Cr Ryan-Sykes

I refer you to question related to the Gorse problem in Zeehan for which the previous response I received per the May 2022 meeting minutes was;

'The majority of property is not Council property but belongs to other State organisations and stakeholders. Letters have been sent to property owners. Council is still waiting on feedback with regard to Zeehan Rivulet and when they can come and talk to staff about that issue.'

My questions on notice for the next West Coast Council meeting in relation to the gorse problem are as follows:

1. Could Council provide a list of state organisations and stakeholders responsible for managing the Gorse problem surrounding Zeehan for the areas Council does not have the jurisdiction for managing it?

Response: 

Parks & Wildlife Service – where the land is a Reserve.

Parks & Wildlife Service/Property Services – where the land is Crown Land.

The information provided is not specific enough to be able to provide a list, we would need more details on which parcels of land, photos etc.

2. When had the letters been sent out to property owners as stated in the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council during May 2022?

Response: 

Abatement letters go out every year over the summer. Council does not have the power to enforce abatement notices against the Crown.

3. Has Council received any feedback with regard to Zeehan Rivulet, if so from whom and when was that feedback received?

Response: 

There has been an onsite meeting held at Zeehan Rivulet at the staff level. We have not received any formal feedback as yet from the Mayors letter.

Cr Stringer

1. This question related to the mountain bike tracks on mount Owen.

With the tracks now having been through a full winter has there been any inspection of the tracks to determine how they have held up?

What monitoring if any will be done to ensure the tracks remain in a suitable condition?  What's the plan for managing them going forward?

Response:

The trails have been monitored by staff and there has been some deterioration which is being addressed, but not more than expected. Current plan is to manage using Council staff and contractors as required. We need to define those costs. This year we separated out the cost codes at budget, so we will have a better idea next budget cycle of the costs.

2. This question is in relation to the daily media summaries Councillors receive.

Do we use the service just to provide information to Councillors, or is there some metric or performance criteria it's used for?

Response:  It is important to provide information to Councillors about the West Coast and what is being spoken in relation to the West Coast, but also provides input into our Advocacy and the success of our advocacy and it helps us prepare our advocacy documents. We do not have any KPI’s around this, but we do have the advocacy reports which are provided to Council.

Cr Ryan-Sykes 

1. Could Council please host a public meeting about the strong possibility of finfish farming coming to our northwest coast with a balanced selection of speakers, to inform people about the current situation and to seek their opinions in relation to finfish farming in our region? As a supplement to this question, there are several maps in the IMAS State-wide Finfish Aquaculture Spatial Planning Exercise, 2021 Report which shows which sites have been identified as biophysically suitable (high or medium) for finfish farming, on the north and northwest coasts. Link to IMAS Report

https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1558341/REPORT-Statewide-Finfish-Planning-Exercise-Dec2021-updated-Mar2022.pdf

Response:

No expansion of the fish farms is planned on the West Coast. The biomass for the harbour has been set. There are regular meetings held in Strahan which the public can attend, where reports are provided by IMAS.

2. Could council please consider having land made available for a dog park somewhere on the West Coast that has a section for small sized dogs as well as one for large dogs?

Response:

Informal requests have been put forward, however no formal request to date. Any formal request/ proposal from an organisation would go to council for consideration and a determination. Council was advised that dog parks are not part of or been budgeted for in the current Annual Plan. They are also not included in the Sport & Recreation Plan.

3. Could Council devise a strategy for dealing with small term accommodation places (for example air BnB) while at the same time making more housing stock available for rental accommodation?

Response: 

The General Manager advised this would require guidance from Council. The issues relate to a lack of investment housing and not necessarily Air BnB’s. He feels that a strategy would only suggest that more supply is needed. Council has been presented with some options. It seems that Council is currently opposed to subdividing current land held.

Cr Butterfield

During NAIDOC week in July at the public meeting Council gave commitments to the Aboriginal community towards reconciliation. Has any further consultation taken place since then?

Response:

There is no current timeline. We will be led by the group with regard to timelines for action items. We should be following First Nation's direction on how fast we move on that.

The Mayor advised that Council did discuss the matter at the time with the person. It is suggested that the Rosebery Men's Shed might be involved in the project. The Mayor suggested further discussion at a workshop and to invite the Rosebery Men's Shed to attend. Council would prefer that an individual as such does not take this on. It was suggested she speak with a community group - Lions Club, Neighbourhood House or the Development Committee.

Noting Decision 

Council RESOLVED that the correspondence (Inward & Outward) as presented be noted.

