George Town February Agenda

George Town Council
COUNCIL MEETING – 21ST FEBRUARY 2018

AGENDA
1. PRESENT 2
1.1 APOLOGIES 2
1.2 IN ATTENDANCE 2
2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3
2.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 17TH JANUARY 2018 3
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 4

3.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME PROCEDURE 4
3.2 PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 5
3.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5
3.4 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS 5
3.5 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 6
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 8
5. GENERAL MANAGER’S DECLARATION 8
6. PLANNING AUTHORITY 9
6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE 10
7. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 51

7.1 PETITION TO AMEND SEALED PLAN – LAND OWNER CONSENT 51
7.2 APPLICATION BY DOUGLAS AND COLLINS TO AMEND SEALED PLAN 130563 – OLD
AERODROME ROAD, GEORGE TOWN 54
8. WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 57

8.1 WEYMOUTH BRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 57
8.2 WEYMOUTH – ONE WAY TRAFFIC 60
9. CORPORATE AND FINANCE 64

9.1 PRESENTATION OF REVISED LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2018|2027 64
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES 68
11. MAYOR 69
11.1 MATTERS OF INVOLVEMENT – MAYOR 69
12. GENERAL MANAGER 70

12.1 COUNCIL WORKSHOPS – FEBRUARY 2018 70
12.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS POLICY NO. 40 –
VERSION 05 72
12.3 POTENTIAL COUNCIL LAND SALES 74
12.4 MT GEORGE MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL – PRIORITY PROJECT, OUT OF BUDGET FUNDING
REQUEST AND PROJECT GOVERNANCE 85
13. PETITIONS 90
14. NOTICES OF MOTIONS 91

14.1 PROPOSED SALE OF GEORGE TOWN AIRPORT 91
14.2 GENERAL MANAGER – CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT 92
15. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM PREVIOUS

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 93
16. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 94
17. CLOSED MEETING 95

17.1 INTO CLOSED MEETING 95
17.5 OUT OF CLOSED MEETING 96
Page | 1
George Town Council
AGENDA
Meeting Commencing at 5.00pm
AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
The public is advised that it is Council Policy to record the proceedings of meetings of
Council on digital media to assist in the preparation of minutes, and to clarify any queries
relating to the Minutes that is raised during a subsequent meeting under the section
“Confirmation of Minutes”.
The recording does not replace the written minutes and a transcript of the recording will not
be prepared.
All meetings of the Council shall be digitally recorded as provided for by Regulation 33 of the
Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 except for the proceedings of
meetings or parts of meetings closed to the public in accordance with Regulation 15(2).
In accordance with the requirements of Council’s Audio Recording of Council Meetings

Policy No. 40, members of the public are not permitted to make audio recordings of Council
meetings.
1. PRESENT
1.1 APOLOGIES
1.2 IN ATTENDANCE
Page | 2
George Town Council
AGENDA
2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
2.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 17TH JANUARY 2018
Moved:
Seconded:
That the Minutes of Council’s Ordinary meeting held on the 17th January 2018 numbered
001/18 to 006/18 and 010/18 as previously circulated to Elected Members be received and
confirmed as a true record of proceedings.
DECISION
VOTING
For Against For Against

Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Harris Cr Glisson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Barwick Cr Parkes
Cr Burt
Page | 3
George Town Council
AGENDA
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
3.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME PROCEDURE
[Refer to Minute No. 243/16. The period set aside for public question time will be at least 15
minutes. Questions given on notice will be addressed first. Once questions on notice have
been addressed, persons who have registered their interest to ask a question will be called
to do so in the order in which they have registered. Persons attending Council meetings will
have the opportunity to register their interest to ask a question without notice prior to the
commencement of the meeting. Council staff will be on hand to assist with this process.
Participants cannot ask more than 2 questions in a row with a maximum of 2 minutes per
question. If a person has more than (2) questions, they will be placed at the ‘end of the
queue’ and may, if time permits, ask their further questions once all other persons have had
an opportunity to ask questions. Persons who have not registered their interest to ask a
question will be given an opportunity to do so following all those who have registered. All
questions must be directed to the Chairperson.
For further information on Council’s Public Question Time Rules and Procedure, please refer
to George Town Council Public Question Time Policy No. 18.]
Questions asked and answers provided may be summarised in the minutes of the meeting.
Page | 4
George Town Council
AGENDA
3.2 PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Nil.
3.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
3.4 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS
Cr Glisson
Q1. "Council announced via minutes 15 July 2015 that it “will seek to recover its
assessed costs of the enforcement proceedings concerning Memorial Hall from Mr
Neilsen.”
An application to the Federal Court by Council’s legal team sought $60,628.14.
The court dismissed both the application and an appeal ordered by Council.
In dismissing the Appeal Judge McGuire stated “I also accept that, in any event, an
order in such uncertain terms as to quantum cannot be enforced until the amount
required to be paid by the respondent is quantified.” I understand as a councillor who
attended the Court Appeal that Mr Neilsen presented case law in his favour of
incorrect quantum of costs.
Further it is my understanding that Council has been advised to the effect that
Council has little likelihood of the recovery of costs that Council risked when
defending a S64 Summons presented to RMPAT by Mr Neilsen in relation to the non-
completion of several conditions of permit in relation to the Memorial Hall Re-
Development.
Professional representatives for Mr Neilsen presented to Council’s legal team

financial evidence which supported advice to Council of the unlikelihood of cost
recovery, and this has been supported by council being informed by the General
Manager that Mr Neilsen is impecunious to councils claim against him.
In light of the fact that the seeking of an incorrect amount or the strong evidence
presented by Mr Neilsen that despite his best efforts to receive a correctly quantified
account from both RMPAT and Council I ask the General Manager to advise
publically if a resolution of Council was consistent with the application made by
Council’s legal team?
I do not seek the resolution of Council as that was made in closed session only the
administrative matter as to whether the Resolution quantum and the Application
quantum were consistent.”
Cr Barwick
Q2. “Why allowances for Councillors are not paid in accordance with Policy No.5 when a
resolution of council 253/15 it was resolved Councillor Allowances or expenses
claims shall be paid on a monthly basis at approximately the 28th of the month”.
Page | 5
George Town Council
AGENDA
3.5 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
(Refer to Minute No. 425/00, which states in part, “that a copy of all written replies to
questions from the Public Gallery be included in the following Council Agenda.”)
Mrs Rainbow, George Town (17th January 2018)
Dear Mrs Rainbow,
RE: PUBLIC QUESTION TIME – ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 17th JANUARY 2018
Thank you for your attendance at the 17th January 2018 Ordinary Council meeting where
you asked the following question:
Q1. Mrs Rainbow requested that Council consider installing flashing lights at the crossing
the main street as she felt the white lines were not sufficient.
Response
Council’s engineering staff are currently working on a design proposal to be submitted to the
Department of State Growth, as the state government is the authority for reviewing and
approving the installation of traffic facilities (e.g. flashing lights and signage) and traffic
calming devices (e.g. medians, raised linemarking and speed humps) on public roads.
It is hoped to have the proposal finalised and costed to be considered for Council’s
2018/2019 Capital Works Program.
I appreciate the concern and suggestion you expressed at the January Council meeting.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Yam
TEAM LEADER WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE
Page | 6
George Town Council
AGENDA
3.5 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

(CONT.)
Mr Neilsen, George Town (20th December 2017)
Q2. Why did Council take over a road in Dune Place and Sandy Court when the whole
complex was designed to be a private cobble stoned development, possibly not built
to Council standards, no truncated corners and now we are going to see something
that is going to impact on dangerous traffic management?
As responded in the January 2018 Council agenda, Council officers are currently
investigating the matter and a response will be provided to Mr Neilsen in due course. A copy
of Council’s response will be recorded in the next available ordinary Council meeting
agenda.
Mr Neilsen, George Town (21st October 2015)
Q2. Mr Neilsen asked what progress has been made to complete the arrangements
pertaining to the joint usage and right of way to the entry and exit to Grays Hotel and
the exit from the BWS bottle shop, both over Council owned land.
A response was provided to Mr Neilsen on the 22nd October 2015 advising that Council
officers would be further investigating Mr Neilsen’s request with the intention of providing a
full report to Council once the information is compiled. Mr Neilsen was advised that his
question would be responded to further at that time.
As advised by the General Manager at the January 2018 Council meeting, due to the time
that has elapsed and change of management since Mr Neilsen asked the above question
and received Council’s initial response, it will be necessary for the General Manager to
investigate the matter prior to formalising a further response to Mr Neilsen.
Mr Neilsen, George Town (21st October 2015)
Q3. Mr Neilsen’s question was in relation to the former sewerage plant on the corner of
Anne Street and Low Head Road and asked if the project does not have the benefit
of a current permit, what steps are Council undertaking to comply with the contract of
sale and decision of Council for the return of this valuable waterfront asset to its
rightful owners; that is the George Town Council on behalf of ratepayers.
A response was provided to Mr Neilsen on the 22nd October 2015 advising that Council
officers would be further investigating Mr Neilsen’s request with the intention of providing a
full report to Council once the information is compiled. Mr Neilsen was advised that his
question would be responded to further at that time.
As advised by the General Manager at the January 2018 Council meeting, due to the time
that has elapsed and change of management since Mr Neilsen asked the above question
and received Council’s initial response, it will be necessary for the General Manager to
investigate the matter prior to formalising a further response to Mr Neilsen.
Page | 7
George Town Council
AGENDA
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
5. GENERAL MANAGER’S DECLARATION
I certify that with respect to all advice, information or recommendations provided to Council
with this Agenda:
 the advice, information or recommendation is given by a person who has the

qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or
recommendation; and
 where any advice is given directly to Council by a person who does not have the
required qualifications of experience, that person has obtained and taken into
account in that person’s general advice, the advice from an appropriately qualified or
experienced person.
Justine Brooks-Bedelph
GENERAL MANAGER
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 – SECTION 65
65. Qualified persons
(1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation
given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the
qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or
recommendation.
(2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the
advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless –
(a) the general manager certifies, in writing –
(i) that such advice was obtained; and
(ii) that the general manager took the advice into account in providing
general advice to the council or council committee; and
(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or
summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with
the general manager’s certificate.
Page | 8
George Town Council
AGENDA
6. PLANNING AUTHORITY
The Council will act as a planning authority under the provisions of the Land Use Planning
and Approvals Act 1993 in respect of any items included in this section of the agenda.
Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015
25. Acting as a planning authority
(1) If a council or council committee intends to act at a meeting as a planning authority

under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the chairperson is to advise
the meeting accordingly.
(2) The general manager is to ensure that the reasons for a decision by a council or
council committee acting as a planning authority are recorded in the minutes of the
meeting.
Page | 9
George Town Council
AGENDA
6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE
REPORT AUTHOR: Statutory Town Planner
REPORT DATE: 29th January 2018
ATTACHMENT: (A) Title documents

(B) Site plans
(C) Visual Impact Assessment Images
(D) Applicants planning response (contained in two parts)
(E) Representations
(F) EPA Environmental Assessment Report
(G) EPA Permit Conditions Part B
Note: Due to the quantity of attachments associated with the application,

the DPEMP and Appendices to the DPEMP have not been provided
in paper format with the agenda. These items can be viewed on
Council’s website or accessed via contacting Council offices. All
relevant documents which Council require to assess the
development have been included as attachments.
FILE NO: DA 2017/42
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Applicant: Low Head Wind Farm Pty Ltd
Site Address: 553 Old Aerodrome Road, Low Head.

Soldiers Settlement Road, George Town
381 Soldiers Settlement Road, George Town
Musk Vale Road, George Town
Bridport Road, George Town
135 Bell Bay Road, Bell Bay
Wind Turbine Titles: CT 198926/1, CT 210231/1, CT 212061/1, CT 152982/5, CT 104543/1

& 104543/2.
Transmission Line
Titles: CT 104545/1, CT 154906/1, CT 154910/1, CT 139746/1, CT 154929/1
Zone: Rural Resource Zone, Utilities Zone, General Industrial Zone, Open
Space Zone
Use: Utilities
Application
Received: 20th June 2017
Page | 10
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
SUMMARY
Application is made for the construction of ten (10) wind turbines and associated
infrastructure on land located between Low Head (Bell Buoy Beach) and Beechford. The
project has been classified by the EPA as Level 2C activity, with the EPA assessing the
project’s environmental aspects. The development consists of:
 Ten turbines with a maximum tip height of 180 metres.
 Transmission line running from the wind farm site to the George Town Substation in Bell
Bay.
The application was advertised for the statutory 6 week period, with 9 submissions being
received during this time.
Figure 1 - Looking north east, over future wind turbine site.
STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2026
Goal 1: Foster the growth of a diverse business and industry mix and to foster
population growth.
Key Objective 1: Promote growth, both in population and business (particularly tourism)
through advocacy, promotion, marketing and engagement.
BACKGROUND
In 2017 the Tasmanian Planning Commission approved an amendment which provided

exemptions to the use and development standards in the Rural Resource Zone as they
related to the development of wind turbines and associated utilities infrastructure. This
amendment was a site specific amendment which applied to properties located at 553 Old
Aerodrome Road (CT 198926/1), 381 Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs 210237/1 and CT
212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs 152982/5, 104543/1 and 104543/2).
Page | 11
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
In summary, the approved amendment includes:
 Discretionary use status for the wind farm use at Low Head;
 Revised desired future character statement for the Rural Resource Zone;
 Discretionary use performance criteria for the Rural Resource Zone; and
 Additional acceptable solution for wind turbine height, which allowed for turbines up
to 180 metres (measured to wind turbine tip).
LOCATION
SUBJECT SITES
The subject site comprises an area of approximately 1119ha and is located across a number
of titles. The site which will be impacted by the wind turbines is made up of 6 titles.
Ownership and titles is listed in Table 1 below.
Owner Certificate of Title PID Address
Private 198926/1 6463698 553 Old Aerodrome Road
Private 210237/1, 212067/1 6467429 Soldiers Settlement Road
Private 152982/5, 104543/1, 7595406 381 Soldiers Settlement Road
104543/2
Table 1 - Wind turbine site details
The sites are predominantly utilised for grazing purposes and maintained as pasture.
Sections of the site are covered with native vegetation. Each individual title is expanded
upon below.
CT 198926/1
Large irregular shaped title, with frontage directly onto the coastline. Title is entirely within
the Rural Resource Zone and has a total size of 184ha. A small section of the site to the
south east is mapped as being within the gas pipeline corridor. The title indicates that there
is a drainage easement and a power transmission easement, which accommodates the
Basslink cable, running in a southerly direction. British Creek traverses the site from east to
west. Property has frontage onto Council maintained, Old Aerodrome Road. A small pocket
of the title is mapped as being within a priority habitat area as shown on planning scheme
maps.
Figure 2 - Aerial view of CT 198926/1

CT 210237/1
Large irregular shaped title with frontage directly onto the coastline. The title is entirely within
the Rural Resource Zone and has a total size of 118ha. An area along the western boundary
of approximately 34ha is within the gas pipeline corridor.
Page | 12
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Site is predominantly covered in scrub and native vegetation. A few small pockets of the site
are mapped as being within priority habitat areas.
Figure 3 - Aerial view of CT 210237/1

