of the subject property. 

Public transport (bus services) is available within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 

Traffic counts undertaken by the Clarence Council for the month of February 2012 indicate an 

average of 192 vehicles per day currently visit the site. There are no facilities or services offered to 

these visitors. The majority of visits to the site occur between 8 am and 10 pm, peaking at or 

around midday. 

Page 8



The number of traffic movements to the site reflects the attributes of the site in terms of its appeal 

for sightseeing. The existing visitation to the site would assist in terms of viability of development 

and would be viewed positively by potential businesses for the site. 

4.0 Tenure 

4.1 Legal Description 

Title References Volume 12799 Folio 1 

Volume 236367 Folio 1 

Registered Proprietor The Crown 

Tenure Tenure to the property is by virtue of a Torrens title/freehold land. 

We have been advised the Clarence Council intend to be granted a 

long term head-lease over the site from The Crown. 

Managing Authority Clarence City Council has been responsible for the management of 

the reserve since 30 September 2009, when the management role 

transferred from the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. 1 

Tenure for Development Given ownership is held by the Crown and the strong association of 

the land to the community, development on the site is most likely to 

be undertaken by way of tenure via a ground (sub)lease or license. 

Subdivision or sale of the land is possible but not considered 

practical/likely. 

Data Source Copies of the Certificate of Title and Title Plans have been obtained 

from the Land Titles Office and are attached to this report. 

1 National Parks and Reserves Management (Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area - Managing Authority) 

Order 2009 (S.R. 2009, No. 113) 

Page 9

5.0 Land Description 



Shape and Dimensions The shape and dimensions of the property are shown on the Title 

plans. 

Site Area Approximately 20.965 ha 

Source of Site Area The land area has been obtained from the Title Plans. 

5.1 Physical Characteristics 

Site Area 

Volume: Folio: Area (ha): 

12799 1 20.560 ha 

236367 1 0.405 ha 

Total Site Area: 20.965 ha 

Slope The site is of generally gradual to steep slope with some near level 

areas towards the top of Rosny Hill. 

Aspect/Views The property has a varying aspect and spectacular views overlooking 

the River Derwent and City of Hobart. 

Geotechnical We have not sighted a geotechnical engineers’ survey of the property. 

We are not experts in the field of civil or geotechnical engineering 

and we are therefore unable to comment as to the geotechnical 

integrity of the ground and soil conditions. It is specifically assumed 

that there are no adverse geotechnical conditions that compromise 

the utility of the property for the current or highest and best use. In 

the event there is found to be adverse ground conditions we 

recommend the matter be referred to this Company for comment. 

6.0 Planning 

6.1 Local Planning 

Local Government 

Authority 

Current Town Planning 

Scheme 

Clarence 

Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 

Current Zoning “Recreation” 

The purpose of the Recreation zone is: 

a) To implement the Planning Policy Framework. 

b) To recognise public and private land which may be used for open 

space or recreation. 

c) To provide for uses which support recreational activities or which 

may be interim uses that do not prejudice future recreational 

activities. 2 

2 Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 

Page 10

Permitted Uses Agriculture 

Active Recreation 

Minor Utility 

Passive Recreation 3 

Discretionary Uses Aquaculture 

Camping and Caravan Park 

Community Building 

Extractive Industry 

Educational or Cultural Centre 

Forestry 

Major Utility 

Restaurant 

Take Away Food Shop 

Tourist Accommodation 

Tourist Operation 

Any undefined use 4 

Prohibited Uses Any other defined use not listed above 5 



Overlays The property is also subject to a Vegetation Management Overlay. 

The purpose of the Overlay is: 

a) To implement the Planning Policy Framework. 

b) To protect areas of significant vegetation and bushland habitat 

including forested skylines, prominent ridgelines and hills which 

contribute to important vistas and in particular those which create a 

natural backdrop to the urban setting for the City. 

c) To protect and enhance areas of high, very high, and extremely high 

vegetation significance and bushland habitat 

d) To ensure that development is sited to minimise the loss of native 

vegetation. 

e) To maintain and enhance habitat and corridors for indigenous 

fauna. 6 

Planning Comment 

Whilst the site is zoned “Recreation” there are some potentially viable uses which are either 

permitted or discretionary within the zone. We note also that other environmental and skyline 

protection types zones, such as the “Landscape and Skyline Protection Zone” that covers areas 

such as the Droughty Point hills and the Meaghan Range, do not apply to Rosny Hill. 

Planning Disclaimer Town planning and zoning information was informally obtained from the relevant 

local and State Government authorities. This information does not constitute a 

formal zoning certificate. Should the addressee require formal confirmation of 

planning issues then we recommend written application be made to the relevant 

authorities to obtain appropriate current zoning certificates. 





Page 11

6.2 Heritage Issues 



The Section 2 (Physical, Biological and Cultural Characteristics) of the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation 

Area Management Strategy provides a summary of the natural and cultural values of Rosny Hill. 

Pertinent sections of that report include: 

Geology and Topography The geology/soil type is relatively robust, with the capacity to 

sustainably support recreational trail development and use. … 

The stony nature of the local geology may be a design element that 

could be incorporated into facility upgrades and landscaping, with 

the potential to utilise stone from the site. 

Vegetation The Rosny Hill Bushfire Management Plan 2010 indicates that there 

are five distinct vegetation communities within the reserve: 

(DVG) Grassy Eucalyptus viminalis woodland 

(NAV) Inland Acacia verticillata low Forest 

(GTL) Lowland Themeda grassland 

(GCL) Lowland grassland complex 

(NBA) Bursaria-acacia woodland and Scrub 

Rosny Hill NRA provides habitat for several rare and threatened 

native plant species, including: 

Leafy sun orchid (Thelymitra bracteata) 

Grassland flax lily (Dianella amoena) 

Spear grass (Austrostipa nodosa) 

Tall wallaby grass (Austrodanthonia induta) 

Shade peppercress (Ledidium pseudotasmanicum) 

Narrow leaf New Holland daisy (Vittadinia muelleri) 

… 

None of these vegetation communities are listed as threatened under 

the Nature Conservation Act 2002. However, it is noted that all 

communities, with the exception of the Inland Acacia verticillata low 

forest, are considered to be inadequately reserved at state level 5. 

The small size of remnant vegetation communities, the minimal 

capacity for increase, and the density of urban development 

surrounding the reserve, mean that they need to be well-managed to 

ensure long-term viability. 

Fauna The Natural Values Report indicates that the following threatened 

fauna species have been recorded from within 500m of the reserve: 

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolor); and 

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). 

Aboriginal The Rosny Hill NRA is within the original territory of the Oyster Bay 

people, once the largest tribe in Tasmania. The Band most closely 

associated with the Rosny Hill area was the Moomairremener. 

All sites or artefacts of Aboriginal significance are protected under 

the Aboriginal Relics Act 19759. To date, there are no know sites or 

artefacts of significance in the study area – such sites or artefacts are 

more likely to be associated with the nearby coastal areas. 

Historic and Heritage 

Values 

Although Rosny Hill does not contain any known tangible evidence of 

historic cultural heritage, it’s prominence in the landscape 

(particularly when seen from the western shore), as illustrated in 

Page 12

Contemporary Social 

Values 

7.0 Services 



paintings and photographs throughout the history of European 

settlement within the Greater Hobart Area, suggests it has always 

been an important element of the cultural landscape. 