Outcome: Carried 

R– Correspondence presented to Council for a determination/ Response

N – Correspondence presented to Council for Noting.

Correspondence In

Subject

Action Determined

R

Michael Purton

Macquarie Heads Campground Toilet Block (49A)

Council provided advice to the General Manager that Council was not in favour of reducing the fee from $1,500 and that the licence would only be offer under one name, Mr Purton's.  If the conditions were not agreeable, then the toilet block would be removed by Council (free of charge). The General Manager is to write to Mr Purton and advise the outcome to his letter.

R

George Callaghan

Art

The Mayor advised that he would write to them and advise he would be happy to meet with them.

R

Stef Callaghan

Art

The Mayor advised that he would write to them and advise he would be happy to meet with them.

N

State Grants Commission

State Grants Commission 2022-23

(Attachments 1 – 8)

N

Premier Rockliff

Windfarms & Hydro Tasmania

N

Minister Ferguson

Road & Bridge Improvements

N

Minister Archer

Bay of Fires Filming

N

West Coast Heritage Centre

Zeehan Gem & Mineral Fair Sponsorship

N

Premier Rockliff

Rates Exemption

N

Darren Hine State Controller

Review of TEMA

N

Evelyn Casteres

Rosebery Petition

N

Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania

Ten- Year Salmon Plan Discussion Plan Submission

Correspondence Out

Subject

Action Determined

N

Minister Archer

Bay of Fires production

N

Department of Treasury

State Government Budget Submission

N

Minister Burke & Managing Director of ABC

Bay of Fires Filming

278/22 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 2022/47

One (1) representation was received following public exhibition of the proposal.  A copy of the representation is to be provided to the Councillors.

The issues raised in the representation are as follows:

1. Setback requirements
2. Positioning of the building
3. Appropriate regulatory checks and balances

Council’s contracted Planning Officer makes the following comments in response to these concerns:

1. Setback requirements

The Representor believes that the rules exist to protect all parties and ensure the same degree of quality for the end product. They stated that they understood the required setback is to provide uniformity of built form in the street. The Representor concluded their correspondence by asking if the approval of this building would set a precedent for others.

The Representor’s observations of the requirement for uniformity of setbacks etc are correct. The assessment has concluded that, in the Planning Officer’s opinion, the development cannot satisfy the requirements of Performance Criteria P1 of Clause 8.4.2. The setback of the outbuilding is not compatible with the streetscape. If this development is approved, it will inform future applications/assessments that frontage setbacks of less than 0.5m are compatible with the streetscape in Jack Street and surrounding area.

1. Positioning of the building

The Representor highlighted that there are existing survey pegs in the ground and that it was apparent to the owners of 12 Jack Street where the frontage boundary was. Furthermore, they identified that maybe building in the incorrect position was a particular strategy that could be used if someone wanted to purposely break the rules.

Acts of non-compliance are not a reliable strategy to ensure that a developer can break the rules and simply seek retrospective approval. Additionally, it increases costs and there are no guarantees of approval once a building is constructed.

1. Appropriate regulatory checks and balances

The Representor stated that they are disappointed that there were no checks in place to prevent the build progressing to the point that it has.

The Planning Authority approved a shed with a permitted frontage setback of 4.5m in 2021. It is the responsibility of the developer and the builder to ensure that the building is constructed in the correct position. Council has received correspondence between the builder and the building surveyor disagreeing as to what checks had and hadn’t occurred. A land surveyor is the only qualified person who can identify the location of a boundary; however, it is identified that there is at least one existing peg on the frontage of 12 Jack Street that was placed by a qualified person. It is common nowadays for builders to engage a land surveyor to ensure that their site set out is correct before construction commences.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report by Council’s Planning Officer dated 16 September 2022 concerning DA 2022/47 be received and that Council refuse the application for the outbuilding for the reason detailed in the following Table:

Clause

Grounds of Refusal

Clause 8.4.2

Setbacks and building envelope for all dwellings

The proposed frontage setback of the outbuilding does not

satisfy P1.

The frontage setback of the outbuilding is not compatible

with the streetscape.

Moved: Cr Graham

Seconded: Cr Newman  

Outcome: Carried 

Cr Ryan-Sykes declared an interest in the item and let the meeting during discussions.

TRIAL HARBOUR ROAD RENEWAL

Council awarded the contract to deliver the renewal works on the Trial Harbour Road.

Council was advised that a decision on this report would be in breach of the Election Caretaker Policy. Due to safety concerns relating to the road, a decision was made, and on this occasion the policy overridden.

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT

Council appointed 3 new committee members to the LCAC.