CT 212067/1
Large irregular shaped title which is separated into two sections by Soldiers Settlement
Road traversing the site. The title is entirely within the Rural Resource Zone and has a total
size of 242ha. The site consists predominantly of native vegetation, with the section of land
to the east of the road heavily vegetated. A few small pockets of the site are mapped as
being within priority habitat areas, while the north western corner is mapped as being within
the gas pipeline corridor.
Figure 4 - Aerial view CT 212067/1
CT 152982/5
Large irregular shaped title which has direct frontage onto the coastline. The title is entirely
within the Rural Resource Zone and has a total size of 169ha. The site is made up of grazing
land and native vegetation. The block has frontage onto Soldiers Settlement Road.
Page | 13
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
CT 104543/1
Large irregular shaped block with direct frontage to the coastline. The title is entirely within
the Rural Resource Zone and has a total size of 161ha. The site is predominantly utilised for
grazing purposes with coastal dunes and coastal vegetation located in the northern section
of the site. The block does not have frontage to a Council maintained road. A large portion of
the block is within the gas pipeline corridor, with a very small portion to the west being
mapped as priority habitat.
Page | 14
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
CT 104543/2
Large irregular shaped title which is entirely within the Rural Resource Zone. The block has
a total size of 242ha. The site is used for grazing purposes. The gas pipeline transects the
site from north to south, with another large portion of land in the east being mapped as
priority habitat and appearing to be a wetland. The block has direct frontage onto Soldiers
Settlement Road.
Figure 7 - Aerial view CT104543/2
TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR
The wind farm will also require a transmission corridor to connect associated infrastructure
to the George Town Substation in Bell Bay. The development proposes to utilise land
directly adjacent the existing Basslink easement corridor.
The current Basslink corridor provides for the transportation of high voltage transmission
lines between the Basslink DC interconnector and the George Town Substation. This will
provide a direct line between the wind farm area and the George Town Substation.
Owner Certificate of Title PID Address

Private 104545/1, 3456388 381 Soldiers Settlement
154906/1 Road
Private 154910/1 6467218 Musk Vale Road
Forestry Tasmania 139746/1 3386009/3386041 Bridport Road
Rio Tinto 154929/1 2872953 135 Bell Bay Road
Aluminium
Table 2 - Site details associated with transmission corridor
The private properties used by the transmission corridor are partially cleared and partially
plantation, used for both grazing and forestry purposes. The forestry land comprises state
forest, while the Rio Tinto land is located to the west and the north of the George Town
Substation at Bell Bay.
Page | 15
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION
The application seeks approval for 10 wind turbines at the site and the introduction of an
associated transmission line extending from the wind farm site south to the George Town
Substation. The project is classified as a Level 2C activity, thus requiring an assessment by
the EPA.
Details of the proposed development are outlined in more details below
WIND FARM SITE
 10 turbines with a hardstand area of approximately 40m x 60m. Maximum tip height
of the turbines is 180m.
 The turbines will be located on the eastern and western portions of the subject sites.
 All turbines will be setback over 50m from property boundaries and several hundred
metres from public roads.
 Vehicular access to the site will be via Old Aerodrome Road (to access the western
portion of the site) and Soldiers Settlement Road (to access the southern section of
the site).
 Underground caballing will run from the wind turbine sites and be incorporated into
the access tracks wherever possible.
Note:
A facilities area is shown on plans for PID 3456388. The area will provide for a future
storage warehouse, office and car parking area. The storage warehouse will accommodate
parts storage, hazardous materials storage, an office and staff amenities building. These
facilities will be required throughout the entire operational life of the wind farm.
The proposed facilities area does not form part of this DA and will be required to obtain
separate Council planning approval. A notation has been included on the permit clarifying
the status of this area and outlining that additional approvals will be required for use and
development on this part of the property.
Page | 16
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Figure 8 - Location of wind turbines on the site
TRANSMISSION LINE
 A new transmission line will be installed from the wind farm site south to the George
Town substation.
 A 10m wide easement will be created for the transmission lines from the facilities
area within the wind farm site. The easement will generally be located adjacent the
existing Basslink corridor.
 Constructed within the easement will be a 22kv overhead double strung line on single
poles.
 Vehicular access to the transmission line easement will be via existing public roads.
There are no new roads or access points proposed.
Page | 17
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Figure 9 - Overall site plan, showing transmission line location within the existing Basslink
corridor
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Under the scheme, the assessment of the wind farm is dealt with under the following
sections of the George Town Interim Planning Scheme 2013:
 19.0 Open Space Zone

 25.0 General Industrial Zone
 26.0 Rural Resource Zone
 28.0 Utilities Zone
This is an application which is to be determined under section 57 of the Land Use Planning
and Approval Act 1993 (the Act) as discretionary.
Page | 18
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
5.1 Use Class

The use is classed as Utilities. The definition of Utilities is:
Use of land for utilities and infrastructure including:
(a) Telecommunications;
(b) Electricity generation;
(c) Transmitting or distributing gas, oil, or power;
(d) Transport networks;
(e) Collecting, treating, transmitting, storing or distributing water; or
(f) Collecting, treating, or disposing of storm or floodwater, sewage, or sullage.
Examples include an electrical sub-station or powerline, gas, water or sewerage main, optic
fibre main or distribution hub, pumping station, railway line, retarding basin, road, sewage
treatment plant, storm or flood water drain, water storage dam and weir.
The proposed wind turbines and associated infrastructure fall within the above definition
since they provide infrastructure for electricity generation.
The turbines and associated infrastructure are not classified as minor utilities, which results
in the use class being categorised as a discretionary use within the applicable zones.
Page | 19
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Figure 10 - Zoning map of turbines and transmission corridor.
Page | 20
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
26.0 Rural Resource Zone

Use Class: Utilities
Use Status: Discretionary
26.1 Zone Purpose

26.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements
26.1.1.1 To provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for agriculture,
aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries, including opportunities
for resource processing.
Response: The windfarm will not compromise or detrimentally impact any existing or
future agricultural use, forestry, mining or primary industry activity. The structures
have a relatively small footprint on the landscape, with the majority of their bulk
being in height. The grazing and existing agricultural activities currently being
undertaken will be able to continue with minimal impact.
26.1.1.2 To provide for other use or development that does not constrain or conflict with
resource development uses.
Response: As outlined above, the existing resource development uses will continue to
operate with the turbines in place. The utilities use class will not have a major
impact on the landscape from an agricultural and/or primary industry perspective.
Resource development uses include things such as cultivating or propagating
plants, keeping and/or breeding of livestock or fish stock, bee keeping, horse
stud, animal husbandry, plantation forestry and turf growing. The only existing
agricultural activities occurring on these titles are associated with grazing and
forestry. Development for the utilities use class will not constrain or conflict these
uses.
26.1.1.3 To provide for economic development that is compatible with primary industry,
environmental and landscape values.
Response: The windfarm will provide employment opportunities, particularly during
construction of the wind turbines. The application states that there will be a
community fund which will be managed by the local community to invest in local
projects and programs. There is also potential tourism opportunities associated
with the windfarm, with it being a point of interest on the landscape. All of these
economic development benefits are compatible with existing primary industry
and environmental and landscape values.
26.1.1.4 To provide for tourism-related use and development where the sustainable
development of rural resources will not be compromised.
Response: Not applicable. Not a tourism use.
Page | 21
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
26.1.2 Local Area Objectives
a) Primary Industries: Response
Resources for primary industries make a significant a) The development will have a
contribution to the rural economy and primary relatively low impact on primary
industry uses are to be protected for long-term industry activities.
sustainability.
The prime and non-prime agricultural land resource The uses will continue to remain
provides for variable and diverse agricultural and viable on the landscape, already
primary industry production which will be protected operating alongside the existing
through individual consideration of the local context. gas pipeline and bass link cable
corridor.
Processing and services can augment the
productivity of primary industries in a locality and are
supported where they are related to primary industry
uses and the long-term sustainability of the resource
is not unduly compromised.
b) Tourism
b) The development is not operated
Tourism is an important contributor to the rural as a tourism operation, however
economy and can make a significant contribution to can provide benefits in this sector
the value adding of primary industries through visitor to the area. The visual impacts
facilities and the downstream processing of produce. associated with the windfarm are
The continued enhancement of tourism facilities with not seen to ‘detract’ from the
a relationship to primary production is supported areas tourism appeal.
where the long-term sustainability of the resource is
not unduly compromised.
The rural zone provides for important regional and

local tourist routes and destinations such as through
the promotion of environmental features and values,
cultural heritage and landscape. The continued
enhancement of tourism facilities that capitalise on
these attributes is supported where the long-term
sustainability of primary industry resources is not
unduly compromised.
c) Rural Communities
c) Not applicable.
Services to the rural locality through provision for
home-based business can enhance the sustainability The development does not
of rural communities. Professional and other provide home based business, or
business services that meet the needs of rural professional services to the
populations are supported where they accompany a community.
residential or other established use and are located
appropriately in relation to settlement activity centres
and surrounding primary industries such that the
integrity of the activity centre is not undermined and
primary industries are not unreasonably confined or
restrained.
Page | 22
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
26.1.3 Desired Future Character Statements
The visual impacts of use and development within the rural The proposed windfarm is exempt
landscape are to be minimised such that the effect is not from desired future character
obtrusive. statements as per clause 26.1.3 a).
a) Except for a wind farm and associated utilities

infrastructure located at 553 Old Aerodrome Road The desired future character
(CT 198926/1), 381 Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs statements have been amended as
210237/1 and 212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement per planning scheme amendment
Road (CTs 152982/5, 104543/1 and 104543/2); and 03/2016.
b) To provide for a wind farm and associated utilities

infrastructure at 553 Old Aerodrome Road (CT
198926/1), 381 Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs
210237/1 and 212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement
Road (CTs 152982/5, 104543/1 and 104543/2) which
requires a rural location for operational, security,
management and proximity to transmission network
reasons; and
c) To ensure that the wind farm and associated utilities

infrastructure at 553 Old Aerodrome Road (CT
198926/1), 381 Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs
210237/1 and 212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement
Road (CTs 152982/5, 104543/1 and 104543/2) is of a
scale and intensity that is appropriate having regard
to the adjoining rural area.
Page | 23
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
26.3 Use Standards
26.3.1 Discretionary Uses if not a single dwelling
Objective
a) To provide for an appropriate mix of uses that support the Local Area Objectives and the
location of discretionary uses in the rural resources zone does not unnecessarily
compromise the consolidation of commercial and industrial uses to identified nodes of
settlement or purpose built precincts.
b) To protect the long term productive capacity of prime agricultural land by minimising
conversion of the land to non-agricultural uses or uses not dependent on the soil as a
growth medium, unless an overriding benefit to the region can be demonstrated.
c) To minimise the conversion of non-prime land to a non-primary industry use except where
that land cannot be practically utilised for primary industry purposes.
d) Uses are located such that they do not unreasonably confine or restrain the operation of
primary industry uses.
e) Uses are suitable within the context of the locality and do not create an unreasonable
adverse impact on existing sensitive uses or local infrastructure.
f) The visual impacts of use are appropriately managed to integrate with the surrounding rural
landscape.
Performance Criteria Proposed Solution
P1.1 It must be demonstrated that the use P 1.1 As the use is not permitted or no permit
is consistent with local area required, the acceptable solution cannot be met. The
objectives for the provision of non- performance criteria has been relied upon. The
primary industry uses in the zone, if applicants response to the performance criteria is
applicable; and below:
P1.2 Business and professional services “The development is consistent with the local area
and general retail and hire must not objectives as outlined in the planning scheme
exceed a combined gross floor area response, Appendix N, Planning Scheme submission
of 250m2 over the site. report”.
P 1.2 N/A
Response: Application complies with the performance criteria. The applicant has responded to
each of the local area objectives. The development is seen as being consistent with the local area
objectives. The development will have a relatively low impact on primary industry activities. The
uses will continue to remain viable on the landscape, already operating alongside the existing gas
pipeline and Basslink cable corridor.
Page | 24
George Town Council
AGENDA
(CONT.)
P2.1 Utilities, extractive industries and Performance criteria must be relied upon, as the
controlled environment agriculture acceptable solution can only be met if the use is no
located on prime agricultural land permit required or permitted.
must demonstrate that the:
Since the land is not classified as prime agricultural
i) amount of land land, this clause is not applicable.
alienated/converted is
minimised; and
ii) location is reasonably required

for operational efficiency; and
P2.2 Uses other than utilities, extractive

industries or controlled environment
agriculture located on prime
agricultural land, must demonstrate
that the conversion of prime
agricultural land to that use will result
in a significant benefit to the region
having regard to the economic,
social and environmental costs and
benefits.
P3 The conversion of non-prime Performance criteria must be relied upon, as the

agricultural to non-agricultural use acceptable solution can only be met if the use is no
must demonstrate that: permit required or permitted.
a) the amount of land converted is The applicants response to the performance criteria
minimised having regard to: is below:
i) existing use and development “The area of land to be converted is minimal. Existing
on the land; and access tracks are used where possible. The activity
will not impede the existing agricultural activity onsite.
ii) surrounding use and The footprint of the proposed development is very
development; and small and capable of allowing existing agricultural
activities on the site to continue”.
iii) topographical constraints; or
b) the site is practically incapable of

supporting an agricultural use or
being included with other land for
agricultural or other primary industry
use, due to factors such as:
i) limitations created by any

existing use and/or
development surrounding the
site; and
ii) topographical features; and
iii) poor capability of the land for

primary industry; or
c) the location of the use on the site is

reasonably required for operational
efficiency.
Page | 25
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Response: Application complies with the performance criteria part a). The land will not be
converted from its existing agricultural use. The land will continue to be farmed due to the minimal
foot print of the wind turbines.
P4 It must demonstrated that: Performance criteria must be relied upon, as the

acceptable solution can only be met if the use is no
a) emissions are not likely to cause an permit required or permitted.
environmental nuisance; and
The applicants response to the performance criteria
b) primary industry uses will not be is below:
unreasonably confined or restrained
from conducting normal operations; “The proposal does not involve any emitting activity,
and and the continued operation of primary industries
uses has been discussed at length. A Traffic Impact
c) the capacity of the local road Assessment and Traffic Management Plan have
network can accommodate the traffic been prepared to assess the impact on the road
generated by the use. network. Subject to implementing the
recommendations of both documents, the road
network has the capacity to accommodate the traffic
generated by the new use”.
Response: Application complies with the performance criteria. The application has been assessed
as a Level 2 activity with the EPA providing permit conditions. The EPA assessment made the
following comments in relation to noise:
“Noise modelling predicted that noise levels experienced at nearby residences would be below
background noise levels at residences 1, 3, 4 and 5. The predicted wind farm noise will exceed
background noise level at residence 2, however it is not predicted to exceed 5dB(A) above
background noise, which is in accordance with NZS6808:2010. The proponent will be required to
comply with an operational noise limit of 40dB(A) or background +5 dB(A) whichever is greater, in
general accordance with NZS6808. The NZS6808 is considered to provide acceptable limits by the
EPA Noise Specialist”.
Council has been guided by EPA assessment in this instance, since the wording of environmental
nuisance is associated with the Environmental Pollution Management and Control Act, and is
predominantly an environmental matter. The use will not be expected to generate a great deal of
traffic once operational. Traffic management plans will be implemented during the construction
phase which will ensure the road network is appropriately utilised.
Page | 26
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
P5 Except for a wind farm and As the use is not permitted or no permit required, the
associated utilities infrastructure acceptable solution cannot be met. The performance
located at 553 Old Aerodrome Road criteria has been relied upon.
(CT 198926/1), 381 Soldiers
Settlement Road (CTs 210237/1 and The clause is not applicable as an exception is
212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement provided for the windfarm as per 26.3.1 P5.
Road (CTs 152982/5, 104543/1 and
104543/2) it must be demonstrated
that the visual appearance of the use
is consistent with the local area
having regard to:
a) the impacts on skylines and

ridgelines; and
b) visibility from public roads; and
c) the visual impacts of storage of

materials or equipment; and
d) the visual impacts of vegetation

clearance or retention; and
e) the desired future character

statements.
26.3.2 Dwellings – Not applicable. No proposed dwelling.
26.4 Development Standards
26.4.1 Building Location and Appearance
Objective
To ensure that the:
a) ability to conduct extractive industries and resource development will not be constrained by
conflict with sensitive uses; and
b) development of buildings is unobtrusive and complements the character of the landscape

except for a wind farm and associated utilities infrastructure located at 553 Old Aerodrome
Road (CT 198926/1), 381 Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs 210237/1 and 212067/1) and
Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs 152982/5, CT 104543/1 and 104543/2); and
c) the wind turbine height at 553 Old Aerodrome Road (CT 198926/1), 381 Soldiers
Settlement Road (CTs 210237/1 and 212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement Road (CTs
152982/5, 104543/1 and 104543/2) is;
(i) necessary for the operation of the use; and
(ii) minimises adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.
Page | 27
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Acceptable Solutions Proposed Solution
Acceptable solution achieved. The development