The strategic directions and recommendations .. respond to the 

identified contemporary social values, and aim to balance the needs 

and potential impacts of users, with the maintenance of natural and 

aesthetic values. 

The proposed recommendations identify practical and achievable 

ways to enhance recreation (primarily walking opportunities), lowlevel 

tourism (e.g. improvements to the quality of the lookouts), 

aesthetic values (e.g. maintenance, landscaping, and the visual values 

of the reserve when viewed from surrounding areas), and 

environmental management. 

Any new infrastructure must be designed and located with 

consideration to the potential visual impact when viewed from 

outside the reserve. 7 

Electricity Available but not connected 

Water Reticulated water supply is available to Rosny Hill although supply 

may be restricted due to its elevation. 

Gas Reticulated natural gas is not available 

Sewer Available but not connected. Any new development is likely to 

require new mains connection to existing sewer drains/systems. 

Telecommunications Available but not connected 

7.1 Services Infrastructure Required: 

In order to undertake development of the site, proponents would ordinarily undertake 

infrastructure works required to facilitate development. In particular, proponents would ordinarily 

expect to have access to electricity, telecommunication, reticulated water and sewer services. 

In recent times there have been a number of innovations which now mean more remote sites can be 

appropriately serviced without connections to reticulated services. Sustainable building design is 

now also placing greater emphasis on sustainability/self-sufficiency and so whilst services 

infrastructure is desirable, it is no longer considered essential. For example mobile phone and data 

services may mean that landline telecommunication services are not essential, or rainwater tanks 

can be used for water supply. 

In this instance, there is likely to also be a community benefit/demand for the provision of services. 

We expect any development is likely to need to cater for public amenities and this places a higher 

demand on water supplies and sewerage treatment. The cost of providing this infrastructure should 

therefore be shared on a negotiated basis with an successful commercial proponent for the site. 

Most services should be reasonably able to be provided to facilitate development of the RHNRA. The 

exception would appear to be water supply given the elevation of the proposed development zones. 

Any new development may need to provide its own water supply (via tanks) or pump station at the 

mains connection to a header tank. 

7 Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area Management Strategy, Author: inspiring place 

Page 13

8.0 Improvements 



At present improvements on the site are limited to a bitumen road/drive, on site carparking, 

signage, interpretive signs and signage, and a survey trig point 

9.0 Photography 

Trig Grid at the top of Rosny Hill 

Developable area on the north eastern side of 

Rosny Hill 

Views overlooking the River Derwent and 

Tasman Bridge 

Views southwards to Droughty Point and South 

Arm 

Page 14

Existing interpretive signage 

Existing carparking area 

Views overlooking the City of Hobart and across 

to Mount Wellington 



Existing signage and permitted recreational 

uses 

Former quarry area near the entrance of the 

Rosny Hill reserve 

Existing signage 

Page 15

10.0 Occupancy & Lease Details 


Occupancy Status Property is currently used by the general public free of charge. 


Legislative Framework It is proposed that the Minister would enter into a long term lease 

with the Clarence City Council under section 48 of the National Parks 

and Reserves Management Act 2002. Council would then enter into a 

sub-lease (as approved by the Minister) with the preferred 

developer/proponent. 

Any development of the Reserve would be via a sub-lease, whilst the 

Minister also has the right to issue business licences. 

Tenure Options for 

Development 

10.1 Possible Ground Lease Terms 

In the event development was to occur on part of the property the 

recommended form of tenure to be offered to a proponent is by way 

of a ground lease (by virtue of a Crown Land Lease). 

Ordinarily development on this type of property would be undertaken on the basis of a long term 

lease of the land to a tenant who would construct improvements (tenant improvements) to meet 

their business requirements (subject to the approval of the lessor). Alternatively the Council could 

construct improvements and lease the land and buildings to a tenant, although this involves capital 

expenditure and the improvements may not meet the specific requirements of tenants. 

For any substantial development by an operator to occur, the proponent is likely to require secure 

land tenure. This in part will be required to facilitate financing of any development. Given the land 

is and is expected to remain in the ownership of the Crown, freehold land tenure is not expected to 

be offered. 

Our recommendation to assist facilitating any substantial development is to offer a long term 

ground (sub) lease on terms and conditions similar to the following: 

Lessor/Landlord Major and Aldermen of the City of Clarence 

Lessee/Tenant Yet to be nominated 

Demised Premises Land to be defined by way of illustration plan 

Commencement Date Yet to be specified 

Initial Term 25 yrs 

Options 25 yrs 

Commencement Rent To be negotiated 

Rent Reviews Annualy in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index 

with the rent reviewed to the market rent of the land every 5 years 

Net or Gross Net 

Outgoings The tenant is to pay all outgoings including their share of land tax (on 

a single holding basis), Council Rates and water and serwage rates. 

Permitted Use To be agreed 

Special Provisions The lessee shall undertake all works required to complete the 

development within a specified time frame. If the lessor gives due 

notice to complete the development and the lessee fails to complete 

the development within the timeframe specified, the lease shall be 

surrendered and become null and void. 

If required by the lessor, all improvements made by the lessee shall 

Page 16



be removed by the lessee at the end of the lease. If the lessor does 

not require the tenant improvements to be removed the 

improvements shall become the property of the lessor. 

Note: It is considered important to include a provision that the development must be undertaken 

within an agreed timeframe so that if the tenant fails to develop the property, the lease is 

surrendered and other development proponents can be considered. 

10.1.1 Ground Lease Rental Structures 

There are a number of means by which ground rentals can be determined/established. 

Ordinarily where the tenant (and not the landlord) is making a significant capital contribution to the 

construction of buildings and other improvements (collectively known as tenant improvements), it is 

not appropriate to assess a rental as a percentage of turnover because the majority of that turnover 

is generated from the improvements and business which are the property of the lessee (tenant). 

Nonetheless these type of lease agreements do exist and certainly this can be an appropriate 

method of determining the rent for a new business (where the tenant is concerned about the 

affordability of rent) or specialised types of businesses. 

Where the tenant is making significant tenant improvements it is more common for the rental to be 

negotiated by the parties, based on valuation advice of prevailing market ground rents. 

Where the tenant is establishing a new business it is common for the lessor to provide a rent free 

period during the period of construction, and if deemed necessary during the first few months or 

first year of the lease to assist the tenant establish their business. 

Typically at the end of the lease ownership of the tenant improvements unless removed by the 

tenant will become the property of the lessor (land owner) and rental payable after that date would 

be payable on both the ground and the improvements. 

The benefits of an agreed rental are that this is a known quantum from which both the tenant and 

landlord can make informed decisions about the lease. Conversely it is a fixed overhead to the 

tenant. 

The benefits of a rental which is a percentage of turnover are that the rental is set at a 

theoretically affordable percentage of sales and therefore reduces the risk of tenant default (it 

does not eliminate this risk). Conversely there is no certainty of rent for the landlord, the landlord 

shares in business decisions/risks, and if the tenant’s business is successful (which would almost 

certainly be a result of their business initiatives, capital investment and management) the tenant 

pays a higher rental. 