A1 Building height must not exceed: complies with part c) of the acceptable solution.
The turbine height is 180m from ground to tip
a) 8m for dwellings; or
and is a minimum of 100m from Five Mile Bluff
b) 12m for other purposes; or Conservation area and a minimum of 165m
from a public road.
c) 180 metres blade tip height for wind
turbines located at 553 Old Aerodrome
Road (CT 198926/1), 381 Soldiers
Settlement Road (CTs 210237/1 and
212067/1) and Soldiers Settlement Road
(CTs 152982/5, 104543/1 and 104543/2)
provided that the turbines are setback:
(i) in accordance with A2.1; and
(ii) a minimum of 100m from Five Mile
Bluff Conservation area; and
(iii) a minimum of 165m from a public
road.
A2.1 Buildings must be set back a minimum of: Acceptable solution achieved. The use is a non-
sensitive use and therefore complies with a 50m
a) 50m where a non sensitive use or building setback from property boundaries.
extension to existing sensitive use
buildings is proposed; or
b) 200m where a sensitive use is proposed;

or
c) the same as existing for replacement of

an existing dwelling.
25.0 General Industrial Zone

25.1 Zone Purpose

25.1.1.1 To provide for manufacturing, processing, repair, storage and distribution of

goods and materials where there may be impacts on neighbouring uses.
25.1.1.2 To focus industrial use and development into appropriate areas suitable for its
needs.
Page | 28
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
25.1.1.3 To provide for ’non-industrial’ uses that either support, supply or facilitate
industrial development.
To promote the Bell Bay industrial area as a strategic location of State importance, for the
establishment of major industries requiring the locational advantages of a deep port, existing
transport infrastructure and services and separation from incompatible uses.
To encourage major industrial use and development to locate and consolidate in the Bell Bay
industrial area.
Small scale industrial activities are discouraged except where such uses service or support major
industrial use and development.
High volumes of freight and heavy vehicles will be a feature of the zone. Some industries may use
dangerous chemicals and processes and cause nuisances such as smoke, dust and noise.
To ensure land abutting the Tamar River Crown Reserve is reserved for industries which specifically
require access to the water for wharf and associated installations.
To ensure maximum utilisation of existing service infrastructure and ensure expansion of
infrastructure services are co ordinated.
Ensure the protection and efficiency of transport infrastructure including road, rail and water when
new development is approved.
25.3 Use Standards
25.3.1 Emissions
Objective
To ensure that emissions to air, land and water are reduced to the greatest extent practicable in
consideration of proximity to sensitive uses.
A1 Use not listed in Table E11.1 Attenuation Acceptable solution achieved.

Distances or E11.2 Attenuation Distances
for Sewerage Treatment Plants must be The transmission line and poles will be setback
set back from sensitive uses a minimum 100m from sensitive uses.
distance of 100 metres.
A2 All solid waste produced through Not applicable. No solid waste produced as a
processing or manufacturing operations result of the transmission line.
on the site must be removed and
disposed of:
(a) by a licensed waste removal operator; or
(b) in accordance with a management plan

approved by the Environment Protection
Authority.
Page | 29
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
25.4.1 Building Design and Siting
Objective
To ensure that the site and layout, building design and form is visually compatible with surrounding
development.
A1 Building height must not exceed: Acceptable solution achieved.
a) 10.0m; or The poles running alongside the road are less

than 10m in height.
b) the average of the heights of buildings on
immediately adjoining lots.
A2 Buildings must be set back a minimum Acceptable solution achieved.

distance 10m from a frontage.
The distribution network will be located 10m
from the frontage of titles in the zone.
A3 Buildings must be set back from side and Acceptable solution achieved.
rear boundaries a minimum distance 5m.
The distribution network will be setback a
minimum distance of 5m from side and rear
boundaries.
28 Utilities Zone
Use Status: Permitted
28.1 Zone Purpose

28.1.1.1 To provide land for major utilities installations and corridors.
28.1.1.2 To provide for other compatible uses where they do not adversely impact on the
utility.
Page | 30
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
The zone reflects the major utilities developed and provides certainty for the continued operation
and investment in those facilities.
Features both specific site and linear development with distinctive physical, visual and operational
characteristics.
The use may impact on the amenity and safety of land use in the immediate vicinity.
The operational requirements and limitations on alternate site options may necessitate location in
sensitive and operational characteristics.
28.3 Use Standards
28.3.1 Capacity of existing utilities
Objective
To ensure that uses do not compromise the capacity of utility services.
A1 If for permitted or no permit required Acceptable solution achieved.

uses.
Utilities is classed as a permitted use within the
Utilities Zone.
Objective
To ensure that the siting and design of development:
a) considers the impacts to adjoining lots; and
b) furthers the local area objectives and desired future character statements for the area, if
any.
Page | 31
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
A1 Height must not exceed: Acceptable solution achieved.
a) 10m;or The proposed overhead poles and line will be

6.5m in height. Less than permitted 10m.
b) 15 m for ancillary antenna and masts for
communication devices.
A2 Buildings must be set back from all Acceptable solution achieved.

boundaries a minimum distance of 3m.
All poles within the Utilities zone will be setback
3m from a property boundary.
19.0 Open Space Zone
19.3 Use Standards
19.3.1 Amenity
Objective
To ensure that uses do not adversely impact upon the occupiers of adjoining and nearby uses.
A1 Operating hours must be between: Not applicable
a) 8.00 am and 10.00 pm where adjoining

residential use; and
b) 6.00 am and 12.00 am midnight where

not adjoining residential use.
Page | 32
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
A2.1 The proposal must not include flood Acceptable solution achieved. Proposal will not
lighting where it adjoins the General contain flood lighting within the open space
Residential, Low Density Residential, zone.
Rural living; and
A2.2 External security lighting must be

contained within the boundaries of the
site.
P3 Discretionary uses must not cause or be Application must rely on performance criteria
likely to cause an environmental nuisance since the use class of utilities is a discretionary
through emissions including noise, smoke, use within the zone. The applicant didn’t provide
odour and dust. a response to this clause.
Response: Proposal complies with the performance criteria. The transmission line with 6.5m poles
will not result in an environmental nuisance.
19.3.2 Open Space Character
Objective
To ensure that uses are of an appropriate scale and type for the zone, and to support the local area
objectives, if any.
A1 The use must: Acceptable solution achieved.
a) be for natural and cultural values The poles within the open space zone will not
management or passive recreation; or exceed a combined gross floor area of 250m 2.
b) not exceed a combined gross floor area of

250m2 over the site.
A2 Commercial vehicles for discretionary Not applicable. No commerical vehicles

uses must be: associated with the utilities use in the zone.
a) parked within the boundary of the

property; and
b) in locations that are not visible from the

road or public land.
Page | 33
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
A3 Goods or materials storage for Not applicable. No goods stored on the site.
discretionary uses must not be outside in
locations visible from adjacent properties,
the road or public land.
Objective
To ensure that the design and siting of buildings:
a) responds appropriately to the open space and natural values of the site; and
b) has minimal disturbance to the environment and any adjoining sensitive uses.
P1 Building height must: Performance criteria is relied upon, since the

poles containing the transmission lines will be
a) not be a dominant feature in the greater than 5m in height. Poles will be 6.5m.
streetscape or landscape when viewed The applicant notes:
from a road; and
“whilst marginally exceeding the maximum
b) protect the amenity of adjoining dwellings height requirement the infrastructure will not
and sensitive uses are protected from represent a dominant feature in the streetscape
unreasonable impacts of overshadowing or landscape”.
and overlooking.
Response: Proposal complies with the performance criteria. The development within this zone is
for poles and wires associated with the transmission line. The proposal complies with the
performance criteria.
Acceptable Solution Proposed Solution
A2 Buildings must be set back 10m from all Acceptable solution achieved.
boundaries.
All poles will be setback 10m from boundaries.
A3 The site coverage must not exceed 20%. Acceptable solution achieved.
Site coverage will not be altered from what is

existing.
Page | 34
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Planning Scheme Codes
E6.0 Car Parking Code

The car parking code applies to all use and development. Table E6.1 specifies the number
of car parking spaces development is required to provide. The use class of utilities has no
requirements for car parking or bike parking numbers. On this basis the use standards have
not been addressed. It is noted that the facilities area will contain car parking spaces,
however as this does not form part of this development application, the development
standards do not apply.
E7.0 Scenic Management Code

The scenic management code is not applicable to land accommodating the wind turbines.
The code applies to land within a 100m corridor measured either side of tourist roads (East
Tamar Highway, Bridport Road. This area of land contains the 6.5m poles and wires
associated within the transmission corridor.
E7.6 Development Standards
E7.6.1 Scenic Management – Tourist Road Corridor
Objective
(a) To enhance the visual amenity of the identified tourist road corridors through appropriate:
i) setbacks of development to the road to provide for views that are significant to the
traveller experience and to mitigate the bulk of development; and
ii) location of development to avoid obtrusive visual impacts on skylines, ridgelines and
prominent locations within the corridor; and
iii) design and/or treatment of the form of buildings and earthworks to minimise the visual
impact of development in its surroundings; and
iv) retention or establishment of vegetation (native or exotic) that mitigates the bulk or form
of use or development; and
v) retention of vegetation (native or exotic) that provides amenity value to the road corridor
due to being in a natural condition, such as native forest, or of cultural landscape
interest such as hedgerows and significant, exotic feature trees; and
(b) To ensure subdivision provides for a pattern of development that is consistent with the visual
amenity objectives described in (a).
Page | 35
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Acceptable Solution Proposed Solution
A1 Development (not including subdivision) Acceptable solution achieved.

must be fully screened by existing
vegetation or other features when viewed The proposed route for the transmission line is
from the road within the tourist road adjacent the Basslink interconnector, running
corridor. parallel to that infrastructure through the scenic
management area. This area is screened by
existing vegetation. The scale of the powerline
infrastructure is such that it is very uninstructive
in nature.
A2 Subdivision must not alter any boundaries Not applicable.

within the areas designated as scenic
management – tourist road corridor.
E7.6.2 Local Scenic Management Areas – Not applicable
There are no local scenic management areas within the George Town Municipality. See
Table E7.1 of the George Town Interim Planning Scheme 2013.
E8.0 Biodiversity Code

The biodiversity code applies for the removal of native vegetation. The application states that
approximately 14ha of native vegetation will be removed as part of this application.
An exemption to the code is listed in E8.4, which states:
E8.4 Use or Development Exempt from this Code:
E8.4.2 Level 2 activities assessed by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution
Control.
The proposed wind farm development and associated infrastructure is a Level 2 activity
which is assessed by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control. As
such, the application does not require assessment against the code. The EPA has provided
more details on vegetation removal within their assessment report.
E9.0 Water Quality Code

The water quality code applies to development within 50m of a wetland or watercourse.
An exemption to the code is listed in E9.4, which states:
E9.4.1 The following use or development is exempt from this code:
Level 2 activities assessed by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution

Control.
Page | 36
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
The proposed wind farm development and associated infrastructure is a Level 2 activity
which is assessed by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control. As
such, the application does not require assessment against the code. The EPA has provided
more details of impacts on water quality within their assessment report.
REFFERALS
Internal Referrals
Building Surveyor
The proposal was referred to the Councils Building Surveyor, who provided the following
comment:
- Wind towers are classified as category 2.4.4 under director’s determination cat of
building work.
Environmental Health Officer

The proposal was referred to the Councils Environmental Health Officer, who provided the
following comment:
- Level 2C activity with assessment undertaken by the EPA. No further conditions or
comments to add due to EPA involvement.
- Should temporary facilities be provided as part of the construction works, a plumbing
permit that includes wastewater management may be required.
Engineering Services
The proposal was referred to the Councils Project Engineer, who provided the following
conditions to be included with the development.
1. Pre-construction Assessment
Before development starts, a dilapidation survey of public roads that may be used in
connection with the construction of the facility, and proposed access points to the site
must be submitted to Council.
The survey must assess the suitability, design, condition and construction standard of
the relevant public roads, bridges and associated roadway structures and access
points, and must:
a) be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent civil or traffic
engineer acceptable to Council;
b) include recommendations, if any, regarding upgrades required to accommodate
construction traffic;
c) be approved by Councils Works and Infrastructure Department.
2. Traffic Management Plan

Before development starts, a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to the
Department of State Growth and Council. When endorsed the plan will form part of
this permit.
Page | 37
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
The Traffic Management Plan must:
a) be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent civil or traffic

engineer acceptable to Council;
b) specify measures to be taken to manage traffic impacts associated with the
construction of the facility, including details of any partial and full road closures,
traffic sign removals and reinstatements, speed limits, transport times, escorts
and other restrictions during transport;
c) include a public information plan;
d) include notification of property owners, Police, emergency service providers and
utility services along transport routes;
e) include procedures for incident management;
f) include contact details for incidents and complaints;
g) include a program to inspect, maintain and (where required) repair public roads
and assets used by construction traffic;
h) be approved by Council’s Works and Infrastructure Department.
The endorsed Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction and
must not be altered or modified without the written consent of Councils Works and
Infrastructure Department.
To minimise traffic conflict with school transport and public events, all wind farm
construction and operational heavy vehicle traffic shall not operate (1) on roads
adjacent to and within close proximity of schools on school days between the hours
of 8.00 to 9.30 am and 2.30 to 4.00 pm; and (ii) on roads within close proximity of
public events, e.g. ANZAC and Remembrance Day events.
Movements of Over-Sized Over-Mass (OSOM) vehicles shall be undertaken after

midnight to minimise impact on local traffic.
3. Traffic Upgrade Works

Where works are recommended or required under the pre-construction dilapidation
survey or the endorsed Traffic Management Plan, there must be a submission to and
approval by Council of:
a) detailed engineering plans for the required works prepared by a qualified and
experienced civil engineer acceptable to Council;
b) a program for the works to be undertaken.
c) The works must be completed in accordance with the approved plans and
program, to the satisfaction of Councils Works and Infrastructure Department.
Page | 38
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
d) The developer must pay the cost of any alterations, damages and/or
reinstatement to Council’s road and bridge assets, Council infrastructure,
existing services or private property incurred as a result of the development. Any
and all work undertaken is to be to Councils and/or Department of State Growth
specifications. Contractors used must be acceptable to Council and must adhere
with Councils safety policies.
4. Practical Completion
a) Upon practical completion, the developer in conjunction with Councils Works and
Infrastructure Department must undertake a post construction condition
assessment of roads, bridges and roadway assets used for transportation routes
and submitted to Council.
b) Any damage or wear and tear, which may be attributed to the development is to
be made good at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of Councils Works
and Infrastructure Department.
Plumbing Surveyor
The proposal was referred to the Councils Plumbing Surveyor, who provided the following
comment:
- A plumbing permit will be required for any temporary buildings associated with the
construction.
External Referrals
Tasmanian Gas Pipeline

The Tasmanian Gas Pipeline wrote to Council on the 10th August 2017 stating that they had
no objection to the wind farm application.
REPRESENTATIONS
The application was advertised for community consultation from the 15/07/2017 –
26/08/2017. Nine (9) representations were received, with the concerns summarised below.
A copy of the representations has also been included as an attachment to this report. All
representations have been considered by Council and by the Environmental Protection
Authority during assessment. The EPA assessment document examines and responds to
issues raised in representations. The assessment document forms part of the attached
documentation.
Page | 39
George Town Council
AGENDA
Issues Representor Officer Comment

Concerns that the wind farm will have a 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 Not a relevant planning consideration under the planning scheme.
negative impact on property values
Concerns regarding the consultation 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 Council has followed the legislative process by:
process and residents have not been kept
informed of the development  Placing planning notices onsite
 Advertising the development application in a local newspaper
 Advising all adjoining property owners of the development
application
 Placing all documentation on Councils website
While Council is only required to follow the advertising requirements of

the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, it is acknowledged
that for larger developments there is merit in widening the scope of
public consultation.
For this reason, it is noted that during the public consultation period of
planning scheme amendment 3/2016 (to allow for a future wind farm
development), Council wrote to 199 residents within the Bell Buoy
Beach and Beechford areas advising them of the amendment and
future wind farm development. Councils public consultation in this
instance was above and beyond what was required.
Council has followed the legislative requirements and advertised the

development application in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and Land Use Planning and
Approvals Regulations 2014.
Visual impact of the proposed wind farm 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 The development application complies with the requirements of the
scheme. Planning scheme amendment A3/2016 allowed for the future
development of a wind farm and inserted site-specific criteria which
would allow a wind farm development to be constructed on particular
titles between Bellbuoy Beach and Low Head.
Page | 40
George Town Council
AGENDA
Criteria under section 26.1.3, Desired Future Character Statements for

the Rural Resource Zone, now provides an exemption for wind turbines
when assessing the visual impacts of use and development within the
zone.
It is further noted that clause 26.3.1 P5 also provides an exemption

from visual impact for Wind Turbines on particular sites. The objective
of clause 26.4.1 has also been amended to allow for wind farm
development, while a site specific amendment under A1 c) of this
clause provides for wind turbines not exceeding 180m in height.
The approved planning scheme amendments paved the way for the
development application currently under assessment. As such, the
development application complies with the current criteria relating to
visual impact.
Concerns regarding noise associated with 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, The application was referred to the EPA as a Level 2C activity. The
turbines 8, 9 EPA have provided an in-depth assessment of wind turbine noise, low
frequency sound and vibration.
The following comments are extracted from their Environmental

Assessment report for the Low Head Wind Farm. The EPA’s noise
specialist has reviewed the DPEMP when making the assessment.
“Noise modelling predicted that noise levels experienced at nearby

residences would be below background noise levels at residences 1, 3,
4 and 5. The predicted wind farm noise will exceed background noise
level at residence 2, however it is not predicted to exceeds 5dB(A)
above background noise, which is in accordance with NZS6808:2010.
The proponent will be required to comply with an operational noise limit
of 40dB(A) or background +5 dB(A) whichever is greater, in general
accordance with NZS6808. The NZS6808 is considered to provide
acceptable limits by the EPA Noise Specialist”.
Page | 41
George Town Council
AGENDA
Multiple conditions have been imposed by the EPA in relation to noise

limits, both during the construction phase of the towers and during the
operational phase of the turbines.
Wind farms are not the answer to energy 3 Not a relevant planning consideration under the planning scheme.
shortages or clean energy alternatives.
Does not comply with the state coastal 4, 6 The development is assessed as complying with the State Coastal
policy Policy 1996. The potential impacts upon the coastal zone are
addressed via setback standards, which also include a 100 metre
setback from Five Mile Bluff Conservation area. The impact upon
native/coastal vegetation has also been addressed via the biodiversity
and water quality codes. Aboriginal heritage assessments have been
undertaken for the development and indicate that there are no sites of
cultural heritage significance. The footprint is considered relatively
minor, and the area will be capable of full rehabilitation after the
anticipated 30-year period has elapsed. Monitoring and review will be
required for the duration of the wind farm, EPA conditions have been
provided for this purpose.
Detrimental affect on surrounding land use 4, 6 The application has met the required 50m setbacks for a non-sensitive
use. The wind farm is not a sensitive use. The Rural Resource Zone is
not a residential zone, where the primary intent is to protect agricultural
operations. The wind turbines will not have a major impact on existing
agricultural operations (primarily grazing), with turbine footprints
considered to have relatively small footprint on the site. Agricultural
operations will continue to operate as they currently do.
Walking trails along Four and Five Mile 4, 6 Whilst not a relevant consideration under the planning scheme, some
Bluff impacted by the proposed comments are provided below.
development
The development of wind turbines is occurring within private land.
There is no development on public land. Access to public areas of Five
Mile Bluff will not be impacted by the proposed wind farm.
Page | 42
George Town Council
AGENDA
Concerns regarding employment and if 4, 6 Whilst not a relevant consideration under the planning scheme, some
contractors will be sourced from outside the comments are provided below.
local area.
The DPEMP states that during the construction phase it is estimated
that 50 – 75 jobs will be created through local contractors. It is
expected that construction will benefit the following areas:
 Local quarry operators.
 Contractors
 Port operators
 Local accommodation providers
 Retailers, i.e. food, services station etc.
During the operational phase, the project will employ 2-3 full time
employees with up to 10 individuals required during major maintenance
activities.
Concerns regarding impact on fauna, in 4, 6, 8, 9 The application has been assessed as a Level 2C activity. There is no
particular the wedge tailed eagle, white criteria within the planning scheme which gives Council the ability to
bellied sea eagle and other bird life. assess the impact on fauna. The EPA have undertaken an assessment
of the impact on a range of fauna. The following EPA comments are
noted in relation to white bellied sea eagles:
“In summary, few sea eagle flights were observed in the parts of the
study area where most of the turbines are proposed to be located. The
majority of flights were along the north western coastline immediately
north of proposed turbine number 1”.
“A 1km buffer area surrounding the known wedge tailed eagle nest on
site will help to limit the disturbance to potential nesting birds during
construction of the wind farm.
If the nest is being used for breeding at the time of construction, then
all construction within the 1km buffer area will be limited to the non-
breeding season”.
Page | 43
George Town Council
AGENDA
A number of EPA conditions relating to fauna have been proposed for

the permit, requiring the applicant to adhere to strict guidelines and
testing during both the construction and operational phase of the wind
farm.
Potential impacts of electromagnetic 4, 6 Not a relevant consideration under the planning scheme however
interference (TV, radio reception) some comments are provided.
There are commitments within the DPEMP document which the

operators will be required to adhere to. The DPEMP also states that
the proponent commits to investigate and upgrade the mobile phone
coverage at Bellbuoy Beach. It is noted that the proponents also state
that they take full responsibility for maintaining or enhancing the mobile
phone, radio and television reception within 5km of the wind farm
location.
Noise modelling undertaken was not 7 The EPA has accepted the noise modelling which has been provided
accurate and has imposed conditions which ensure the operators are required to
continually monitor and report noise levels associated with the
development.
Concerns regarding shadow flicker 7 Expected shadow flicker falls within the applicable guidelines as
outlined in the DPEMP. The proponent has made the following
comments:
“Should the location of the wind turbines or the rotation of earth around
the sun significantly change prior to commissioning, a common
approach to shadow flicker is “sector management” – the process of
shutting down offending turbines during the short period of time that
the sun can be seen behind the turbine (usually early morning or late
evening).
This form of shadow flicker mitigation is initiated through the wind
farms SCADA system and is instantaneous in its results”.
Page | 44
George Town Council
AGENDA
6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE (CONT.)
SERVICES
Sewer
Reticulated sewer is not connected to the subject lots associated with the wind
turbines.
Water
Reticulated water is not connected to the subject lots associated with the wind
turbines.
Storm Water
Reticulated stormwater is not available to the subject lots associated with the wind
turbines.
STATE POLICIES
State Policy on the Protection of Water Quality Management 1997
This State Policy aims to achieve the sustainable management of Tasmania’s

surface water and ground water resources by protecting or enhancing their qualities,
while allowing for sustainable development.
The application has been assessed by the EPA with ongoing conditions ensuring
ground and surface water resources will not be detrimentally impacted by the
proposed development. As such, the development is considered to be consistent with
the state policy.
State Coastal Policy 1996
The proposed development is located within 1km from the high tide mark, as such
the policy applies.
In relation to the State Coastal Policy, the following response was made in response
to representation 4 and 6.
The development is assessed as complying with the State Coastal Policy 1996. The
potential impacts upon the coastal zone are addressed via setback standards, which
also include a 100 metre setback from Five Mile Bluff Conservation area. The impact
upon native/coastal vegetation has also been addressed via the biodiversity and
water quality codes. Aboriginal heritage assessments have been undertaken for the
development and indicate that there are no sites of cultural heritage significance.
The footprint is considered relatively minor, and the area will be capable of full
rehabilitation after the anticipated 30-year period has elapsed. Monitoring and review
will be required for the duration of the wind farm, EPA conditions have been provided
for this purpose.
Page | 45
George Town Council
AGENDA

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009
This application is consistent with the above State Policy. The land is not classed as
prime agricultural land and is currently utilised for grazing purposes. The agricultural
operation will continue to operate from the site during the construction and
operational phase of the wind turbines. The development is not assessed as
contravening the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009.
CONCLUSION
The application to construct wind turbines and associated transmission line meets
the requirements of the planning scheme. The use and development has been
assessed against all applicable standards within the relevant zones and codes. The
application was referred to the EPA as a Level 2C development and the EPA have
undertaken an in-depth assessment of all documentation, including the proponents
DPEMP. The proposal is recommended for approval with conditions.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That the application for a Wind Farm and Associated Utilities Infrastructure, for land at
553 Old Aerodrome Road (CT 198926/1), Soldiers Settlement Road (CT 210237/1), 381
Soldiers Settlement Road (CT’s 152982/5, 104545/1 and 154906/1), Musk Vale Road
(CT 154910/1), Bridport Road (CT 139746/1) and 135 Bell Bay Road (CT 154929/1) be
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. Endorsed Plans
The use and/or development must be carried out substantially in accordance
with the application for planning approval, documentation and plans,
submitted to Council and the Environmental Protection Authority. Except
where such use and development is to be modified by way of the conditions
imposed by both Council in this Permit and the Environmental Protection
Authority Permit (attached). If there are any conditions that conflict or are
duplicated, the conditions of the Environmental Protection Authority Board will
prevail.
2. Environmental Protection Authority Conditions

The person responsible for the activity must comply with the conditions
contained in schedule 2 of Permit Part B, Environmental No. 8785 which the
board of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has required the
Planning Authority to include in the permit, pursuant to Section 25 (5) of the
Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. (See permit part
B attached).
3. Exposed Storage
Goods, equipment, packaging material or machinery must not be stored
outside a building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare or
public open space.
Page | 46
George Town Council
AGENDA

4. Schedule of Materials/colours
Prior to the commencement of the works, a printed sample and schedule of
external wind turbine materials, finishes and colours, must be submitted for
approval by Councils General Manager. Once approved, the schedule will be
endorsed to form part of the planning permit.
5. No Further Vegetation Removal

Tree and vegetation removal must be limited to those specifically required for
removal as a result of development. No other tree or vegetation is to be felled,
lopped, topped, ring-barked, uprooted, or otherwise wilfully destroyed or
removed, without the further written consent of the Council.
6. Lighting
Except in the case of an emergency, no external lighting of infrastructure
associated with the wind energy facility, other than low level security lighting
or aviation safety lighting may be installed or operated without the further
written consent of the General Manager.
7. Security
Public safety warning signs must be located on all towers and infrastructure at
appropriate locations to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
8. Signage
No signs are to be erected on the properties without Council approval unless
exempt under the current Planning Scheme.
9. Reports and Plans to be provided to Council

The Design Report, Construction Environmental Management Plan and
Operational Environmental Management Plan, as required by the EPA and/or
outlined in the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan
submitted with the application are to be submitted to Councils General
Manager for approval prior to the commencement of works.
10. Pre-construction Assessment

Before development starts, a dilapidation survey of public roads that may be
used in connection with the construction of the facility, and proposed access
points to the site must be submitted to Council.
The survey must assess the suitability, design, condition and construction
standard of the relevant public roads, bridges and associated roadway
structures and access points, and must:
a) be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent civil or
traffic engineer acceptable to Council;
b) include recommendations, if any, regarding upgrades required to
accommodate construction traffic;
c) be approved by Councils Works and Infrastructure Department.
11. Traffic Management Plan

Before development starts, a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to
the Department of State Growth and Council. When endorsed the plan will
form part of this permit.
Page | 47
George Town Council
AGENDA

The Traffic Management Plan must:

a) be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent civil or
traffic engineer acceptable to Council;
b) specify measures to be taken to manage traffic impacts associated with
the construction of the facility, including details of any partial and full road
closures, traffic sign removals and reinstatements, speed limits, transport
times, escorts and other restrictions during transport;
c) include a public information plan;
d) include notification of property owners, Police, emergency service
providers and utility services along transport routes;
e) include procedures for incident management;
f) include contact details for incidents and complaints;
g) include a program to inspect, maintain and (where required) repair public
roads and assets used by construction traffic;
h) be approved by Councils Works and Infrastructure Department.
The endorsed Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction
and must not be altered or modified without the written consent of Councils
Works and Infrastructure Department.
To minimise traffic conflict with school transport and public events, all wind
farm construction vehicles and operational heavy vehicle traffic shall not
operate (i) on roads adjacent to and within close proximity of schools on
school days between the hours of 8.00 to 9.30 am and 2.30 to 4.00 pm; and
(ii) on roads within close proximity of public events, e.g. ANZAC and
Remembrance Day events.
Movements of Over-Sized Over-Mass (OSOM) vehicles shall be undertaken

after midnight to minimise impact on local traffic.
12. Traffic Upgrade Works

Where works are recommended or required under the pre-construction
dilapidation survey or the endorsed Traffic Management Plan, there must be a
submission to and approval by Council of:
a) detailed engineering plans for the required works prepared by a qualified

and experienced civil engineer acceptable to Council;
b) a program for the works to be undertaken.
c) The works must be completed in accordance with the approved plans

and program, to the satisfaction of Councils Works and Infrastructure
Department.
Page | 48
George Town Council
AGENDA

d) The developer must pay the cost of any alterations, damages and/or
reinstatement to Council’s road and bridge assets, Council infrastructure,
existing services or private property incurred as a result of the
development. Any and all work undertaken is to be to Councils and/or
Department of State Growth specifications. Contractors used must be
acceptable to Council, and must adhere with Councils safety policies.
13. Practical Completion

a) Upon practical completion, the developer in conjunction with Councils
Works and Infrastructure Department must undertake a post construction
condition assessment of roads, bridges and roadway assets used for
transportation routes and submitted to Council.
b) Any damage or wear and tear, which may be attributed to the

development is to be made good at the developer’s expense to the
satisfaction of Councils Works and Infrastructure Department.
Permit Notes
A. This permit was issued based on the proposal documents submitted for DA
2017/42. You should contact Council with any other use or developments, as
they may require the separate approval of Council.
B. This permit does not imply that any other approval required under any other
legislaiton or by law has been granted.
C. The laydown facilities area has not been approved as part of this application.
A separate planning application for buildings within the facilities area must be
lodged with Council.
D. This permit takes effect after:

a) the 14 day appeal period expires; or
b) any appeal to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal
Tribunal is abandoned or determined; or.
c) any agreement that is required by this permit pursuant to Part V of the
Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is executed; or
d) any other required approvals under this or any other Act are granted.
E. This permit is valid for two (2) years only from the date of approval and will
thereafter lapse if the development is not substantially commenced.
F. If any Aboriginal relics are uncovered during works;

a. All works are to cease within a delineated area sufficient to protect the
unearthed and other possible relics from destruction,
Page | 49
George Town Council
AGENDA

b. The presence of a relic is to be reported to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania

Phone: (03) 6233 6613 or 1300 135 513 (ask for Aboriginal Heritage
Tasmania) Fax: (03) 6233 5555 Email: aboriginal@heritage.tas.gov.au;
and
c. the relevant approval processes will apply with state and federal
government agencies.
DECISION
VOTING

Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 50
George Town Council
AGENDA
7. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
7.1 PETITION TO AMEND SEALED PLAN – LAND OWNER CONSENT
AUTHOR: Statutory Town Planner
REPORT DATE: 13th February 2018
ADDRESS: 119 Soldiers Settlement Road, George Town
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Petition to amend sealed plan

2. Folio text 130563/1
3. Folio plan 130563/1
4. Schedule of Easements 130563
5. Letter from Council objecting to the petition to amend a
sealed plan
6. Email from proponent regarding history of existing covenant
PROPERTY DETAILS
The property being impacted by the proposed amendment is CT 130563/2.
Council is a party with an estate or interest affected by the proposed amendment.