Notwithstanding the above, the quantum and manner of determining a rental payable under a lease 

is usually determined through commercial negotiations (either directly or though a commercial real 

estate agent or valuer), market forces (ie competition between tenants), with parties ordinarily 

seeking expert valuation advice. In the event agreement cannot be reached, the assessment of the 

rent can be referred to a valuer or the Australian Property Institute for the rental to be determined 

(either as an expert or an arbitrator). 

Page 17

10.2 Alternative Casual License Terms 



In addition to developments which require a long term ground lease (such as a retail café, visitor 

centre, tourist accommodation etc), there are likely to be potential commercial uses for the site 

which involve more casual or infrequent use of the site. 

This could be facilitated by way of issue of licenses (by either the Council or the Crown) which could 

include the right to use the reserve for bus or scenic tours, exercise/fitness sessions, or 

weddings/functions etc. As distinct to members of the public using the reserve for recreational 

purposes, in these instances the operators are conducting a commercial venture and it is therefore 

considered appropriate that these users contribute financially to assist with the overall 

maintenance and development of the site. 

11.0 Market Demand & Likely Development: 

11.1 Market Demand: 

Quantifying market demand within the property market is difficult. There are few statistics on 

actual property related data which are available without undertaking detailed specific analysis 

which is beyond the scope of this brief. 

Demand for property needs to be differentiated between the various sectors ie residential, 

industrial, office, retail, tourism etc. Supply and demand within each sector can vary significantly 

at any one point in time. 

By comparison most commercial developers undertake some preliminary review and make a 

judgement as to demand and whether existing or potentially competing supply is adequate to fulfil 

that demand ie they make a subjective judgement. 

Within a particular sector, where supply satisfies demand, developers may make a judgement that 

they can offer a more competitive product (in terms of pricing or quality) within that sector. 

Statistics on the broader demographic and economic indicators are provided within the Clarence 

City Council Prospectus, a copy of which is available on the Council’s website. 

11.2 Potential Uses: 

We have considered likely development uses for the site in light of the RHNRA Management 

Strategy, whether such development is likely to be commercially viable (and adequate demand to 

justify development) and whether such uses are considered appropriate with the intended character 

of the Reserve. 

Consideration of these factors is detailed below together with a simplistic rating score (the higher 

the rating score the more likely development). 

Identified possible land use: 

Permitted 

/discretionary 

use? 

Considered 

commercially 

viable? 

Appropriate 

for RHNRA? 

Rating Score 

of Most 

Likely & 

Suitable Uses 

Active Recreation P � � 3 

Page 18



Agriculture P � � 1 

Aquaculture D � � 0.5 

Camping and Caravan Park D � � 0.5 

Car Parking X � � 1 

Community Building D � � 0.5 

Conference Centre Not defined � � 2 

Educational or Cultural Centre X � � 1 

Extractive Industry D � � 0.5 

Forestry D � � 0.5 

Major Utility D � � 0.5 

Minor Utility P � � 3 

Passive Recreation P � � 2 

Restaurant D � � 2.5 

Take Away Food Shop D � � 2.5 

Tourist Accommodation D � � 2.5 

Tourist Operation D � � 2.5 

Un-defined Uses D Possibly Possibly 

All other uses X Possibly � 

Some of the identified uses are not consistent with the Management Strategy and therefore should 

be dismissed as potential uses. 

There are however identified commercial development opportunities which are considered to be 

consistent with the management strategy and use of the property as “public land” for nature 

conservation and recreational use which could complement and enhance the reserve. These uses 

can provide financial returns to provide better maintenance and facilities for use of the reserve by 

the general and accordingly sensitive commercial development should therefore be encouraged. In 

addition, the Clarence City Council would appear to have an important role to play in terms of the 

provision of community facilities which are not commercial viable but would enhance the use and 

visitation of the site, improve use and experiences afforded to the local community and which will 

underpin viability of appropriate commercial activities. 

There are commercial development opportunities which are 

considered to be consistent with the management strategy and use 

of the property as “public land” for nature conservation and 

recreational use which could complement and enhance Rosny Hill 

and the public’s use of the Reserve and simultaneously provide the 

financial capacity for the improved use and maintenance of the 

Reserve. Sensitive commercial development should therefore be 

encouraged. 

Page 19

11.3 Sensitive Commercial Development Opportunities: 


Of the potential uses considered, the most likely and suitable identified uses are: 

� Active Recreation 

� Minor Utility 

� Restaurant 

� Take Away Food Shop 

� Tourist Accommodation 

� Tourist Operation 


Specific consideration of these potential uses and how we believe these uses could be applied to the 

RHNRA is as follows: 

11.3.1 Active Recreation 

The RHNRA has a clear and very important role to play in terms of recreational use. To date most 

recreational use has been passive, in terms of visiting the site to enjoy views/vistas. 

Whilst there are some informal tracks through the site, development of more formal (walking and 

bike) tracks and other active recreational facilities (eg outdoor exercise equipment) could play an 

important role in the increased use of the site. Provision of such facilities should be viewed in the 

context of linkages to other projects or infrastructure within the area including Kangaroo Bay, bike 

track to the Tasman Bridge etc. 

Development of such facilities would underpin appropriate commercial development opportunities 

on the site (eg walkers stopping for a coffee or breakfast, meeting for lunch, and improving the 

overall ambience/vibe of the site). 

There may also be opportunities for use of the reserve by commercial active recreation providers, 

such as for use for boot camps or physical outdoor activities (eg abseiling off the former quarry 

face). Such activities are probably best accommodated by way of a casual business license rather 

than long term lease tenure. 

Development of active recreational facilities is unlikely (in the main) to be commercially viable. 

Council has a clear role in facilitating such development, and this is considered a key ingredient to 

the start of an overall project for the RHNRA. 

Visitors amenities and interpretive displays or signs are common features of where facilities for 

active recreation can be developed in conjunction with or as part of other commercial development 

(eg amenities and interpretive signage explaining the flora and fauna and history of the RHNRA at 

the entrance or adjoining a restaurant). 

11.3.2 Minor Utility 

Given the site’s elevation in comparison to surrounding densely populated residential areas, there 

may exist opportunities for the location of minor utilities on the site. These could include water or 

sewerage pumping stations, telecommunication exchanges, electrical substation, or mobile phone 

and data services. 

Page 20



Such development should occur on parts of the site which do not compromise other uses and the 

aesthetics and character of the reserve. 

11.3.3 Restaurant 

There are a number of restaurants in the Bellerive/Rosny area and more generally throughout the 

Hobart area (eg Botantical Gardens, Cornellian Bay, Mount Nelson signal station etc). 

Restaurants can be profitable but gross margins are generally lower than other businesses, and this 

compromises the ability of restaurateurs to have the financial willingness and capacity to fund 

capital works. 

A restaurant located on Rosny Hill is likely to have a commercial advantage to other restaurants in 

the area due to the unique site, existing visitation, and vistas. A restaurant at Rosny Hill is 

therefore likely to be more commercially viable. 

We believe a restaurant is a potential commercial venture that is suitable for RHNRA although its 

commercial viability will be conditional/dependant upon development of other facilities at the 

Reserve (ie it is unlikely to be self sustaining on its own). 