This is as a result of Council owning CT 130563/1, which contains the George Town
Aerodrome and associated buildings.
BACKGROUND
MOANA MANAGEMENT PROPRIETARY LIMITED has petitioned the George Town

Council to amend sealed plan 130563, to remove a covenant applying to Lot 2 on the
Schedule. The petitioner is looking to develop the land in accordance with the
George Town Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and is currently restricted by the
wording of the covenant, in that it states “no buildings shall be constructed”.
All other parties being subject to the amendment have signed their support for the
removal of the covenant for Lot 2.
Land owner consent was requested of Council at the December 2017 regular
meeting.
With limited information available as to why the covenants had been imposed,
Council objected to the proposed petition to amend the sealed plan (see attachment
5). It is understood that the land owner and proponent met with elected members at
the January Council workshop to discuss the existing covenant and reasons into
requesting its removal. Further investigations into the history of the covenant were
undertaken by Council officers and the proponent. These investigations did not
uncover any additional information as to the reasons why the covenant was placed
on the lots (see attachment 6).
Following on from the investigations into the covenants as well as discussions with
Elected Members, the petitioner is now seeking Council withdraw their objection and
support the petition as a party with an estate or interest affected by the proposed
amendment.
Page | 51
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Under section 103 of the Local Government Building and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act 1993, the person undertaking the petition is to serve a copy of the petition on all
persons appearing by the registers under the Land Titles Act 1980 and
the Registration of Deeds Act 1935 to have an estate or interest at law affected by
the proposed amendment.
As noted under section 5 of the attached petition, Council is the only remaining party
with an estate or interest affected by the proposed amendment, and has
subsequently been notified by the lodgement of the petition.
Council is a party with an interest due to ownership of CT 130563/1, which currently

contains the George Town Aerodrome.
Section 103 (4) of the Local Government Building and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
1993 states that any person who is effected by the proposed amendment may wish
to be heard in support or opposition.
As a result of ownership, Council must therefore determine if they wish to be heard in

relation to the amendment petition.
Section 104 (1) states that after 28 days of being served notice, Council may either
make the amendment (if Council elects to withdraw their objection since they are an
affected party), or appoint a day for a hearing to allow a petitioner to be heard.
DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
The proposed amendment is to delete covenant number 1 from the Schedule of

Easements to SP130563 insofar as it relates to the subject land.
The amendment seeks to cross out the word “2” from covenant number 1 on the
Schedule of Easements at the Land Titles Office, as opposed to complete removal.
This means that covenant 1 would still apply to all other lots party to the Schedule.
Anyone looking at the Schedule will still be able to see hatched areas on the plan
which were burden to that covenant.
ASSESSMENT
Details as to why the covenant was placed on the land are limited. Local knowledge
indicates that the covenant was placed on low lying areas, which had previously
experienced problems with drainage.
This was done in order to ensure that buildings were not going to be constructed in
areas which were unsuitable for development. This understanding would appear
reasonable, given the second covenant on the land relates to prohibiting the disposal
of effluent on Lots 2, 3 and 4.
Page | 52
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
The removal of the covenant for Lot 2 appears sound. All future development will still
be subject to the requirements of the relevant planning scheme and building act. If
areas were deemed unsuitable for development, it would be picked up during either
the planning or building stages of a development application.
At the request of Council, further investigations undertaken by the proponent have

not found any additional information in relation to these covenants. Council officers
have also investigated the history of the covenants and have not discovered any
justification in relation to their implementation.
That George Town Council, as the owners of Lot 1 on Schedule 130563, write to the
petitioner, stating that they withdraw their objection dated 8th January 2018, and that
subsequently Council do not object to the removal of covenant 1 from Lot 2 of sealed
plan 130563.
DECISION
VOTING

Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 53
George Town Council
AGENDA
7.2 APPLICATION BY DOUGLAS AND COLLINS TO AMEND SEALED PLAN

130563 – OLD AERODROME ROAD, GEORGE TOWN
AUTHOR: Statutory Town Planner
ADDRESS: Old Aerodrome Road, George Town (PID 3466455)
ATTACHMENT: 1. Petition to amend sealed plan

2. Folio text 130563/1
3. Folio plan 130563/1
4. Schedule of Easements 130563
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Applicant: Douglas and Collins

Property: Title Reference: 130563/1
Address: Old Aerodrome Road, George Town (PID 3466455)
Zone: Light Industrial
Received: 12th December 2017
BACKGROUND
Douglas and Collins acting on behalf of MOANA MANAGEMENT PROPRIENTY

LIMITED wrote to Council on the 12th December 2017 to request an amendment to
Sealed Plan 130563. The proposed amendment is to delete covenant number 1 from
the Schedule of Easements to SP130563 insofar as it relates to the subject land.
The amendment seeks to cross out the word “2” from covenant number 1 on the
Schedule of Easements at the Land Titles Office, as opposed to complete removal.
This means that the covenant 1 would still apply to all other lots party to the
Schedule.
Due to legislative requirements, any changes to sealed plans must be authorised by
the statutory authority.
STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2026
Goal 1: Foster the growth of a diverse business and industry mix and to foster
population.
The application for Amendment to a sealed plan is subject to the provisions of

section 103 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1993 (the Act).
Section 103 (1) of the Act provides that the Council may amend a sealed plan on the
application of any person having an interest in land subject to the plan. The
application is made with the knowledge and authority of all ‘persons’ that have an
interest in the subject land.
Page | 54
George Town Council
AGENDA

130563 – OLD AERODROME ROAD, GEORGE TOWN (CONT.)
PETITION
The Petition requests to amend Sealed Plan 130563 as follows:
1. By “crossing out” the word “2” from covenant number 1 on the schedule of
Easements
OFFICER COMMENTS
It is considered that the application to remove covenant number 1 from Lot 2 on

sealed plan 130563 will have no effect on the Councils ability to continue in its land
use management administrative role when assessing any future development
proposals associated with the subject land. The proposed amendment is minor in
nature and will provide some degree of surety should future development of the land
occur.
It is noted that discussion has previously taken place on this item at the December
Council meeting, at which time Council objected to the petition as a party with an
estate or interest effected by the proposed amendment. Following on from
discussions the item was brought to Council at the February meeting (previous item).
Should Council have chosen to withdraw their objection under the previous item, the
petition to amend a sealed plan may be approved.
Should Council have nominated not to withdraw their objection, a hearing date
should be set which allow Council to be heard in relation to the petition to amend.
Should a hearing date be set, Council (as owners of CT130563/1) would need to
nominate an outside party to manage the hearing process.
That the Petition to amend Sealed Plan No 130563 associated with land located at
Old Aerodrome Road, George Town (PID 3466455), be granted pursuant to Section
104 (1) (a) of the Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993.
OR
That having received an objection to amend Sealed Plan 130563, Council must
select a date to hear any petitioner who has objected to the proposal, pursuant to
Section 104 (1) (b) of the Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1993.
Page | 55
George Town Council
AGENDA

130563 – OLD AERODROME ROAD, GEORGE TOWN (CONT.)
DECISION
VOTING

Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 56
George Town Council
AGENDA
8. WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
8.1 WEYMOUTH BRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
REPORT AUTHOR: Team Leader Works and Infrastructure
FILE NO: 63.1
ATTACHMENT/S: Diagrams of treatments for one-lane bridges
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update of withdrawing the
Weymouth Road Bridge Replacement Project from the Australian Government’s
Bridges Renewal Program and additional improvements proposed for the bridge to
enhance safety.
BACKGROUND
Council applied under Round 3 of the Australian Government’s Bridges Renewal

Program and was successful awarded in 2017 a 50:50 grant of $225,235 for the
project value of $450,470 to replace the Weymouth Road Bridge.
Weymouth Road Bridge (Bridge No. 3749) is a single-lane two-span structure

approximately 18 metres long. The abutments and pier are constructed of reinforced
concrete and built in 1985. The bridge deck is also concrete and built in 2004.
The proposal to replace the bridge is based on a decision to widen the bridge deck to
allow for two-way traffic. This would involve removing the existing deck (to be used
elsewhere), widening the abutments and pier, installation of a new concrete deck and
bridge approach road works.
Works have been undertaken to ensure bridge user safety including guardrail
replacement and installation of new approach signage, in compliance with
Department of State Growth requirements and recommendations from a Pitt & Sherry
Report on the Weymouth Road Bridge.
Council have also removed substantial vegetation on both bridge approaches which
has considerably improved line of sight.
The current bridge, as reviewed by AusSpan who does Council’s bridge maintenance
inspections, is structurally sound and without major defects. The bridge does not
need replacement until 2065 for supports and 2084 for the bridge deck.
Although Council was successful in gaining $225,235 in grant funding from the
Bridges Renewal Program, Council has not budgeted for the equivalent $225,235 as
part of the 50:50 required funding ratio.
Page | 57
George Town Council
AGENDA
8.1 WEYMOUTH BRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (CONT.)
USE OF “GIVE WAY” SIGN
Recent developments and research have demonstrated that an initial suggestion of

installing a “Give Way” sign on the Weymouth Bridge is valid.
The Department of State Growth does not have any requirements or standards
regarding Give Way signs for one-lane bridges, other than recommending
compliance with Australian Standard AS1742.2 Manual of uniform traffic control
devices - Part 2: Traffic control devices for general use.
In the Australian Standard for one-lane bridges, it is stated that the Give Way sign
may be used on one bridge approach if traffic volumes are high or there are visibility
issues.
It further states that the treatment depends on:

1. Traffic volumes
2. Bridge length
3. Visibility
4. Grade
5. Possible need to regulate driver action by signs or signals.
Given that we have higher traffic volumes in some periods, there are visibility issues,
there is certainly a grade factor and there is a possible need to regulate driver action,
Council will proceed to make plans to install a Give Way sign and associated works
(including linemarking) as per the Australian Standard. Council has a budget of
$27,000 this financial year for these works to occur.
Refer to attachment for the signage and linemarking to be installed. In the

attachment, Figure 3.11 shows the bridge approach from Weymouth and Figure 3.12
shows the bridge approach from Bridport Road.
The installation of the ”Give Way” sign on the bridge approach from Bridport Road
allows traffic outcoming from Weymouth to have right of way, and this arrangement
allows for a quicker and safer evacuation from Weymouth, Tam O’Shanter and
Lulworth during emergencies.
BRIDGES RENEWAL FUND WITHDRAWAL
Council discussion with the Bridges Renewal Program have provided Council with a
confirmation that it can withdraw from the program without penalties, that the
approved fund cannot be transferred to other Council bridge projects and that
Council will not be disadvantaged in future applications to the Program.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal 4
Strengthen the vibrancy of our towns and enhance the benefits of living in a rural
setting and living close to the river and coast.
Key objectives
To identify and respond to the changing need for infrastructure and facilities.
Page | 58
George Town Council
AGENDA
8.1 WEYMOUTH BRIDGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (CONT.)
Key priorities
Review and manage the assets and infrastructure Council currently owns in line with
community needs.
Continue regular maintenance of Council infrastructure facilities.
RISK CONSIDERATIONS
All approved works will comply with state legislation and Council’s Work Health and
Safety systems, policies and procedures.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Approved budget of $27,000 in the current 2017/2018 financial year.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
Local Government Act 1993

Local Government (Highways) Act 1982
OFFICER’S COMMENTS
Council will schedule for the “Give Way” sign and other associated signage and
linemarking works to be installed in compliance with Australian Standard AS1742.2
Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 2: Traffic control devices for general
use.
That Council approve the installation of a “Give Way” sign and other associated
signage and linemarking in compliance with Australian Standard AS1742.2 for the
approaches to the Weymouth Road Bridge, with the “Give Way” sign to be installed
on the bridge approach from Bridport Road.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 59
George Town Council
AGENDA
8.2 WEYMOUTH – ONE WAY TRAFFIC
REPORT AUTHOR: Team Leader Works and Infrastructure
FILE NO: 66.25, 66.119
ATTACHMENT/S: 1. Survey Letter

2. Responses to survey
3. Plan of proposed extension to Trevor Street
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the results of a survey
undertaken with the residents of Weymouth on the proposed one-way traffic and
information on options to resolve the traffic issue.
BACKGROUND
A request was received from the Weymouth Progress Association in 2017 requesting
Council investigate the increased traffic on Campbell and Ralph Streets, and with the
use of these narrow streets by boat traffic.
At the Council Meeting on 20 September 2017, Council requested that a report be

presented at the October 2017 Council Meeting regarding a recommendation from
the George Town Community Safety Committee meeting that a permanent
mandatory one way traffic movement system be implemented at Campbell Street and
Ralph Street in Weymouth rather than the advisory system currently in place.
The proposed one-way traffic recommendation was reviewed by a Traffic

Management consultant who provided the following advice at the October 2017
Council Meeting:
“Preliminary assessment of this proposal suggests that a standard one way system
applicable to all motorists would be most inconvenient to the residents fronting the
two streets to either enter or leave their properties, particularly for those residents
located close to Smith Street.
A one way system limited to “users of the boat ramp” would be difficult to police other
than at the western junction of the two streets, with the requirement for such a control
likely to be seen as questionable by motorists in general.
Support of such a proposal is seen as requiring information in support of the change

in regard to perceived disadvantages with the present advisory directional sign and
indicative safety hazards if some motorists from the boat ramp exit via Campbell
Street.
Prior to seeking a Tasmania Police view on the proposal it would seem appropriate to
seek the views of residents of both Campbell and Ralph Street with regard to the
installation of a one way loop and perceived hazards by vehicle with boat trailers
travelling south on Campbell Street.”
Page | 60
George Town Council
AGENDA
8.2 WEYMOUTH – ONE WAY TRAFFIC (CONT.)
The October 2017 Council Meeting considered the advice provided and passed a
resolution: “It is recommended that Council seek the views of residents of both
Campbell and Ralph Streets with regard to the installation of a one-way loop and
comments related to the perceived hazards by vehicle with boat trailers travelling
south on Campbell Street”.
SURVEY
On 31 October 2017, a survey was posted to all property owners on Campbell and
Ralph Streets seeking their participation in a survey with a response of a “Yes” or
“No’’ to the question: “Would you like a one-way loop in Weymouth?”. A map was
attached showing the direction of the one-way loop proposed. See attachment 1.
The survey closed on 14 November 2017.
A total of 90 surveys were sent out, with 59 returned (66% return). The results are as
follows.
Respond Number Percentage