There are various examples of other similar restaurants facilities both in Tasmania and interstate 

including: 

� Brisbane Lookout (Summit restaurant & café) – www.brisbanelookout.com 

� Mount Lofty Summit restaurant and café, SA – www.mtloftysummit.com 

11.3.4 Take Away Food Shop 

The nature of the reserve does not lend itself to a traditional take away food shop. 

Nevertheless an astute restaurateur would offer some take away products in conjunction with and 

using the commercial kitchen of a restaurant. We envisage this could be in the form of an adjoining 

kiosk for take away coffees and light snacks, which might appeal to active recreational users of the 

Reserve. 

11.3.5 Tourist Accommodation 

Accommodation establishments can achieve some of the highest gross profit margins. This can 

provide the commercial justification for major capital works/building programs. 

At present there is a complete lack of 4 or 5 star accommodation within the Rosny/Bellerive area. 

There are a number of older motel style accommodation establishments but there no facilities 

(other than the Airport Hotel) which provide a higher standard of accommodation. 

Given the high margins in tourist accommodation, the scale of an accommodation facility can be 

kept relatively small (eg possibly 10-15 cabins). 

Provided tourist accommodation was developed on the basis of an eco-tourism style venture which 

would be unobtrusive to the nature conservation aspects of the reserve, we believe construction of 

a tourist accommodation facility is a potential commercial use for the site which would complement 

other identified commercial activities (eg restaurant, offering guests active recreational activities 

etc). 

Page 21



The vistas obtained from RHNRA provide a superb setting and attraction for visitors to the site who 

may wish to stay (and dine) overnight. 

There are many examples of environmentally sensitive 

accommodation facilities which are sympathetic to the 

surrounding natural environment and which are located in 

higher conservation value areas than RHNRA including National 

Parks. Examples include Freycinet Lodge, Coles Bay; Maria Island 

Walks; Bay of Fires; Cradle Mountain Huts etc. With modern 

sustainable architectural design such facilities can have minimal 

impact on the surrounding environment and be aesthetically 

unobtrusive. 

11.3.6 Tourist Operation 

There are potential commercial tourist operations which could be complimentary to the 

recreational use of the site. There are a multitude of these potential tourist operations, limited 

only by the ingenuity of an operator. 

Examples on other sites include: 

Page 22



These are example Tourist Operations which would both enhance the overall experience 

opportunities for visitors to Hobart yet also appeal to local residents. They are also compatible with 

Active Recreational uses and improvements for access, understanding and public appreciation of the 

natural conservation values of the RHNRA. 

Page 23

12.0 Development Footprints: 



The RHNRA Management Strategy identifies two possible Development Zones as shown below: 

The two identified zones are the most logical given the topography of the site and that natural 

vegetation has been disturbed in these areas in the past. 

In our view areas outside of the two designated development zones should be considered provided 

they remain sensitive to the other constraints (eg vegetation conservation) of the Reserve. For 

example the former quarry area on the northern side of the Reserve may be suitable and other 

Active Recreational commercial activities could extend through the entire reserve. Ultimately we 

believe proposals should not be restricted to defined development zones but rather be assessed 

based on their merits and measures taken to meet the other management objectives of the 

Reserve. In this regard we are conscious that it would appear there are no threatened vegetation 

communities on the site due to the encroachment of surrounding suburban areas, the conservation 

value of the Reserve in comparison to other reserves such as National Parks, World Heritage Areas 

etc is comparatively low. Conversely the site, due its location in a largely developed area, is well 

suited to the pursuit of recreational land uses and complementary commercial activities. 

Page 24



Areas outside of the two designated development zones should be considered 

provided they remain sensitive to the other constraints of the Reserve. Proposals 

should not be restricted to defined development zones but rather be assessed based 

on their merits. It would appear the conservation value of the Reserve in 

comparison to other reserves (eg National Parks, World Heritage Areas) is 

comparatively low. Conversely the site, due its location in a largely developed area, 

is well suited to the pursuit of recreational land uses and complementary 

commercial activities for the benefit of tourists and the general public. 

13.0 Mechanism and Process for Going to Market: 

The following is our recommended process for going to market to seek proponents for the sensitive 

commercial development of the RHNRA per the comments in this report. 

� Council obtains a 99 year head-lease from the Crown for the RHNRA at a peppercorn rent; 

� Council considers recommendations of this report and agrees on development concepts 

Council believes are appropriate for the site; 

� Revision of master plan and design for the site based on Council’s preferred future desired 

character of the site; 

� Council undertakes non-commercially viable development to promote increased active 

recreational use of the property and provision of services infrastructure which will underpin 

and facilitate commercial development; 

� Council prepares marketing material and defines preferred development standards to be met 

by proponents for both leases or business licenses; 

� Council seeks Expressions of Interest from interested parties for commercial uses of the 

RHNRA consistent with Council’s preferred development concepts (the Expression of Interest 

is to include the proponents proposed sub-lease offer); 

� A Council evaluation panel and probity officer are appointed to review Expressions of Interest 

and short-list preferred proponents; 

� Council appoints a commercial real estate agent or property consultant to negotiate lease or 

license terms with preferred proponents; 

� The proponent obtains a planning permit, and any other required business licences, prior to 

lease finalisation; 

� The lessee completes the development within a specified timeframe (or failing that the lease 

is surrendered and other alternative proponents are considered). 

An overview of the Expression of Interest Marketing method and why it is considered the most 

appropriate is provided in the following section. 

13.1 Expression of Interest: 

This sale method incorporates an initial calling or advertising for expressions of interest (EOI) in the 

form of non-binding offers. Following closing of the EOI period, qualified parties either enter direct 

negotiation or are invited to participate in further closed bidding (a two staged EOI process) to 

determine the most acceptable offer. 

A two staged EOI process typically works as follows: 

The property is offered publicly to the market, and interested parties are invited to submit by a 

nominated date an EOI form confirming their interest, capability and price range. From the initial 

EOI forms, suitably qualified parties are selected and invited to submit by a due date a formal and 

final bid. Final bids are normally in the form of a contract for sale. The highest bidder (having 

regard to conditions and capability) is then accepted by the vendor, contracts are exchanged and 

the deposit paid. 

Page 25



Depending on the complexity of the property and the level of due diligence required to lodge a 

signed contract, purchasers may not be willing to participate in a second stage if a signed contract 

is required. In such cases, a preferred party may be selected and provided an exclusive period in 

which to complete due diligence and exchange contracts at the agreed price. 

Benefits of expression of interest include: 

� It is a commonly accepted method of sale in commercial property markets; 

� The method is similar but less formal and more flexible to a public tender campaign; 

� All prospective purchasers are given the opportunity to submit an EOI; 

� The method is nationally and internationally accepted due to the opportunity to participate 

in the first stage of the process with limited time and costs associated; 

� Flexibility in terms offered can often influence the purchase price. Expressions of Interest 

allow variations to a standard contract of sale enhancing the prospect of maximisation of 

price to the vendor. 

� The method allows confidentiality of information to the invited bidders; 

� The method imposes timeframes for a receipt of EOI; 

� Agents will have access to a database of prospective purchasers to invite to submit an EOI; 

� After receipt of EOIs negotiations can be undertaken confidentially; 

� An agent facilitates negotiations between the buyer and the vendor and can identify common 

ground; 

� The method is able to facilitate conditions precedent to a sale by either the prospective 

purchaser or vendor; 

� The method can allow the vendor to assess various expressions of interest to achieve the best 

outcome. This can be of significant benefit in assessing differing development projects which 

requires greater consideration than just the proceeds of sale (price); 

� The method can be used as a fore-runner to other methods of sale eg sale by private treaty 

with preferred parties; 

Limitations of expression of interest include: 

� The method does not (on its own) promote competition between purchasers; 

� The method can be criticised to be secretive by unsuccessful parties; 

� Documentation required to be prepared in the EOI process may compel the prospective 

purchasers to incur costs without any guarantee of success; 

� Some purchasers are intimidated by the method; 

The EOI process is considered the most appropriate marketing method for the sale or leasing of a 

leasehold interest in the RHNRA because: 

� It provides Council with the opportunity to consider potential uses put forward by proponents 

before deciding on the preferred development concept; 

� It allows Council to balance the interests of the general public with the interests of 

commercial operators; 

� The method is transparent and provides an opportunity for any party to express an interest in 

the proposed future use of the site; 

� The nature of the site requires flexibility in terms of commercial negotiations for the 

development of the site; 

Page 26

14.0 Concluding Comments 



The “Rosny Hill Nature and Recreation Area” is a unique site which enjoys supberb vistas 

overlooking the River Derwent, the Eastern Shore, City of Hobart and Mount Wellington. It is a 

popular reserve for local residents and tourists and is presently used for some commercial business 

activities (such as bus tours). 

Although the site has regular visitors, there are no public facilities and the site is under utilised and 

under developed. 

The site should continue to be preserved as a reserve for flora and fauna conservation, and for the 

use and enjoyment of the general public as a recreational reserve. This should not preclude 

sensitive or appropriate commercial activities or development which could provide financial 

contributions which will enhance the use and maintenance of the reserve for the future benefit of 

the community. 

Author 

Counter Signatory 

William Reynolds 

AAPI, B.Bus (L.Ec), CPV 


Director 

Richard Steedman 

AAPI, B.Comm (Prop), CPV 


Senior Valuer 

Important This report is subject to the definitions, qualifications and disclaimers and other 

comments contained within this report. 

Counter Signatory The counter signatory confirms that the report is genuine and is endorsed by 

Opteon (Tasmania). The counter signatory may not have formally inspected the 

property. The opinions herein have been arrived at by the principal signatory. 

Report Version 2012[Commercial Comprehensive]: Version 1 

Page 27


11.7.3 RESPONSE TO LGAT - STATUTORY WASTE LEVY 

(File No 30-08-00) 


PURPOSE 

To consider a request received from the Local Government Association of Tasmania 

(LGAT) seeking Council’s position in regard to a proposal for a Statutory Waste 

Levy. 


Council’s adopted position opposes any proposal to negotiate or have imposed a 

mandated waste levy. 


Nil. 

CONSULTATION 

No consultation has been undertaken by Council on this proposal. 


There are no immediate financial implications arising out of the report’s 

recommendations. However, the imposition of a waste levy will have direct impact 

on future Annual Operating Plans and the Waste Rate charged to the community. 


That in response to the request received from the Local Government Association of 

Tasmania seeking Council’s position in regard to a proposed Statutory Waste Levy, 

Council advises the Local Government Association of Tasmania, either: 

A. Council maintains its adopted policy position of not supporting a statutory 

waste levy. 

OR 

B. Council endorses the Local Government Association of Tasmania 

recommendation as follows: 

� That Council endorses the proposal to introduce a statutory waste levy 

of $10 per tonne to be collected via public and private landfills. 

� That the funding be allocated on the basis of 20% to regional waste 

bodies; 10% to the EPA and 70% to the Waste to Resources Funding 

Pool. 

� That these arrangements be the basis that the funding is directly 

hypothecated to activities that reduce the volume of waste going to 

landfill and is not absorbed into the State Government Consolidated 

Fund.


� That the Waste Advisory Committee be formally acknowledged within 

the legislation as having an integral role in the disbursement of funds 

from the Waste to Resources Funding Pool, providing 

recommendations to the EPA Board in accordance with relative 

priorities in the Waste to Resources Strategy. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

1.1. In 2009 the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority (STCA) convened a 

working party comprising officers of the STCA, Southern Waste Strategy 

Authority (SWSA) and member Councils. A report from this group was 

circulated to the member Councils and at its Meeting on 30 November 2009 

Council resolved: 

“A. That Council endorses the working party recommendations 

in relation to the governance structure for SWSA and waste 

management in Southern Tasmania, and that the STCA and 

SWSA functions be merged. 

B. In relation to the waste levy proposed, Council opposes any 

proposal to negotiate or have imposed a mandated waste 

levy”. 

1.2. The STCA conducted a Workshop on 19 January 2010 and drafted a further 

set of recommendations, set out below, for the member Councils to consider 

prior to the SWSA Board Meeting on 26 February 2010. 

“Negotiations commence immediately with the State Government 

and Local Government in the North West and North both directly 

and through the Waste Advisory Committee (WAC) to determine 

whether a process backed by State legislation can be agreed upon 

which will: 

i. Raise sufficient funds to finance waste reduction and waste 

management initiatives; 

ii. Achieve the overall goal of equitable funding and 

management of waste issues into the future; 

iii. Restrict the use of such funds to waste reduction and waste 

management initiatives; and 

iv. Protect and preserve Local Government’s interests”.


At the time this motion was put to the member Councils of the STCA and 

Clarence City Council did not support it. 

1.3. At its Meeting of 22 February 2010, Council considered recommendations 

from the SWSA Board in relation to the operation of SWSA and Council 

resolved as follows. 

“A. That Council endorses the recommendations of the SWSA 

Board in relation to the review of finances and governance of 

SWSA. 

B. That Council advises the SWSA Board that its support for the 

recommendations is conditional on the preparation of the 

SWSA Annual Business Plan for 2010/2011 and its 

circulation to Council prior to the adoption of Council’s 

Annual Operating Plan”. 

1.4. At its Meeting of 26 February 2010, the SWSA Board adopted the following: 

“SWSA instruct its CEO (the Southern Tasmania representative on 

the Waste Advisory Committee) to take into account the views 

expressed by member Councils in their response to the STCA’s 

request regarding future funding options for waste management 

activities during WAC discussions regarding the funding of waste 

management activities;…”. 

1.5. At its Meeting of 2 May 2011, Council considered recommendations from the 

SWSA Board in relation to the Blue Environment report “Waste Management 

2020 and Beyond” and resolved as follows. 

“That in response to the key matters arising out of the Blue 

Environment Waste Management 2020 and beyond report, Council 

advises the SWSA Board as follows: 

� Council views that a regional waste authority (SWSA or 

another regional body) should not continue to exist; and 

� Council resolves to maintain its adopted policy position of 

not supporting a mandated waste levy and cannot support the 

establishment of a joint local/State recovery authority”.