Yes 9 15.3%
No 49 83.1%
Indifferent 1 1.6%
TOTAL : 59 100%
Please attachment 2 for the spreadsheet showing the responses received.
OPTIONS
Options available are:

Option Option Details Notes
No.
1 Do nothing. Not feasible, as the increased vehicle and boat
traffic will lead to issues with traffic safety and it
is likely that incidents will occur.
2 Installation of advisory signage. This is currently in place and is not effective.
3 One-way traffic flow. As discussed at Council Meetings in 2017 and
the subject of a resident survey in November
2017. However 83.1% of respondents object to
the proposed one-way traffic flow.
4 Extension of Trevor Street. Refer attachment 3 showing the Trevor Street
option of a direct access to the boat ramp
without going through Weymouth via Campbell
and Ralph Streets.
The section of vacant land between Weymouth
Road and Campbell Street is Crown land
marked as an unmade road reserve.
The scope of works would include survey and
design, 150 metres of new sealed road
construction with a width of 5.5 metres, two new
intersection treatments, traffic signage and
vegetation removal. Approximate total cost of
$150,000 to $200,000.
Page | 61
George Town Council
AGENDA
5 Traffic improvements to Allow for works to improve safety for all road
Campbell and Ralph Streets. users on Campbell, Trevor, Ralph and Smith
Streets, including vegetation removal, traffic
calming devices, improved and increased
signage and constructing a new gravel footpath
on Trevor Street from Campbell Street to the
beach to ensure boat traffic do not affect
pedestrians.
Approximate additional cost around $32,000.
This however will not solve the increased traffic
issue, but only to risk minimise the issue.
6 Extension of Trevor Street and This is the combination of Options 4 and 5, and
traffic improvements to would provide the best value and best positive
Campbell and Ralph Streets. result for the community and Council.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal 4
Key objectives
To identify and respond to the changing need for infrastructure and facilities.
Key priorities
Review and manage the assets and infrastructure Council currently owns in line with
community needs.
Continue regular maintenance of Council infrastructure facilities.
RISK CONSIDERATIONS
Not applicable. All approved works will comply with state legislation and Council’s
Work Health and Safety systems, policies and procedures.
Cost of implementing Option 4 would be $150,000 to $200,000.

Cost of implementing Option 5 would be $32,000.
Cost of implementing Option 6 would be $182,000 to $232,000.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
Local Government Act 1993.

Local Government (Highways) Act 1982
A majority of respondents (83.1%) of the council survey rejected the proposal of a

one-way traffic flow with many residents requesting Council to extend the unmade
portion of Trevor Street (Crown Land) to provide a direct access to the Boat Ramp
from Weymouth Road. This will remove the increased traffic and safety issues on
Campbell and Ralph Streets.
Page | 62
George Town Council
AGENDA
I would suggest that Council consider the following actions:

 Allocate $32,000 this financial year to install traffic safety improvements on
Campbell, Trevor, Ralph and Smith Streets to immediately provide for a safer
and user-friendly environment for both vehicles and pedestrian usage.
 Carry out the survey, design and costing for a new Trevor Street road
extension this financial year. With the design and costing of the works, we can
then list the project (with a more accurate costing) in the draft 2018/2019
Capital Works Program for consideration.
Council staff will also commence exploring available grants.
1. That Council allocate $32,000 in the 2018/2019 financial year to install traffic
safety improvements on Campbell, Trevor, Ralph and Smith Streets to
immediately provide for a safer and user-friendly environment for both vehicles
and pedestrian usage.
2. That Council allocate $15,000 in the 2018/2019 financial year for the design,
survey and costing for a new Trevor Street road extension.
3. That Council list the Trevor Street road extension construction project for
consideration in the draft 2018/2019 Capital Works Program.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 63
George Town Council
AGENDA
9. CORPORATE AND FINANCE
9.1 PRESENTATION OF REVISED LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2018|2027
REPORT AUTHOR: General Manager/Team Leader – Corporate and Finance
FILE NO: 32.1
ATTACHMENT: Long Term Financial Plan 2018 to 2027
SUMMARY
This report is to present the long term financial plan for review and consideration.
 Local Government Act 1993 - Section 70. Long-term financial management

plans.
 Local Government (Content of Plans and Strategies) Order 2014 (S.R. 2014, No.
35) - REG 5
STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal 05
Ensure Council listens to and understands community needs and continues to make
responsible decisions on behalf of the community.
Key Objective 4
Consistently achieve a high standard of internal financial and governance

arrangements.
OFFICER’S COMMENT
Council endorsed the current revised long term financial plan in January 2017, this
plan projected operating deficits until 2021 with a surplus being achieved in 2022 and
for the remainder of the plan.
In order to improve its ongoing financial sustainability, Council has since conducted
an organisational review, and an operational expenditure and revenue review
resulting in an amended long term financial plan. This draft plan was discussed and
reviewed by elected members at a Council workshop on the 7th February 2018. At
the workshop elected members were provided with the draft plan and explanations
regarding the development of the long term financial plan.
The long term financial plan has also been developed to comply with the Local
Government Act 1993 and the supporting local government orders 2014.
Page | 64
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Executive Summary
A key strategy of effective financial management is the preparation and consideration

of long term financial strategies, plans and documents.
The key reasons for the development and consideration of a long term financial
framework are:
 To establish a prudent and sound financial framework over the next 10 years
to ensure the Council’s strategic goals are achieved;
 To provide an assessment of the financial resources required to accomplish
the objectives and goals included in Council’s strategic plan;
 To establish a basis to measure the Council’s adherence to its policies and
strategies;
 To assist Council to comply with sound financial management principles, in
accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and to plan for the long term
financial sustainability of the municipal area.
The long term financial plan is not intended to be static, but rather it is intended to be
reviewed annually as part of the annual planning and budget process so as to
incorporate any future changes in council policy, new initiatives or strategic direction.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Council adopted a financial strategy in December 2015, this strategy is in the process
of being reviewed, the updated strategy will then be reviewed by the Audit Panel
meeting in March 2018 and will then be presented to Council for adoption.
Underlying Surplus
Council recorded underlying deficits of $0.81 million and $1.01 million respectively in
the 2015-16 and 2016-17. Meaning that recurrent income was insufficient to cover
recurrent expenditure in these years. Whilst these deficits were not cash losses, as
they include allowances for depreciation, they are indicative of an organisation which
over time is unable to generate sufficient fund asset replacements.
The key reason for these results recurrent expenditure has outstripped recurrent
revenue growth over last four years. Recurrent revenue grew by $0.80 million or 8%
from $9.93 million in 2013-14 to $10.73 million in 2016-17. However, in the same
four year period recurrent expenditure rose by $1.57 million from $9.70 million to
$11.27 million with the key drivers being:
 Depreciation expense increased by $0.85 million from $2.12 million to $2.97
million following asset condition assessments and revaluations.
 Other operating expenses, including employee costs, rising by $0.72 million

or 9.5% from $7.58 million to $8.30 million.
Council recognised the immediate need to improve its ongoing financial sustainability
and have completed a review of operational revenue and expenditure expected to
realise an operating surplus in 2018-19.
Page | 65
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
Key areas of change from the original plan -
 Employment cost reductions - This has involved a revision to the organisation

chart including a flatter management structure and outsourcing of some
functions.
 TasWater dividend reductions - TasWater has flagged a reduction in total
distributions to Owner Councils from $30 million to $20 million per annum.
The reduction of $93 thousand represents the effect on Council’s distribution
from TasWater.
 Depreciation reduction - Council expects to complete a substantial capital
works program on new or upgraded assets by the end of 2018-19 primarily on
roads, parks and reserves and waste management which will increase
depreciation charges by approximately $160 thousand per annum. However,
offsetting this increase Council has conducted a review of current
depreciation rates on roads by benchmarking with other similar regional
Councils in Tasmania and by review of roads data and inspections. Current
internal engineering advice indicates that the useful lives of road assets may
extended by approximately 13 years on average from 57 years to 70 years.
This will result in a reduction in depreciation expense of $290 thousand. This
work will be externally reviewed by Council’s appointed independent
infrastructure valuer (Moloney Asset Management Systems) during the 2017-
18 year.
 Rates & charges increase – to be achieved in line with inflation and
additionally through minor rate and charges adjustments.
Asset Sustainability
Many of Council’s services to the community are asset based such as roads,
drainage and community facilities. Council is responsible for managing a large asset
base relative to its annual income level. These assets are typically long lived but as
they age they require additional maintenance to preserve preferred minimum service
levels. However, over time the maintenance effort is no longer cost effective and
assets require renewal or replacement.
Council has recognised that the sustainability of its large existing asset base needs
to be carefully considered and adequate funds included in long term financial
planning. Council prepared an initial set of asset management plans in 2017 and is
currently in the process of reviewing and updating these plans in 2018. Council will
update this long term financial plan once this review is competed.
CASH AND DEBT LEVELS
Council is projected to remain well with cash and debt level requirements over the
course of the plan noting there is projected capacity to manage:
 Additional expenditure than forecast on renewal or replacement of existing
assets noting the comments in the previous section on Asset Sustainability
that Council is currently projecting capital expenditure on renewals or
replacement which is less than depreciation.
Page | 66
George Town Council
AGENDA

(CONT.)
 Contingent events such as weather events which may not be fully covered by
insurance.
That Council:
(a) Receives and acknowledges the revised long term financial plan; and
(b) Acknowledges that the long term financial plan will be revised, refreshed and
extended on an annual basis; and
(c) Acknowledges the prepared long term financial plan (and future revised
versions) will act as a guiding document in the consideration of future annual
budget deliberations.
DECISION
VOTING

Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 67
George Town Council
AGENDA
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Nil.
Page | 68
George Town Council
AGENDA
11. MAYOR
11.1 MATTERS OF INVOLVEMENT – MAYOR
FILE NO.: 14.11
Mayor Bridget Archer

January 18 Attended Waste Transfer Station Opening
Attended internal Mayor update meeting with General Manager,
Community and Governance staff
25 Met with Council Staff re Australia Day arrangements
Attended George Town Rock School 2018 – Port Dalrymple School
26 Attended Australia Day breakfast and festivities
February 1 Attended internal Mayor update meeting with General Manager,
Attended Timberlink rebrand launch
Attended Launceston Academic College – Academic Awards
Ceremony
7 Attended Council workshop
8 Attended meeting re Go George Town Proposal with General
Manager and representative Healthy Tasmania
8 Attended Tasmanian Women in Resources Awards 2018 launch
15 Attended meeting with George Town RSL re: “George Town
Remembers” project
21 Attended Council meeting
That the information report from the Mayor on Matters of Involvement be received
and the information noted.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 69
George Town Council
AGENDA
12. GENERAL MANAGER
12.1 COUNCIL WORKSHOPS – FEBRUARY 2018
REPORT AUTHOR: General Manager
FILE NO: 14.10
ATTACHMENT/S: Nil
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide a record of workshops held in accordance

with the requirements of Section 8(2)(c) of the Local Government (Meeting
Procedures) Regulations 2015.
DATE AND PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP HELD
WEDNESDAY 7TH FEBRUARY 2018
 Representatives Chamber of Commerce re Mountain Bike Trail

 Long Term Financial Management Plan
 Potential Land Sales
 Airport Lease
 Notice of Motion – Cr Glisson
 Review of Draft Audio Recording of Council Meetings Policy No. 40 – Version 05
 Bell Bay Precinct Industrial Development Plan
 Councillor Allowances Review
 January 2018 Council Minutes
 Legal Matter
 Closed Meetings – Regulations/Procedures
Present: Mayor Bridget Archer, Deputy Mayor Tim Harris, Cr Heather

Barwick, Cr Doug Burt, Cr Chris Ashley, Cr Greg Dawson, Cr John
Glisson, Cr Tim Parish, Cr Peter Parkes
Apologies: Nil
In Attendance: General Manager

Team Leader Corporate & Finance
Governance Support Officer
That Council receives the report from the General Manager and notes the
information.
Page | 70
George Town Council
AGENDA
12.1 COUNCIL WORKSHOPS – FEBRUARY 2018 (CONT.)
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 71
George Town Council
AGENDA
12.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

POLICY NO. 40 – VERSION 05
REPORT: 8h February 2018
FILE NO: 14.13
ATTACHMENT: Draft Audio Recording of Council Meetings Policy No. 40 –

Version 05
SUMMARY
To submit the revised Draft Audio Recording of Council Meetings Policy No. 40 –
Version 05 (the Policy) to Council for consideration and adoption.
BACKGROUND
At the 2017 Annual General Meeting the following motion was accepted and carried:
“That Council change its policy of keeping of audio recordings of Council meetings to
that of keeping the recordings in perpetuity to benefit any future social history.”
The motion was referred to the December 2017 ordinary meeting of Council whereby
it was resolved (Council res 322/17):
“That the motion be acknowledged and the proposed amendment to the George
Town Council Audio Recording of Council Meetings Policy be referred to the
February 2018 workshop for further discussion.”
The proposed amendments to the Policy were discussed at the Council workshop
held on the 7th February 2018.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal 05
Key Objective 1
arrangements.
LEGISLATION
 Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015

 Local Government Act 1993
 Personal Information Protection Act 2004
 Tasmanian Archive & Heritage Office (Records Retention & Disposal Schedule
for Local Government in Tasmania)
Page | 72
George Town Council
AGENDA
12.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

POLICY NO. 40 – VERSION 05 (CONT.)
GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL POLICY
 Policy Development, Approval and Review Policy No. 9

 Public Question Time Policy No. 18
 Risk Management Policy No. 33
TYPE OF POLICY & APPROVAL AUTHORITY
This Policy is recognised as a “Council Governance” Policy in accordance with the

requirements of Council’s Policy Development, Approval and Review Policy No. 9.
Council is the approval authority for this Policy.
No financial implications are recognised other than the administrative costs in the
preparation and provision of copies of the audio recordings.
RISK CONSIDERATIONS
No risks are recognised in the review and purpose of this Policy.
The Policy has been amended to reflect the intent of the motion from the 2017
Annual General Meeting. These amendments are highlighted in yellow.
The existing policy requirements in respect to the retaining and storage of recordings
are highlighted in green.
Should Council adopt the Policy as presented, it is not considered necessary to

advertise the Policy for public comment as the amendment is minor is nature.
That Council endorse the amendments to the Draft Audio Recording of Council
Policy No. 40 – Version 05 as presented.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 73
George Town Council
AGENDA
12.3 POTENTIAL COUNCIL LAND SALES
FILE NO: 32.36
ATTACHMENT/S: (A) Extract Confirmed Minutes – 19th July 2017