2.1. The LGAT General Meeting on 6 April 2011 adopted a motion that changed 

the LGAT Policy on a waste levy. LGAT no longer opposes the waste levy 

and authorised the commencement of discussions with the 3 regional waste 

groups and the State Government regarding the waste levy and governance 

models. Clarence City Council, Devonport City Council and West Tamar 

Council opposed the motion. 

2.2. A series of meetings and discussions have been held between representatives 

from the State Government, LGAT and the 3 regional waste groups. A 

discussion paper has now been prepared and LGAT has now written to all 

Councils on a proposal to support the introduction of a Waste Levy. A copy 

of the letter from LGAT and the discussion paper “The proposal to introduce 

a Statutory Waste Levy” is Attachment 1. 

2.3. LGAT have asked Councils to consider this paper and the recommendations 

made in the paper and provide written comments by 23 June 2012 The views 

of the Councils are to be considered at the LGAT General Meeting to be held 

in July 2012. 

2.4. In summary the recommendations ask Councils to endorse a statutory waste 

levy, detail the division of funds derived from the levy and specify that all 

funds are to be directed to waste management activities and not absorbed into 

the State Government consolidated funds. 

2.5. The specific recommendations made in the paper are as follows: 

“� That Councils endorse the proposal to introduce a statutory 

waste levy of $10 per tonne to be collected via public and 

private landfills; 

� That the funding be allocated on the basis of 20% to regional 

waste bodies; 10% to the EPA and 70% to the Waste to 

Resources Funding Pool; 

� That these arrangements be on the basis that the funding is 

directly hypothecated to activities that reduce the volume of 

waste going to landfill and is not absorbed into the State 

Government Consolidated Fund;


� That the WAC be formally acknowledged within the 

legislation as having an integral role in the disbursement of 

funds from the Waste to Resources Funding Pool, providing 

recommendations to the EPA Board in accordance with 

relative priorities in the Waste to Resources Strategy”. 

2.6. As Council has an established policy position opposing any mandated waste 

levy it is appropriate to consider the possible benefits that a statutory waste 

levy may derive as a market-based economic instrument. A waste levy would 

potentially serve a number of purposes. 

� provide financial incentive to recover and recycle rather than deposit 

waste in landfill and provides a price signal to waste generators that 

landfill disposal has additional, sometimes hidden, costs; 

� enables the collection of a levy on Commercial and Industrial (C&I) 

waste which comprises the largest portion of waste to landfill; 

� provides funds for waste minimisation and recovery programs which 

are more effectively undertaken at a strategic level (eg strengthening 

recycling markets, addressing infrastructure inadequacies); and 

� help to balance the price differential between existing landfill systems 

and new technologies, facilitating the introduction of innovative 

approaches to waste processing. 

The waste levy can be used to fund Waste Authorities whose charter can 

include principles and functions such as: 

� development and co-ordination of State and Local Government waste 

policies; 

� development, administration and monitoring of State waste strategies; 

� provision of assistance to Local Government with arrangements for 

regional waste management; 

� commissioning, support and collaboration on research into waste 

management and resource recovery practices and issues; 

� development of standards and best practice guidance in relation to 

waste technologies, systems, infrastructure and practices; 

� co-ordination of education initiatives; 

� data collection and reporting; and


� support the development of sustainable markets for recovered 

resources. 

2.7. Given Council has considered this matter on a number of occasions and 

maintained an established policy position opposing any mandated waste levy, 

the consideration of the LGAT recommendation is a matter for Council. 



Nil. 


Not applicable. 

3.3. Other 

Nil. 


Council’s Strategic Plan 2010-2015 has as 1 of its Governance Objectives: “To 

provide leadership in representing the interests of the City”. 

And within this Objective the Strategies: 

“Actively engage Government and other organisations in the pursuit of 

community priorities. 

Develop strategic alliances and partnerships to best represent Clarence. 

Participate in regional, local and State representative bodies”. 


Nil. 


Nil.



7.1. The discussion paper proposes that the Waste Advisory Committee (WAC) be 

charged with the role of allocating 70% the funds derived from the waste levy 

to suitable waste projects. Local Government has only 3 of the 7 votes on this 

Committee so the monies allocated to Local Government resources may 

potentially be limited. 

7.2. However, 20% of the funds would be directed to the 3 regional Local 

Government waste bodies and this represents around the same level of funding 

as raised by the existing voluntary levy. This would then remove the 

allocation in the budget to fund SWSA. 

7.3. The introduction of a statutory waste levy will have financial implications in 

future years operating plans as the costs associated with waste management 

activities that send waste to landfill will increase by the $10/tonne levy. These 

costs would apply to Council’s residential kerbside waste collection service, 

the CSO payment for waste at the Waste Transfer Station and the disposal 

costs for waste collected as a part of Council’s litter operations. 


Not applicable. 

9. CONCLUSION 

9.1. LGAT have asked Council to consider a discussion paper outlining a proposal 

to introduce a statutory waste levy. The paper contains 4 specific 

recommendations that provide for a statutory waste levy, detail the division of 

funds derived from the levy and specify that all funds are to be directed to 

waste management activities and not absorbed into the State Government 

consolidated funds.


9.2. Council has an adopted policy position of not supporting a mandated waste 

levy, however, if a waste levy is introduced it is reasonable that all funds 

raised are used only for waste management purposes and distributed on a pre- 

agreed formula. The proposal being put forward by LGAT adopts this 

process. 

Attachments: 1. LGAT letter and Discussion Paper (6) 

John Stevens 

GROUP MANAGER ASSET MANAGEMENT


11.7.4 SOUTH ARM PENINSULA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY 

CENTRE - FUTURE MANAGEMENT 

(File No C081-9) 


PURPOSE 

To consider the future management arrangement of the South Arm Community Centre 

and the associated loan repayment to Council. 


� Council’s Leased Facilities and Pricing Term of Lease Policy is applicable. 

� Council’s adopted Strategic Plan (2010-20150 is applicable. 


� Section 178 of the Local Government Act, 1993 is applicable. 

� Section 77 Grants and Benefits provision of the Local Government Act, 1993 

is applicable and if granted will be included in the Annual Report. 

CONSULTATION 

Consultation has occurred between Council officers and South Arm Peninsula 

Residents’ Association Committee Members. 


If adopted, the Recommendation will result in a minor change in Council’s Annual 

Plan, however, would not require amendment to the Annual Estimates. 


A. That Council continues its lease of the South Arm Community Centre to South 

Arm Peninsula Residents’ Association at a nominal rental of $1 per annum 

subject to the Centre being used as a multi-use community facility based on 

the following: 

� Council maintains the grounds surrounding the Centre; 

� Council continues to be responsible for the structural integrity of the 

building; 

� the South Arm Peninsula Residents’ Association be responsible for 

internal maintenance of the facility, power and gas charges, service 

charges (if applicable) and Rates. 

B. That Council agrees to waive, by way of grant under Section 77 of the Local 

Government Act, 1993, the balance of the current loan of $39,662.94 to allow 

the South Arm Peninsula Residents’ Association to manage the facility by 

using the rental received from hiring the Centre to pay for the day-to-day 

running expenses of the Centre.


SOUTH ARM PENINSULA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY CENTRE - 

FUTURE MANAGEMENT /contd… 

___________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

1.1. The South Arm Peninsula Residents’ Association (SAPRA) leases from 

Council the South Arm Community Centre. Council approved the sub-leasing 

of the Centre exclusively to a commercial operator to use the facility as a child 

Care Centre in 2005. 

1.2. The most recent lease between SAPRA and Council expired on 31 December 

2011. Council, at its Meeting of 17 October 2011 approved the renewal of the 

lease for a further term of 10 years with SAPRA to continue repaying its 

existing loan agreement with Council using the rental it receives from the 

commercial child care operator. 

1.3. SAPRA has advised Council that the most recent commercial child care 

operator has vacated the Centre and it has requested Council to consider the 

future management arrangement of the Centre. 


2.1. The South Arm Community Centre was proposed in 1993 by SAPRA, a group 

of local community members which had undertaken extensive local 

fundraising and had obtained financial assistance from Federal, State and 

Local Government to build the Centre. The Centre was completed and opened 

in 1997. 

2.2. Funding for the Centre was provided from the following sources: 

Council land purchase $61,000 

Council loan $60,000 

State Government Grant $145,000


Commonwealth Government Funding $145,000 

SAPRA community fundraising $97,000 

TOTAL $443,000. 

2.3. The facility was officially opened in 1997 and has been managed for the 

community by SAPRA in accordance with a Lease Agreement with Council. 

2.4. In 2005 SAPRA obtained Council approval to sub-let the facility exclusively 

to a commercial child care operator and any revenue derived to off-set the loan 

repayments to Council for the facility. 

2.5. On 17 October 2011, Council approved the renewal of a Lease Agreement 

with SAPRA for a term of 10 years allowing the sub-letting of the Centre to a 

commercial child care operator. 

2.6. There have been 4 commercial child care contractors that have sub-let the 

facility, with the most recent contract ending during February 2012 as the 

contractor did not wish to extend the agreement. The closure of the Centre as 

a child care facility is due to it not being a viable business for the South Arm 

area. 

2.7. During the period of sub-letting the facility to child care operators SAPRA has 

reduced its loan with Council to $39,662.94 which demonstrates the goodwill 

of the Association. 

2.8. SAPRA has approached Council to amend the purpose of its lease 

arrangement to a multi-use Community Centre and has also sought for Council 

to waive the loan agreement. This would enable SAPRA to have a fresh start 

in managing the facility without the burden of finding revenue to pay off a 

loan.


2.9. Under the proposal put forward by SAPRA a committee within SAPRA has 

been formed which will be solely responsible for managing the facility for 

community use. Any rental raised from hiring of the Centre will be used by 

SAPRA to pay for the day-to-day running expenses of the facility. 

2.10. SAPRA intends to continue using the Centre for meetings and storage. The 

following groups are either using the Centre or intend to use the Centre in the 

near future. They are as follows: 

� Community Emergency Response Team - a group of local volunteers 

who attend medical emergencies in the first instance. This is a project 

funded through the Tasmanian Ambulance Service and SAPRA 

administers the Team’s funds. They have moved into the Centre and 

use it as their base and for training; 

� the South Arm Market has returned to the Centre; 

� Garden Club; 

� Coastcare Group; 

� Art Group; 

� Playgroup. 

2.11. A sub-committee of SAPRA for heritage and history has been formed to 

identify and progress projects for the South Arm Peninsula. It is proposed to 

investigate the development of a history room within the Centre. 

2.12. It is considered that any future lease arrangement should be on the same basis 

as the South Arm Calverton Hall Committee in that SAPRA will have its own 

public liability insurance and its annual accounts will not form part of 

Council’s own Annual Financial Statement. As with the South Arm Calverton 

Hall, Council is already responsible for the structural repairs to the Centre 

building. Mowing of the grounds surrounding the SAPRA Centre can be 

undertaken by Council at the same time as work crews attend to the 

maintenance of the South Arm Recreation Ground. This would be a minimal 

cost to Council.


2.13. The reversion in use of the Centre from commercial child care to a multi-use 

community centre will mean a reduction in the rental received by SAPRA. 

Community groups that hire the Centre will pay an hourly hire fee similar to 

other halls/community centres owned by Council, however, it is anticipated 

that this revenue will not be sufficient for SAPRA to meet repayment of the 

loan. In light of this it is considered that SAPRA’s request for the waiving of 

the loan balance is justified. 

2.14. SAPRA has maintained a good relationship with Council, is perceived as a 

group with a high community profile and is very active. It has worked with 

Council on a number of successful community projects, including recently the 

erection of a community BBQ on the South Arm Recreation Ground. Through 

the efforts of SAPRA the South Arm community has demonstrated a high 

level of community self-sufficiency which is unparalleled elsewhere in the 

City of Clarence. 



No public consultation has occurred. 


Nil. 

3.3. Other 

Discussions have occurred between representatives of SAPRA, Aldermen and 

Council officers. 


4.1. Council’s adopted Strategic Plan (2010-2015) Social Inclusion states that 

Council will support local communities to build on existing capacity and 

progress their health and well-being by doing the following: 

� provide essential infrastructure to support, sustain and enhance 

community safety and social well-being;


� develop and implement plans and programs that respond to community 

safety and well-being issues; 

� prepare plans to create a sense of place for local communities; 

� develop and implement Asset Management Plans that respond to the 

identified needs of local communities; 

� facilitate the provision of needed public facilities; 

� recognise contributions of community groups and volunteers. 


Nil. 


6.1. After Council’s decision of 17 October 2011, a Notice of Intention to Lease 

was advertised in accordance with Section 178 of the Local Government Act, 

1993. No objections to the leasing of the facility were received. 

6.2. Council, should it agree, can waive the current loan balance in accordance 

with the Grants and Benefits Provisions of Section 77 of the Local 

Government Act, 1993. The details of any grant made or benefit provided are 

to be included in the Annual Report of Council. 


There will be no significant implications for the Annual Plan should approval be 

given to waive the loan agreement between Council and SAPRA. 


SAPRA is a not for profit organisation that is prepared to manage the South Arm 

Community Centre as a multi use Centre for the benefit of the South Arm Peninsula 

community.


9. CONCLUSION 

9.1. SAPRA is a motivated active group of residents who represent the South Arm 

Peninsula community. It is well known as being very hands-on with its 

approach to projects and has been successful in producing public amenities 

such as the multi-user bike path, public seating, Opossum Bay Park 

landscaping and maintenance, developing a History/Heritage and Cultural 

Plan and the avenue of flowering gums. 

9.2. The leasing of the South Arm Community Centre to SAPRA as a multi-use 

Community Centre is supported, together with the existing loan agreement 

with Council being waived. This would give due recognition by Council 

towards the South Arm community and its consistently high level of 

community volunteer activities in the South Arm area. 

Attachments: Nil. 

Andrew Paul 

GENERAL MANAGER


11.7.5 SOUTH ARM CALVERTON HALL AND RECREATION GROUND LEASE 

AGREEMENT 

(File No H002-21) 


PURPOSE 

To consider entering into a new Lease Agreement with the South Arm Calverton Hall 

Management Committee for the management of the South Arm Calverton Hall and 

Recreation Ground. 


� Council’s Leased Facilities and Pricing Term of Lease Policy is applicable. 