(B) Submissions
(C) Title 21509/16, 30 Davies St, George Town
(D) Title 13111/505, 241 Agnes St, George Town
(E) Title 37050/19, 15 Riverleads Dr, George Town
(F) Title 13111/501, Woolcott Ct, George Town
(G) Title 124457/11, Gerzalia Drive, George Town
(H) Title 135076/105, Gerzalia Drive, George Town
BACKGROUND
The sale of excess Council land was previously considered at the Council meeting
held on the 15 March 2017. At that meeting Council resolved to discuss the matter
further at the next available workshop.
A follow up discussion on the matter took place at the Council workshop held on the
7th June 2017.
Further discussion took place at the Council workshop held on the 5th July 2017.
At the ordinary Council meeting held on the 19th July 2017, it was resolved (203/17):
That Council:
(a) Authorises the Acting General Manager to apply the processes determined by
sections 177 through to 178A of the Local Government Act 1993 (where
relevant to the land) to land identified as PID 1931747, 6450301, 1723024,
7888524, 1737346, 2048374.
(b) Authorises the Acting General Manager to apply to the holder of the Caveat
C774447 and the Land Titles Office for the removal of the Caveat on land
identified as PID 6447460 and if the Caveat C774447 is removed, to apply the
processes determined by sections 177 through to 178A of the Local
Government Act 1993 (where relevant to the land) on the land identified as PID
6447460.
(c) Authorises the Acting General Manager to apply the processes determined by
sections 177 through to 178A of the Local Government Act 1993 (where
relevant to the land) to apply to transfer the land identified as PID 2526022
back to Housing Tasmania under reservation C627696.
(d) Authorises the Acting General Manager to apply to Taswater to facilitate the
placement of an easement on the land identified as PID 6457933 and at the
completion of the easement, apply the processes determined by sections 177
through to 178A of the Local Government Act 1993 (where relevant to the
land).
(e) Authorises the General Manager to obtain a flora and fauna report for the land
identified as PID 2721418.
Page | 74
George Town Council
AGENDA
12.3 POTENTIAL COUNCIL LAND SALES (CONT.)
STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal 4
Objective 1
To identify and respond to changing needs for infrastructure and facilities.
Goal 5
Key Objective 4
arrangements.
RISK CONSIDERATIONS
The risks of selling public land may be that Council might determine in the future that
the land was required for a park or other community purpose. Given the plentiful
areas of open space within the George Town community this risk is considered low
impact.
The financial implications including costs, potential savings and future revenue are
outlined within the extract of the confirmed minutes 19th July 2017 as attached to this
workshop brief.
LEGAL AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) s.177, s.177A, s.178 and s.178A
Power to Deal with Property
Under subsection 20 (5) of the Act a Council can acquire, hold, dispose of and
otherwise deal with property.
What is Public Property?
Section 177A of the Act stipulates that the following land owned by a Council is
determined to be ‘Public Land’
 A public pier or jetty;
 Any land that provides health, recreation, amusement or sporting facilities for
public use;
 Any public park or garden;
 any land shown on a subdivision plan as public open space that is acquired
by Council under the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1993;
 any other land that the Council determines is public land
Page | 75
George Town Council
AGENDA
Deciding to sell public land
When a Council decides to deal with public land under Section 178 of the Act, it must
be done in an open meeting (Sub-regulation 15 (3) (c) and passed by an absolute
majority (178 (3)).
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Section 178 of the Local Government Act 1993, (the Act), defines an extensive public
consultation process. Section 178A of the Act defines an appeal process which the
community can utilise.
In accordance with Council resolution 203/17 and s.178 of the Local Government Act
Council’s notice of intent to sell the following land was placed in the Examiner
newspaper on Wednesday 20th September 2017 and Wednesday 27th September
2017:
Property Owner Current Use Zoning
30 Davies Street PID 6450301 GTC Vacant Land General Residential
241 Agnes Street PID 1931747 GTC Vacant Land General Residential
15 Riverleads Drive PID 1723024 GTC Vacant Land General Residential
Lot 501 Woolcock Court PID 7888524 GTC Vacant Land General Residential
Gerzalia Drive PID 1737346 GTC Vacant Land Low Density Residential
Gerzalia Drive PID 2048374 GTC Vacant Land General Residential
Note: Only those properties listed in the Council resolution 203/17 (a) have been
advertised to date as the remaining properties require further investigations
and actions.
CONSIDERING PUBLIC OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SALE OF PUBLIC LAND

Subsection 178 (4) of the Act makes provision for a person to object to a council’s
intent to sell, lease, donate, exchange or otherwise dispose of land. Under section
178 (6) a council must consider any such objections received and decide whether to
take any action regarding the objection.
If objections to the intention to sell are received, s178(6) of the Local Government Act
1993 requires the matter to go back to Council for a final decision.
Page | 76
George Town Council
AGENDA
The requirement to “consider any objection lodged” is met by:
a. attaching copies of all objectives to the relevant Agenda item; and
b. summarising the objections in the officer’s report using a table, etc. and ensure
that the officer’s recommendation considers the matters raised in those
objections.
Page | 77
George Town Council
AGENDA
Submissions received.
Three (3) submissions were received, copies of which form attachments to this report and are summarised below. Council officer comments
outlining the consideration of each submission is provided in accordance with Section 78 (6) of the Act.
Objector Property Summary of Objection Officer’s Comments
Mr Graeme Neilsen Lot 501 Woolcock Court  This parcel of land is intrinsic in the long term This parcel of land is located in the unmade
George Town PID 7888524 and future development of land owned by the subdivision owned by the Department of Health and
state. Human Services (DHHS). Given Council are not
 The entire and substantial residential complex currently aware of the department’s intention for this
on the northern boundary of the town land it would pose some difficulties in regard to selling
represents a splendid opportunity for growth and then developing the title.
in the medium to long term. The submission raises some valid points for
 Forward thinking planning of the Master Plan consideration assuming the subdivsion is eventually
had a series of cul-de-sac residential areas constructed as initially intended however there are
linked by interlocking recreational areas. This multiple areas set aside for parks in this subdivision.
forward thinking strategy was aimed to
enhance what some would deem as a It is the officer’s recommendation to retain the parcel of
concentrated and bland environment. land until such time as the General Manager has held
 The very purpose of cul-de-sac infrastructure discussions with the Minister in regards to DHHS
is to eliminate through roads but as it is in this intentions for the land which may present opportunity
case provide linkage of user friendly and for innovative economic development and investment
aesthetic appeal spaces. into the area.
 Natural open and native spaces are an asset
for those in a sometimes bland housing
environment.
 The intent of the several parcels of land
connecting the substantial cul-de-sac
development had interlocking reserves
incorporated in their design.
Page | 78
George Town Council
AGENDA
Gerzalia Drive  This parcel of land was a requirement by At the time of subdivision the Council have the ability
PID 1737346 Council to allocate for “Open Public Space” in to ask for either an open space contribution OR a
lieu of 5% of land value. financial contribution up to 5% value of the unimproved
 Council quite correctly deemed that there was land incorporated in the subdivision.
no public recreational space in the vicinity and At the time of this subdivision it may have been
the parcel of land negotiated represented the determined that the land was required for future open
only access to the waterfront areas adjacent space purposes however with attitudes towards open
to the entire subdivision. spaces changing the lot is now determined to be
 The total design of the Low Density residential surplus to Council’s strategic needs.
zone took into account that future subdivision Where once there was a small park with a swing and a
as the town developed the land could be slide every few blocks, Councils are now rationalising
rezoned into General Residential. these parks and creating larger, more inclusive public
 It should be noted that this substantial area of open spaces which provide for multiple users. This
George Town in the southern sector is the last also encourages social inclusion due to the broader
that can be developed due to the restrictions demographic of uses coming into contact with one
of the bordering Industrial Zone. another on a daily basis.
The maintenance, upkeep and depreciation of having
many smaller parks makes them financially
unsustainable and we see this occurring across
regional areas where equipment is removed at the end
of its useful life and not able to be replaced.
The officer’s recommendation is to sell with investment
of the proceeds into public open space.
15 Riverleads Drive  The developer of this subdivision was At the time of subdivision the Council have the ability
PID 1723024 required to allocate this allotment and not to ask for either an open space contribution OR a
afforded the option of a 5% cash contribution financial contribution up to 5% value of the unimproved
at the insistence of Council who deemed that land incorporated in the subdivision.
there was no public allocated recreational At the time of this subdivision it may have been
space in the area due to an earlier determined that the land was required for future open
Page | 79
George Town Council
AGENDA
administrative oversight where land allocated space purposes however with attitudes towards open
was resumed by a landowner. spaces changing the lot is now determined to be
 Council insisted that there was a need due to surplus to Council’s strategic needs.
no other recreation land allocation from York Where once there was a small park with a swing and a
Cove to beyond Lawrence Street. slide every few blocks, Councils are now rationalising
 The developer voluntarily and at their own these parks and creating larger, more inclusive public
expense created the walkway linking Reece open spaces which provide for multiple users. This
Street to Riverleads Drive to access the also encourages social inclusion due to the broader
recreation land and beyond. demographic of uses coming into contact with one
 The allotment was specifically subdivided in another on a daily basis.
consultation with Council and allocated a The maintenance, upkeep and depreciation of having
service entrance of three (3) metres which I many smaller parks makes them financially
believe is less than the requirement for a unsustainable and we see this occurring across
residential subdivision. regional areas where equipment is removed at the end
 A previous proposal by Council to sell this of its useful life and not able to be replaced.
land was abandoned for all the right reasons Reece Street is in close proximity to the start of the
which are still relevant today. Kanamaluka trail and hectares of bushland which
provides physical activity and open space exploring
opportunities.
The officer’s recommendation is to sell.
30 Davies Street  This land is most likely resumed for unpaid The property could be offered to adjoining landowners
PID 6450301 rates is on an unmade road and unless in what could be a positive opportunity for both parties.
purchased by an adjoining landholder who One party increases the size of their land holdings
could adhere the titles will present a negative without increasing rates under current model and
financial return for ratepayers if the purchaser Council decreases maintenance costs while obtaining
requests the basic services of road and some funds to put back into the community for the use
footpath, etc. and enjoyment of all.
241 Agnes Street  Historically this allotment was set aside for a This title is in a higher density unit area and lends itself
PID 1931747 recreational area when subdivided by the to be developed in the same pattern given its ‘dual
government of the day. road accesses. With plenty of undeveloped land set
 The allotment is used by residents of Edward aside for open space in the undeveloped subdivision,
Court as a thoroughfare to connect with this site would not be considered for the development
Page | 80
George Town Council
AGENDA
Agnes Street to schools and shops, etc. of a new park or recreation space.
 Amenity of the well-used thoroughfare will be Residents of Edward Court have access to Agnes
compromised if the total allotment is sold. street via a 100m walk along Dunning Avenue.
The officer’s recommendation is to sell.
Gerzalia Drive No objection to the sale of this property, but notes Council officers agree and note the use of the site is
PID 2048374 the appeal to purchase is restricted to only one limited to a single adjoining owner.
adjoining owner. Recommendation is to pursue possible sale
discussions with adjoining neighbour.
Ms Wendy Jackson Gerzalia Drive  In 1990’s undertook subdivision where This parcel of land has potential to be retained and
George Town PID 1737346 Council had overlooked the public open developed further but would require considerable
space. The only option was for Council to expenditure. Access to the water is currently difficult
take the land off my block 51 Gerzalia Drive. without vegetation removal and approval to remove
There was no offer of “cash in lieu” or would be unlikely given the stability of some of the river
contribution. banks in this area (landslip declared on parts of Tamar
 If this land is not being used for what it was Avenue). It is in a low density populate area and the
taken from me for, which is public open costs of maintenance vs. usage need to be weighed
space, I would hope that the Council will work up.
something out for me. The officer’s recommendation is to sell with investment
 Request for an extension to get more of the proceeds into public open space within the
information for lawyer. community.
Mr & Mrs Rob and Val Gerzalia Drive  This long narrow section bordering a property Given the commentary it is suspected that the
Colgrave PID 1737346 which we sold was acquired by Council for submission for PID 1737346 and PID 2048374 by
George Town future service work, something to do with a Colgrave have been transposed and written response
future sewerage pump. We request that address correct PID.
inquiries be made re this matter. We believe This parcel of land has potential to be retained and
the section forms part of the near neighbour’s developed further but would require considerable
fenced section and is maintained by them. expenditure. Access to the water is currently difficult
without vegetation removal and approval to remove
would be unlikely given the stability of some of the river
banks in this area (landslip declared on parts of Tamar
Avenue). It is located in a low-density area and the
Page | 81
George Town Council
AGENDA
costs of maintenance vs. usage need to be weighed

up.
The officer’s recommendation is to sell with investment
of the proceeds into public open space.
Gerzalia Drive  This allotment was selected to comply with It is suspected that the submission for PID 1737346
PID 2048374 the requirement to make available 5% of land and PID 2048374 by Colgrave have been transposed.
to be subdivided or 5% of the land value. Use of the site is limited to a single adjoining owner.
 Would have preferred the latter but Council Recommendation is to pursue possible sale
insisted on the land transfer. The reasons discussions with adjoining neighbour.
given were that there were no other recreation
open space available in this new subdivision
and because the low density could well be
converted into a more concentrated housing
area in the future the need for open space
would increase.
 The land presented a pristine natural
environment (fauna & flora) and the only
access to the Tamar River (Deceitful Cove).
 The land was the only section of the
subdivision that had not been disturbed for
agriculture and horse training facilities. This
all added to the ongoing use as a delightful
low maintenance recreation area.
 I have observed many using the area and it
should be noted that it was a requirement to
put in a modest car park layby.
 This was not an area set aside for a
conversion to a public reserve but is rather an
active and valuable asset for near neighbours
and has the potential for further publicity and
use.
Page | 82
George Town Council
AGENDA
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
Section 178A of the Act provides those persons who have lodged an objection or submission
with a right of appeal to the Resource Management and Appeals Tribunal (RMPAT). An
appeal may be made if the objector believes that the decision of Council has not been made
in the public interest due to there not being a similar facility available for use or because the
Community may suffer undue hardship as a result of losing access to the public land.
OFFICERS SUMMARY
Division 8 – 116 and 117 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous) Act 1993 –
makes provision for the Council to acquire either an open space contribution OR a financial
contribution up to 5% value of the unimproved land incorporated in the subdivision. This can
vary with each subdivision depending on the need in the immediate area.
At the time of the subdivisions associated with the subject lots it may have been determined
that the land was required for future open space purposes however with attitudes towards
open spaces changing some lots are now determined to be surplus to Council’s strategic
needs.
Where once there was a small park with a swing and a slide every few blocks, Councils are
now rationalising these parks and creating larger, more inclusive public open spaces which
provide for multiple users. This also encourages social inclusion due to the broader
demographic of uses meeting one another daily.
The maintenance, upkeep and depreciation of having many smaller parks makes them
financially unsustainable and we see this occurring across regional areas where equipment
is removed at the end of its useful life and not always replaced.
Council are legally able to deal with / dispose of land which it no longer requires for open
space but must consult with the community, consider the objections and then decide which
must meet the following test:
1. Will the sale of the land cause the community to suffer undue hardship due to the loss
of access to, and the use of the public land; and
2. Are there similar facilities, or open space sites, available to the community to utilise
instead?
That Council resolve to:
a) Retain Lot 501 Woolcock Court (PID 7888524) until it becomes known how the
surrounding land owned by DHHS is to be developed;
b) Sell Gerzalia Drive (PID 1737346) with proceeds from the sale to be invested into
public open space within the community;
c) Sell 15 Riverleads Drive (PID 1723024) with proceeds from the sale to be invested into
Page | 83
George Town Council
AGENDA
d) Offer for sale 30 Davies Street (PID 6450301) to adjoining land owners only due to the
existing access issues and limited use as standalone parcel of land;
e) Sell 241 Agnes Street (PID 1931747) with proceeds from the sale to be invested into
f) Offer for sale Gerzalia Drive (PID 2048374) to adjoining land owner due to limited
development opportunity;
g) Offer for sale Gerzalia Drive (PID 1737346) with proceeds from the sale to be invested
into public open space within the community.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 84
George Town Council
AGENDA
12.4 MT GEORGE MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL – PRIORITY PROJECT, OUT OF BUDGET