� Council’s adopted Strategic Plan (2010-2015) is applicable. 


Section 177 of the Local Government Act, 1993, is applicable. 

CONSULTATION 

No public consultation has occurred in regard to the proposal. 


The Recommendation has no direct implications on Council’s Annual Plan. 


A. That Council, in accordance with Section 178 of the Local Government Act, 

1993 gives notice of its intention to lease the South Arm Calverton Hall and 

Recreation Ground to the South Arm Calverton Hall Management Committee 

Inc. 

B. That provided the notice of intention to lease process is finalised and no 

objections are received, Council enters into a lease with the South Arm 

Calverton Hall Management Committee Inc for a term of 5 years and renews 

the lease in accordance with the delegation issued to the General Manager 

under Section 179 of the Local Government Act, 1993. 

C. That the annual rental for the term of the lease be at a nominal amount of 

$1.00 per annum. 

NB: An Absolute Majority is required for a decision on this matter.

CLARENCE CITY COUNCIL - GOVERNANCE- 4 JUNE 2012 234 

SOUTH ARM CALVERTON HALL AND RECREATION GROUND LEASE 

AGREEMENT /contd… 

___________________________________________________________________________ 


1. BACKGROUND 

1.1. At the time of Council’s takeover of the South Arm Calverton Hall and 

Recreation Ground, arrangements were made with the then Hall Committee to 

enter into a Lease Agreement with Council in order for that organisation to 

retain a degree of independence which it had previously enjoyed. 

1.2. For a short period of time between 1993 and 1996 the Committee became a 

Special Committee of Council. However, after a number of discussions 

between Aldermen and Committee members the Committee decided to again 

become incorporated and reverted to the lease arrangement. 

1.3. Council entered into a Lease Agreement with the South Arm Calverton Hall 

Management Committee Inc in 1996 to manage the South Arm Calverton Hall 

and Recreation Ground. The lease is due to expire on 30 June 2012. 

1.4. The Management Committee has requested a new Lease Agreement with 

Council to continue the current management arrangement of the Hall and 

Recreation Ground. 


2.1. The South Arm Calverton Hall Management Committee Inc has managed the 

South Arm Calverton Hall and Recreation Ground in accordance with a Lease 

Agreement with Council since 1996. 

2.2. During 1996 the Committee became an incorporated body and entered into a 

Lease Agreement with Council. The Lease Agreement terms and conditions 

were modelled around the standard constitution hall/centre management 

committees operate within.


2.3. The Committee functions in much the same way as a Committee of Council, 

including provision for a Council representative appointee to the Management 

Committee. 

2.4. The Committee holds its own public liability insurance and its annual accounts 

do not form part of Council’s own Annual Financial Statements. However, 

budget provisions for the maintenance of the building fabric and grounds 

remain the responsibility of Council. 

2.5. The lease arrangement has been working very well and the Hall and 

Recreation Ground is used extensively by community groups. The Committee 

has worked hard and raised money which has been used to upgrade the Hall 

kitchen, install motorised stage curtains and it has also replaced the tennis 

court fence. The Committee was successful in obtaining a Sport and 

Recreation Grant to resurface the tennis court. Council also contributed to this 

project. 



No public consultation has occurred, however, this will occur through the 

statutory public land advertising process. 


Nil. 

3.3. Other 

Nil. 


Council’s adopted Strategic Plan (2010-2015) Social Inclusion states that Council will 

support local communities to build on existing capacity and progress their health and 

well-being by doing the following:


� provide essential infrastructure to support, sustain and enhance community 

safety and social well-being; 

� develop and implement plans and programs that respond to community safety 

and well-being issues; 

� prepare plans to create a sense of place for local communities; 

� develop and implement Asset Management Plans that respond to the identified 

needs of local communities; 

� facilitate the provision of needed public facilities; 

� recognise contributions of community groups and volunteers. 


Nil. 


6.1. The Local Government Act, 1993 allows for Council to dispose of its land by 

leasing, however, draws very clear definition between ordinary Council land 

holding and land which it classes as “public land”. The 2005 amendments to 

the Local Government Act require that if Council intends to lease public land 

it is to undertake formal public processes in accordance with the Act as though 

it was disposing of the public land. 

6.2. The disposal of public land by leasing is required to follow a set statutory 

process. The following outlines the process required: 

� a Council resolution by Absolute Majority is required; 

� Council is to publish its intention in the daily newspaper on 2 separate 

occasions; 

� Council is to notify the public that objections may be made to the 

Council within 21 days; 

� if Council does not receive any objections it may lease or otherwise 

dispose of the land, however, before disposing of any land, Council is 

to obtain a valuation of the land from the Valuer General or a person 

who is qualified to practice as a land valuer;


� if Council receives objections it must consider any objections received 

and advise the objector of its decision; 

� the objector may appeal to the Resource Management and Planning 

Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT) against Council’s decision within 14 days; 

and 

� the RMPAT decision on the appeal is final and neither party can appeal 

further, as the legislation prohibits an appeal to the Supreme Court. 


The Recommendation has no direct implications on Council’s Annual Plan. 


The South Arm Calverton Hall Management Committee Inc is a not for profit 

organisation that manages a Council facility for the benefit of the South Arm 

Peninsula area and the whole Clarence community. 

9. CONCLUSION 

The continuation of the current lease arrangement with the South Arm Calverton Hall 

Management Committee is supported. 

Attachments: Nil. 

Andrew Paul 

GENERAL MANAGER


12. ALDERMEN’S QUESTION TIME 

An Alderman may ask a question with or without notice at Council Meetings. No debate is 

permitted on any questions or answers. 

12.1 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 

(Seven days before an ordinary Meeting, an Alderman may give written notice to the General 

Manager of a question in respect of which the Alderman seeks an answer at the meeting). 

Nil. 

12.2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 

Nil. 

12.3 ANSWERS TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 

Nil. 

12.4 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

An Alderman may ask a Question without Notice of the Chairman or another Alderman or the 

General Manager. Note: the Chairman may refuse to accept a Question without Notice if it 

does not relate to the activities of the Council. A person who is asked a Question without Notice 

may decline to answer the question. 

Questions without notice and their answers will not be recorded in the minutes. 

The Chairman may refuse to accept a question if it does not relate to Council’s activities. 

The Chairman may require a question without notice to be put in writing. The Chairman, an 

Alderman or the General Manager may decline to answer a question without notice.


13. CLOSED MEETING 

Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meetings Procedures) Regulations 2005 provides that 

Council may consider certain sensitive matters in Closed Meeting. 

The following matters have been listed in the Closed Meeting section of the Council Agenda in 

accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 

2005. 

13.1 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 


13.3 SPORTING FACILITY – LEASE AGREEMENT 

The grounds for listing these reports in Closed Meeting are that the detail covered in the reports 

relates to: 

� the security of property of the Council; 

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

� applications by Aldermen for Leave of Absence. 

Note: The decision to move into Closed Meeting requires an absolute majority of Council. 

PROCEDURAL MOTION 

“That the Meeting be closed to the public to consider Regulation 15 

matters, and that members of the public be required to leave the meeting 

room”.

Council meeting agenda - 4 June 2012 - Clarence City Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?