FUNDING REQUEST AND PROJECT GOVERNANCE
FILE NO: 14.13
ATTACHMENT/S: (A) World Trail Site Visit Report

(B) Tasmanian Cycle Tourism grant funding letter confirmation
(C) Key stakeholders table – Mountain bike trail projects
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to seek ‘out of budget’ funding of $8500 to facilitate a concept
report for the Mt George Mountain Bike Trail and to establish the governance model under
which the project will be managed.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic vision to 2026:
In 2026, the George Town municipal area will be a proud community where people from all
ages participate in our active recreational and community life and where we treasure the
immense beauty of our natural environment and rich heritage. We will embrace our industries
to drive our prosperity and growth.
Goal 1:
Foster the growth of a diverse business and industry mix and to foster population growth
Key Objective:
1. Promote growth, both in population and business (particularly tourism) through advocacy,
promotion, marketing and engagement.
3. Support tourism stakeholders in the municipality to develop destination experiences,
particularly targeting integration into State-wide and Regional initiatives.
4. Engage in the promotion of Regional and State economic development thereby
acknowledging George Towns connections with the wider economy.
RISK MANAGEMENT
The reallocated funding is required to commission the concept plan which is the next step in
the Mountain Bike Track project planning process. The risk in not funding the $8500 required
at this point is that the work will be delayed and potentially impact on the grant that has been
awarded to complete the feasibility report.
Page | 85
George Town Council
AGENDA

FUNDING REQUEST AND PROJECT GOVERNANCE (CONT.)
Council has also identified a possible risk to the governance of the project with a separate,
enthusiastic group pursuing the project utilising Councils site visit/pre-feasibility document.
This report seeks to address these issues in order to ensure the success of the project
moving forward.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the George Town Council commissioned a pre-feasibility/site visit report into the
possibility of developing a Mountain Bike Trail to commence from Mt George through to
Curries River Dam. The work was carried out by World Trail Pty Ltd after a site visit was
conducted on the 10th April, followed by the release of the report on the 15th May 2017.
In summary, it was found that:
 the George Town site has good physical characteristics for trail development – good
soils, abundant rock, low-moderate vegetation density, scenic values, topography and
access for construction which should translate into a relatively affordable trail
construction.
 the site should accommodate a medium size trail network of up to 50km (approximately 2
days of riding – perfect for a weekend);
 being close to Launceston, George Town is well located to attract both local Launceston
riders and visiting mountain bikers flying into Launceston to travel to other mountain
biking destinations in northeast Tasmania;
 in order to obtain maximum success George Town should consider marketing and
branding itself as part of the broader northeast Tasmanian cycling product.
Work published by TRC Tourism indicates there is an additional 138,000 visitors to

Tasmania directly attracted by Mountain Bike trails which equates to a 6.88 million injection
into the Tasmanian economy. Given George Town’s close proximity to Launceston City/the
Launceston airport, and the support services offered by a larger regional township than found
at other trail locations including accommodation, food venues, activities for families and
medical support, there is a high level of confidence that the Mt George Trail would become
the starting point for those visiting Northern Tasmania to ride the sequence of trails.
Construction of the trail is estimated to cost approximately $2 – 2.5 million (based on

anecdotal evidence of existing trail construction costings per km) but there is a high level of
confidence that the expenditure would be offset in the first year of opening by the economic
injection back into the region. This is based on the economic outcomes that are occurring
with the development of similar trails in other regional areas of Tasmania.
STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION
The project aligns with a number of local and state-wide policy and position papers such as
the:
• George Town Council Strategic Plan 2016 – 2026
• Tasmanian Visitor Strategy
• Tasmanian Mountain Bike plan (2009)
• Mountain Bike Tourism Potential in Northern Tasmania (2001)
Page | 86
George Town Council
AGENDA

• Recreation Trails Strategy

• Healthy Tasmania 5 – year Strategy (draft Dec 2015)
BENEFITS TO THE GEORGE TOWN COMMUNITY AND NORTHERN REGION

This project meets the criteria to be identified as a priority project for the following reasons:
• Increased job creation during construction and ongoing employment creation in direct
response to visitation to the Mt George Mountain Bike Trail;
• Introduces a point of difference into the existing Northern/Tasmanian bike trail network
with the track being constructed for all ages and skill level as well as the possibility of
introducing water activities and camping at Curries River Dam (subject to TasWater
approvals);
• Creates a national and international profile for George Town and increases the existing
profile of Northern Tasmania by attracting a high yield visitor demographic;
• New business opportunities and the improved viability of existing businesses in George
Town;
• The length of the track, including recreational activities at Curries River Dam, is the
perfect weekend/long weekend for both locals and interstate visitors;
• Mountain biking is a growing industry with unlimited possibilities and this project would
provide much needed economic diversification to a region which is heavily reliant on an
industry which has an uncertain/volatile long-term future;
• The project would increase/improve the profile of George Town and the region, which in
turn assists in population growth and investor confidence;
• Strengthens existing accommodation and food service businesses and creates additional
demand;
• Provides an alternative than riding on the highway (shared with a high percentage of
trucks and industrial vehicles) for those cyclists who want an extended ride which is
considered safer;
• Increases options for physical recreation in the region which leads to improved health and
reduced burden on the health system.
PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
TASK % DONE DUE DATE DRIVER FUNDING

Prefeasibility 100 Received Council $3300
report 15th May
2017
Concept Discussions March / April GT Council/ GT $17 000
report commenced and 2018 Chamber of $8500 committed by
part funded. Commerce/ BBA
Bell Bay Aluminium $8500 – funding
sought from Council
cash reserves
Page | 87
George Town Council
AGENDA

TASK % DONE DUE DATE DRIVER FUNDING

Feasibility Discussions May / June Council $50, 000 Funding
report commenced. 2018 obtained through
Fully funded. Tas Cycle Tourism
Funding grant.
Build 0% Not set Council / Grant application
Contractors opportunity:
estimated build $2m
PROJECT GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATION

The most common governance model for Mountain Bike Trail construction and ongoing
management falls under State and Local Government management due to a range of
reasons including ownership of the subject land, project funding requirement and
qualification, established governance and procurement structures and ongoing maintenance
responsibility.
Given that Council commissioned the initial report and have successfully obtained a grant for
the bulk of the remaining reports and is a significant land and asset owner pertinent to the
success of the project, it is recommended that it continue to take the lead on the project and
invite a range of stake holders to form a reference group in line with the key stakeholders
table already identified in Tasmania’s Cycle Tourism Strategic Action Plan to 2020.
While invited to join the reference group, it would not be a requirement for each identified
stakeholder to participate in or be present at every meeting due to and for this reason it not
recommended that Council form a S.24 Special Committee under the Local Government Act.
If any of the reference group participants chose to financially contribute to the project, such
as the case with Bell Bay Aluminium, it is recommended that the funding be provided directly
to the Council as the project owner/manager.
PROPOSED REFERENCE GROUP

Drawing on information provided within Tasmania’s Cycle Tourism Strategic Action Plan to
2020 (see attachment), Council officers acknowledge that in order for the project planning
stage to be successful and to minimise risk, the following entities/groups/individuals are to be
invited to participate in the reference group under Council leadership:
• The George Town Chamber of Commerce representing the Commercial Operators

• A member from a local cycling/recreation group;
• Regional Development Australia (RDA);
• Tourism North Tasmania/Events Tasmania ;
• Northern Tasmania Development Corporation (NTDC);
• Parks & Wildlife/Crown (land owner);
• Bell Bay Aluminium (land owner and project sponsor);
• TasWater (land owner) ;
Page | 88
George Town Council
AGENDA

The development of a memorandum of understanding is highly desirable in order to formalise

the Project Governance, including agreed communication strategy with Council being the
central point for all discussions with consultants, land owners and potential funding partners.
To date, the financial commitment from Council to the Mt George Mountain Bike project has
been extremely low when considering the economic outcomes and benefits a project of this
calibre would bring to George Town as a region. $50 000 funding for the feasibility report has
already been committed by the State Government through a successful grant Tas Cycle
Tourism grant application.
Ordinarily the General Manager would have access to discretionary funding for projects such
as this however this funding had already been committed at 31st July 2017. While there are
other projects within the budget where the funding could be moved from it has been
determined that the correct process would be to seek an out of budget approval.
That Council resolve to:
a) Commit $8500 from cash reserves towards the Mt George Mountain Bike concept report
with the knowledge that the feasibility report is funded by the Tasmanian Cycle Tourism
funding grant; and
b) Write to the entities identified as key stakeholders and invite them to form a Mt George
Mountain Bike project reference group with Council as the project manager.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 89
George Town Council
AGENDA
13. PETITIONS
Nil.
Page | 90
George Town Council
AGENDA
14. NOTICES OF MOTIONS
14.1 PROPOSED SALE OF GEORGE TOWN AIRPORT
Moved: Cr Glisson
That in line with council decision minute no 437/08 the General Manager be directed to
advertise the Airport site for sale with tenants, the process to be by closed tender and be
advertised nationally.”
Reasons
Council considered this matter on a number of occasions including in 21st May 2008
(209/08) when it determined that the general manager:
1. Offer the property (the airport) for sale for the sum of $360,000.
2. That the Association be advised that the Council intends to increase the lease
payment for the facility to $29,000 p.a., and
3. In the event that the Association does not take up the offer to purchase, that the
facility be offered for sale with tenants”
Council resolved in June 2008 to inform the Airport Association that the Airport was to be
sold.
In November 2008 council directed the GM to proceed to advertise the sale of the airport.
GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS
This matter will be explored further during the 2018/2019 budget preparation.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 91
George Town Council
AGENDA
14.2 GENERAL MANAGER – CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT
Moved: Cr Glisson
That council congratulate the General Manager on completing her probationary period in the
role of general manager, and formally confirm her appointment to the ongoing role of general
manager.
Reasons
Probation period has been completed in line with the contract.
Performance has met or exceeded expectation of council.
Council has an obligation under the contract to confirm the general manager’s appointment
after completion of the probation period.
Satisfaction expressed by ratepayers has been very positive and council’s reputation has
been enhanced during the past six months.
Under the general managers leadership council has become more united and cohesive as a
unit. Restructure has been undertaken, finance review has been addressed.
Greater transparency is evident.
GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS
Due to the nature of Cr Glisson’s motion it is not appropriate for the General Manager to
provide comment.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 92
George Town Council
AGENDA
15. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM

PREVIOUS ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING
[Refer to Minute No. 362/15 which states "At any Ordinary Meeting of Council when a
'without notice' question from a councillor is accepted, and when this question is taken on
notice',
a) The General Manager is to record in the minutes of that meeting the 'question', and
that the question was 'taken on notice'.
b) Provide the answer to the question 'taken on notice, at the next Ordinary Meeting of
Council, in writing.”]
Cr Dawson (15th November 2017)
Cr Dawson requested an update on motion 134/17 (c) scoping, design, costings and risk for
areas listed.
Response
The following interim response is provided. Further information will be presented to the next
Council workshop and responded to in the next ordinary Council agenda:
 Goulburn Street (Black spot treatment at intersection with Cimitiere Street) – Works will
start in March 2018.
 Weymouth Road - This project was removed from the revised 2017/2018 Capital Works
Program as approved at the Ordinary Council meeting on 15 November 2017.
 Lulworth (Hurst Street stormwater drainage) – Design currently underway. Installation is
scheduled in 2018/2019 if design is appropriate and acceptable.
 Bellingham (Smith and Howard Streets stormwater drainage works) – Works will start in
March 2018.
Page | 93
George Town Council
AGENDA
16. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Nil.
Page | 94
George Town Council
AGENDA
17. CLOSED MEETING
17.1 INTO CLOSED MEETING
Moved: Cr
Seconded: Cr
That Council move into closed meeting at ................. to discuss the following items:
Item No. 1 Confirmation of Confidential Minutes of Council’s Ordinary meeting held on the
17th January 2018 LG(MP)R 15(2)(g) and LG(MP)R 34(6)
Item No. 2 Legal Expenditure LG(MP)R 15(2) (a); (b); (d); (e)(i)(ii); (f); (g); (i); and (j)
Item No. 3 Legal Matter LG(MP)R 15 (2) (g) and (i)
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
Page | 95
George Town Council
AGENDA
17.5 OUT OF CLOSED MEETING
Moved:
Seconded:
That Council moves out of the Closed Meeting and endorse those decisions taken while in
Closed Meeting and the information remains Confidential.
DECISION
VOTING
Cr Archer Cr Dawson
Cr Ashley Cr Parish
Cr Burt
There being no further business, the meeting closed at ………..
Cr Bridget Archer
MAYOR
Page | 96

George Town February Agenda

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

George Town February Agenda

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

George Town Council

COUNCIL MEETING – 21ST FEBRUARY 2018

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 4

5. GENERAL MANAGER’S DECLARATION 8

7. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 51

8. WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 57

9. CORPORATE AND FINANCE 64

10. COMMUNITY SERVICES 68

12. GENERAL MANAGER 70

14. NOTICES OF MOTIONS 91

15. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM PREVIOUS

16. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 94

17. CLOSED MEETING 95

Meeting Commencing at 5.00pm

AUDIO RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

In accordance with the requirements of Council’s Audio Recording of Council Meetings

2.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 17TH JANUARY 2018

For Against For Against

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

3.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME PROCEDURE

3.2 PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

3.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

3.4 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM COUNCILLORS

An application to the Federal Court by Council’s legal team sought $60,628.14.

Professional representatives for Mr Neilsen presented to Council’s legal team

3.5 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mrs Rainbow, George Town (17th January 2018)

Dear Mrs Rainbow,

3.5 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mr Neilsen, George Town (20th December 2017)

Mr Neilsen, George Town (21st October 2015)

Mr Neilsen, George Town (21st October 2015)

5. GENERAL MANAGER’S DECLARATION

 the advice, information or recommendation is given by a person who has the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 – SECTION 65

65. Qualified persons

(a) the general manager certifies, in writing –

(i) that such advice was obtained; and

Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015

25. Acting as a planning authority

(1) If a council or council committee intends to act at a meeting as a planning authority

6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE

REPORT AUTHOR: Statutory Town Planner

REPORT DATE: 29th January 2018

ATTACHMENT: (A) Title documents

Note: Due to the quantity of attachments associated with the application,

FILE NO: DA 2017/42

Applicant: Low Head Wind Farm Pty Ltd

Site Address: 553 Old Aerodrome Road, Low Head.

Wind Turbine Titles: CT 198926/1, CT 210231/1, CT 212061/1, CT 152982/5, CT 104543/1

6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE

 Ten turbines with a maximum tip height of 180 metres.

Figure 1 - Looking north east, over future wind turbine site.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2026

In 2017 the Tasmanian Planning Commission approved an amendment which provided

6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE

In summary, the approved amendment includes:

Figure 2 - Aerial view of CT 198926/1

6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 3 - Aerial view of CT 210237/1

Figure 4 - Aerial view CT 212067/1

6.1 DA 2017/42: WIND FARM AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE