21 February 2013 - Derwent Valley Council

MINUTES 

DERWENT VALLEY COUNCIL 

Council Meeting 

Thursday, 21 February 2013 

6.30pm 

Court House 

New Norfolk 

MAYOR'S CERTIFICATION 

I hereby certify that these Minutes are a true and correct record of the meeting. 

MARTYN EVANS 

MAYOR

Derwent Valley Council 

Council Meeting Minutes 

21 February 2013 

2




CONTENTS 

1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES .................................................................. 4 

2. BRIEFING TO COUNCIL .............................................................................. 5 

3. QUESTION TIME ........................................................................................... 5 

4. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 7 

5. NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL WORKSHOPS ........................................... 8 

6. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST ........................................... 8 

7. COUNCIL ACTING AS A PLANNING AUTHORITY ................................ 8 

8. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA .. 9 

9. MOTIONS ON NOTICE ............................................................................... 10 

10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS ............................................................................ 12 

10.1 FINANCIAL REPORT ................................................................... 12 

10.2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH BY DELEGATION 

......................................................................................................... 15 

10.3 INTER - COUNCIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

RESOURCE SHARING ................................................................. 18 

10.4 FRIENDS OF WILLOW COURT SPECIAL COMMITTEE ........ 21 

10.5 WILLOW COURT PARANORMAL DOCUMNETARY ............. 25 

10.6 MOTIONS FOR THE LGAT GENERAL MEETING 24 JULY 

2013 ................................................................................................. 29 

10.7 CARINYA EDUCATION PARK – 103 BLAIR STREET, NEW 

NORFOLK ...................................................................................... 32 

10.8 DA 68/2012 – RAIF SADRI – GLEBE AND RING ROAD, NEW 

NORFOLK - MAJOR SHOP/SHOPPING CENTRE ..................... 38 

10.9 DA 169/2011 – 10 LOT SUBDIVISION – BACK RIVER ROAD, 

MAGRA .......................................................................................... 67 

10.10 COMMUNITY HOUSE MEMORANDUM OF LEASE 

EXTENSION ................................................................................... 77 

10.11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS 2013 ............................... 81 

11. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE ...................................................................... 89 

12. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE .............................................................. 89 

13. LEAVE OF ABSENCE ................................................................................. 90 

14. CLOSE ........................................................................................................... 90 

3




COUNCIL MEETING 

HELD AT THE COURTHOUSE, NEW NORFOLK 

COMMENCING AT 6:30 PM 

DECISIONS 

PRESENT: 

Mayor M Evans (Chairman), 

Deputy Mayor Cr B K Lathey, Cr C Lester, 

Cr T Nicholson, Cr W Shoobridge, Cr J Graham, 

Cr J Bromfield, Cr D Bester, Cr S Shaw 

APOLOGIES: 

Nil 

OFFICERS: 

General Manager, Mr Stephen Mackey 

Accountant, Mr John Bradley 

Regional Development Officer, Ms Jess Dallas 

Youth Participation Officer, Mr Matthew Hill 

1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Decision: 23/13 

Date: 21/2/13 

Moved: Cr Shoobridge 

Seconded: Cr Lester 

That the minutes of the Council Meeting held on 17 January 2013 as circulated be 

confirmed. 

CARRIED 

Record of Voting 

• Cr Evans For • Cr Lester For 

• Cr Lathey For • Cr Shoobridge For 

• Cr Bromfield For • Cr Nicholson For 

• Cr Shaw For • Cr Bester For 

• Cr Graham For 

4




Order of Agenda 



File: 


Seconded: 

That item 9.1 Support for Local Government Development of Social Enterprise, be 

discussed after item 10.6 Motions for the LGAT General Meeting – 24 July 2013. 

MOTION LAPSED FOR THE WANT OF A SECONDER 

2. BRIEFING TO COUNCIL 

Nil 

3. QUESTION TIME 


File: 201 

NAME 

Patricia Sullivan 

SUBJECT OF QUESTION 

Subdivision10/W 2 Pioneer Ave / 14 Burnett 

In 2011-2012 we informed the DVC in writing and in person 

that the approval by the Council of the above subdivision on a 

property owned by the Councillor / Realestate agent was 

approved when it did not meet the legal requirement. This has 

meant that 2 Pioneer has uninhabitable bedrooms and both 

properties do not have clear title making them unsellable. This 

has caused the Sullivan and Whittle families great financial 

hardship and emotional and physical distress. We officially put 

in a request that the DVC investigate how this subdivision could 

have been passed. We want to know whether the DVC has 

carried out this investigation, if no why not? If yes what are the 

results? 

The General Manager advised that he would talk to the Planner 

and the Building Surveyor and provide a response as soon as 

possible. 

5




NAME 

Caleb Whittle 


Approval of Subdivision 10/w 2 Pioneer Ave / 14 Burnett St 

Since 2011 we have tried to discuss with the DVC the above 

subdivision. We have spent 1,000’s on employing building 

professionals to find out what works should have been carried 

out prior to the subdivision being approved so that it meets legal 

requirements. We should not have had to spend this money if 

the Council had provided us with the information. In a show of 

goodwill we provided the reports to the DVC to assist them in 

fixing their mistake. So far we have received no formal 

response. How is the DVC going to fix this mistake and 

compensate the injured parties? 

The General Manager advised that he would talk to the Planner 

and the Building Surveyor and provide a response as soon as 

possible. 

Anne Salt 

Paranormal Documentary 

In August 2010 the Council approved a request for members of 

the WCWG to undertake a paranormal investigation in either 

Allonah or Carlton ward to make a documentary. Approval was 

granted subject to 4 conditions. The second condition was ‘that 

Council together with the WCWG committee are to have input 

and provide their approval of the script and video content before 

its release. 

Approval for the documentary is listed on tonight’s Agenda. 

The FOWC have not been advised that the documentary was 

completed and therefore have not provided input or comment 

before its release. 

What has stopped Council from fulfilling condition two set out 

in the motion in August 2010? 

The General Manager advised that this matter is on the Agenda 

for tonight’s meeting. 

The Personal Information Protection Principles and Antidiscrimination 

legislation need to apply to any decisions made 

about the content of the paranormal documentary. 

What steps have Council taken to seek expert advice on these 

matters? 



6




NAME 

Sharon Hutchison 

Alby Stephenson 


Read a statement regarding Community House 



What action has Council considered to improving condition of 

Collins Cap Road? 

Mr Stephenson provided the question to the Mayor after the due 

time for receipt of questions but the Mayor was prepared to raise 

it as it was a similar question as to what was raised at the last 

Council Meeting. 

The Mayor advised that the condition of Collins Cap Road would 

be included in budget deliberations for the 2013/2014 year and 

in the interim the Works Manager will be asked to undertake 

some routine maintenance on this road. 

4. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS 

• Attended a community forum at the New Norfolk High School regarding recent 

fires in the municipality 

• Letters of support received from Latrobe and Burnie Councils regarding the 

recent fires 

• Received correspondence from Mr Tony Ellis regarding Heritage issues 

• Updated Council regarding the works being undertaken by Aurora in the Avenue 

• Advised Council of the upcoming LGAT General Meeting on the 20 March 2013 

• Received a invitation from the Polytechnic to attend Graduation Ceremonies 

• Met with a local novelist regarding her novel “Story Through Time” 

• Advised Council that the Derwent Valley did not have any nominations for the 

Young Achiever Awards 

• Received a letter from Rebecca White regarding education for years 11 and 12 

• Will be attending a meeting with Cassy O’Connor on 12 March 2012 

• Attended a Hogs in the Valley Quiz Night 

• Received a donation of $683 from the New Norfolk Bowls Club for the Fire 

appeal 

• Advised Council of the upcoming visit by the Premier to Carinya 

7




• Advised of the upcoming visit of the Prime Minister with the Premier to discuss 

the overview on Tasmania’s future 

• Welcomed people to look at the Derwent Valley Regional Arts display on the 

staircase at the Council Chambers 

• Updated Council on the upcoming Tidy Town, Keep Australia Beautiful clean up 

day on 3 March 2013 

• Advised Council about the upcoming KidFit Triathlon on the Esplanade 

• Reminded Council about the Long Table fundraiser dinner for the fire appeal 

• Met with the owners of the Reject Shop 

• Advised Council that Brett Noble and Christine Coughanowr, would be making 

presentations at the March Councillors workshop 

5. NOTIFICATION OF COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 

Date 

Purpose of Workshop 

14 February 2013 Discussion was held in regard to the Council Action List, the 

Maydena School site, possibility of obtaining deductable gift 

recipient status for Willow Court, roll out of NBN and 

Councillors questions. 

6. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 

Nil 

7. COUNCIL ACTING AS A PLANNING AUTHORITY 

In accordance with the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, 

notice is given that Council intends to act as a planning authority under the Land Use 

Planning and Approvals Act 1993 to consider the following items: 

10.8 DA 68/2012 – RAIF SADRI – GLEBE AND RING ROAD, 

NEW NORFOLK - MAJOR SHOP/SHOPPING CENTRE 

10.9 DA 169/2011 – 10 LOT SUBDIVISION – BACK RIVER ROAD, MAGRA 

8




8. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA 

In accordance with the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, 

the Council, by absolute majority, may approve the consideration of a matter not 

appearing on the agenda, when the General Manager has reported: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

the reason it was not possible to include the matter on the agenda, and 

that the matter is urgent, and 

that advice has been provided under Section 65 of the Local Government Act 

1993. 

Decision 



File: 215 

Moved: Cr Shaw 

Seconded: Cr Bromfield 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS 2013 

That Council approve the inclusion of the Local Government Elections 2013 report 

being included as Item 10.11 on tonight’s agenda for discussion. 

CARRIED 







9




9. MOTIONS ON NOTICE 

9.1 SUPPORT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL 

ENTERPRISE 

That Derwent Valley Council moves that a motion be developed to take to the Local 

Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) to lobby the Federal Government to 

identify social enterprise as an investment priority and fund it as such through the 

Regional Australia Development Fund and other such funds as appropriate. That 

LGAT further lobby for any changes required to the guidelines of such funds to allow 

social enterprise to be funded by various Federal Government funds and that this be a 

long term project in the period 2015 – 2020. 

A social enterprise looks, feels and in many ways acts like a profit making business, 

however at the heart of a social enterprise is the desire to return to the community. 

This can take many forms, but usually takes the form of supporting some kind of 

social goal and supporting marginalized members of a community to make a change 

in their lives (generally through employment and training opportunities). Many social 

enterprises are run by not for profit organizations, but they can also be run by 

individuals, collectives or cooperatives. The goal of a social enterprise is to be self 

sustaining and to return profits to the community. 

There is a growing need in communities to become proactive in their own destiny and 

to help to strengthen and build the community itself. A social enterprise offers this 

opportunity and in many cases also fills a void left by the decrease in government 

services. 

A number of councils have expressed an interest in becoming involved in social 

enterprises, with the goal of strengthening and creating a more resilient community 

that in the long term is less reliant on government support of any kind. 

This motion provides an opportunity for local government to work cooperatively on 

integrated projects and development of a raft of strategies that will be accessible to all 

States and regions of Australia to benefit all communities. 

10




Decision 



File: 394 

Moved: Cr Graham 

Seconded: Cr Shoobridge 

That Derwent Valley Council moves that a motion be developed to take to the Local 

Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) to lobby the Federal Government to 

identify social enterprise as an investment priority and fund it as such through the 

Regional Australia Development Fund and other such funds as appropriate. That 

LGAT further lobby for any changes required to the guidelines of such funds to allow 

social enterprise to be funded by various Federal Government funds and that this be a 

long term project in the period 2015 – 2020. 


CARRIED 






11




10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 

10.1 FINANCIAL REPORT 

Report To: 

Author: 

Qualified Officer: 

Council 

Accountant 

Accountant 

Introduction and Purpose 

The Financial Report for the month ended 31 January 2013 is attached separately. 

Strategic Plan 

F4 

To improve community understanding of Council’s financial management and 

finances. 

Discussion 

Council’s Summary of Operations is attached separately for consideration and details 

the operating results of Council for the 7 month period ended 31 January 2013. 

The Summary of Operations reflects all of Council’s activities as budgeted for in the 

2012/2013 year. It therefore includes both recurrent income and expenditure, together 

with Council’s Capital Works and Plant Replacement Program. The statement 

compares our annual budget targets with our year-to-date actual performance. 

The expected year-to-date activity is 58.33% of total annual budget. As at 31 January 

2013, Council’s overall net operating position is in line with budget expectations. 

Program variations in income received or expenditure incurred to date will arise due 

to factors such as seasonal timing and the programming of major works. 

Variations from budget in each of Council’s activities are monitored and where 

necessary, corrective action takes place to ensure that as far as possible, Council’s 

operations remain within overall budget parameters for the year. 

12




Additional information included in this and subsequent reports is as follows: 

• Summary of Cash Position for the year ended 31 January 2013. 

This summary details Council's bank balance as at month's end for the financial 

year 2011/2012. 

• Summary of Cash Position for the period ended 31 January 2013. 

This summary details Council's cash position as at 31 January 2013. Details of 

Council's cash position as at 31 January 2012 is also included for comparison 

purposes. 

• Comparison of Cash Positions for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. 

This summary details Council's cash position to the corresponding period of the 

previous year. 

• Summary of Rates Collection for the period ended 31 January 2013. 

This summary details Council's summary of rates collections for the period ended 

31 January 2013. Details of Council's rates collections as at 31 January 2012 are 

also included for comparison purposes. 

• Comparison of Rates Collections for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. 

This summary details Council's rates collections to the corresponding period of 

the previous year. 

• Summary of Loan Borrowings for the period ended 31 January 2013. 

This summary details Council's loan indebtedness as at 31 January 2013. Details 

of Council's loan indebtedness in comparison to rates revenue for the previous 12 

years are also included for comparison purposes. 

Consultations That Have Taken Place 

(a) The Community 

Not Applicable 

(b) Experts 


(c) Stakeholders 


13




Proposed Community Consultation, Public Relations and Media Issues 


Budget/Financial Issues 


Policy Implications 


Decision 


Date: 17/1/13 

File: 737 

Moved: Cr Lathey 


That the Financial Report for the period 1 July 2012 to 31 January 2013 be noted and 

received. 

CARRIED 







14




10.2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH BY DELEGATION 

Report To: 

Author: 



Planning Officer 

Planning Officer 


Applications for planning approval are received and dealt with by the Planning 

Officer in accordance with Council’s delegation. The following report summarises 

the planning permits issued under delegation during the previous month. 


IS2 

To maintain high standards in the provision of all Council services in line 

with community needs, Council’s policies and regulatory requirements 

Discussion 

The following applications for planning approval have been determined under 

delegation by the Planning Officer during the previous month: 

LOCALITY DA PROPOSAL DECISION 

9 Abbotts Road and 3427 

Gordon River Road, 

Maydena 

154/2012 Boundary Adjustment Approved 

4 South Crescent, Maydena 158/20012 Demolition of shed and Approved 

new shed 

66 Lake Dobson Road, 156/2012 Demolition of building Approved 

National Park 

20 Lachlan Road, New 

Norfolk 

155/2012 Caravan shelter and 

storage 

Approved 

921 Back River Road, 159/2012 Single Dwelling Approved 

Magra 

101 Isaac Road, Black Hills 163/2012 Single Dwelling Approved 

8 Burnett Street, New 

Norfolk 

151/2012 Demolition of 2 

outbuildings and new 

garage 

Approved 

15





60 & 62 Fairfax Terrace, 7/2013 Tree Removal Approved 

New Norfolk 

1143 Collins Cap Road, 11/2013 Garage Approved 

Molesworth 

154 Black Hills Road, 160/2012 1 lot + balance subdivision Approved 

Magra 

10 West Street, Maydena 1/2013 Guest House Approved 

48 Tubbs Road, 

12/2013 Change of use to dwelling Approved 

Molesworth 

Gordon River Road, 

National Park 

5/2013 Additions to outbuilding Approved 

In addition, the following applications for planning approval were dealt with by 

Council at its last meeting. 


Nil 

SUMMARY 

Number of permits issued by delegation in January 13 

Total number of permits issued in January 13 

COMPARISON 

Number of permits issued by delegation in previous month 12 

Total number of permits issued in previous month 12 

APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY WITH THE TRIBUNAL: 

Nil 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

The Community 

Not applicable 

Experts 


Stakeholders 


16










Decision 



File: 0851 


Seconded: Cr Nicholson 

That Council receives and notes the information on planning permits issued by 

delegation during the previous month. 


CARRIED 






17




10.3 INTER - COUNCIL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RESOURCE 

SHARING 

Report To: 

Author: 



General Manager 



The purpose of this report is to gain support from Council to write to the Local 

Government Association of Tasmania advising that Council confirms its commitment 

to the Protocol for Inter-council Emergency Management Resource Sharing. 


IS3 

IS5 

Ec2 

En1 

To maintain community services. 

To develop partnerships with relevant stakeholders on the development, 

management and maintenance of services in the municipality. 

To support the retention and expansion of regional services. 

To manage and, where required, protect the municipality’s natural 

environment and resources. 

Discussion 

Emergencies sometimes require councils to source additional resources to ensure that 

the affected community is restored to normal functioning as efficiently as possible. 

Some Tasmanian emergency response agencies have agreement for mutual aid with 

kindred organisations that allow them to plan appropriately for responding to large 

scale or complex emergencies, and this protocol is intended to provide a similar 

agreement for local councils. Council emergency management resources are generally 

sourced from within the municipal boundaries where the emergency occurs, which 

can impact significantly on the resources the responsible council, particularly for 

larger and more complex emergencies. 

The purpose of the protocol is to provide an agreed position between councils for the 

provision of inter-council assistance for response and recovery activities during an 

emergency. This protocol details the process for initiating requests for resources from 

another council and identifies associated operational and administrative requirements. 

18




The application of this protocol is expected to enhance the capability of councils to 

provide the best possible outcomes for emergency management and to enhance the 

arrangements for the deployment of additional support as detailed in the Tasmanian 

Emergency Management Plan (TEMP). The co-ordination of responding agencies 

involves the systematic acquisition and application of resources (personnel, 

equipment and facilities) in accordance with the requirements of the emergency. This 

protocol will facilitate appropriate and timely deployment of council resources to 

discharge council functional responsibility. 




(b) Experts 

Department of Premier and Cabinet, Office of Local Government, Security and 

Emergency Management, the State Emergency Services, MAV and Workplace 

Standards. 


Department of Premier and Cabinet, Office of Local Government, Security and 

Emergency Management, the State Emergency Services, MAV and Workplace 

Standards. 


That the Mayor provide the Gazette with a Media Release stating that Council has 

signed up to the Protocol for inter-council Emergency Management Resource 

Sharing. 


If Council is required to transport plant and machinery into another Municipal Area 

there will be a cost but at this point in time it is assumed that these cost could be 

absorbed in our current budget for 2012/13. 



19




Decision 



File: 394 

Moved: Cr Nicholson 


That Council authorise the General Manager to write to the Local Government 

Association of Tasmania to advise that Council confirms its commitment to the Inter- 

Council Emergency Management Resource Sharing Protocol. 


CARRIED 






20




10.4 FRIENDS OF WILLOW COURT SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

Report To: 

Author: 






The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from Council to extend the 

membership of the Friends of Willow Court Special Committee. 


S1 

S2 

En1 

En4 

To make our people feel worthwhile by building greater self-reliance and self 

worth in our community. 

To recognise the worth of all people, regardless of age, gender and race in 

providing opportunities to be part of a vibrant community. 



To support and encourage landcare-type activities. 

Discussion 

There has been much debate on the issue of being able to cover volunteers who wish 

to help this committee when they have working bees. After much debate it was agreed 

that the best option would be to extend the membership of the Committee. 

To this end the committee has again provide a list of names of a people who have 

shown a willingness to volunteer on the Willow Court Site with Friends of Willow 

Court. These are as follows: 

1. Nigel Salt 

2. Pam Salt 

3. Alice Salt 

4. Joel Schrederis 

5. Eleanor Salt 

6. Ali Assi 

7. Janine Collins 

21




8. Maree Reiper 

9. Patrick Gerstner 

10. Colin Hutchison 

11. Roy Huett 

The Local Government Act 1993 states as follows in regard to Special Committees of 

Council: 

24 (1) a council may establish, on such terms and for such purposes 

as it thinks fit, special committees 

24 (2) a special committee consists of such persons appointed by the 

council as the council thinks appropriate. 

24 (3) the council is to determine the procedures relating to 

meetings of a special committee. 

A list of members is to be submitted to Council for approval and for insurance 

purposes on an annual basis. I do not think this would preclude Council from 

approving an increase in the membership for this volunteer group. 




(b) Experts 



Friends of Willow Court Special Committee 




Council does not have a budget allocation 

22





Council has a policy for the operation of special committees and this will be amended 

to include the Friends of Willow Court Special Committee. 

Decision 



File: 333 

Moved: Cr Graham 


1. That Council approve the appointment of the following on the Friends of 

Willow Court Special Committee: 

1) Nigel Salt 

2) Pam Salt 

3) Alice Salt 

4) Joel Schrederis 

5) Eleanor Salt 

6) Ali Assi 

7) Janine Collins 

8) Maree Reiper 

9) Patrick Gerstner 

10) Colin Hutchison 

11) Roy Huett 

2. That Council accept the resignation from the Friends of Willow Court Special 

Committee from Allyson Lock. 

23




Amended Motion 



File: 333 

Moved: Cr Bromfield 


1. That this motion lay on the table until such time that the Terms of Reference are 

agreed upon between the Willow Court Conservation Special Committee, the 

Friends of Willow Court Special Committee and the Council. 

2. That a charge for an entrance fee be considered in the Terms of Reference in 

regards to the conduct of any tours that take place within the Barracks precinct. 

3. All funds received in these tours is to be receipted to the Willow Court reserve 

account for future development of the site. 

4. That Council accepts the resignation of Allyson Lock from the Friends of 

Willow Court Special Committee. 

THE AMENDED MOTION WAS PUT AND CARRIED 


• Cr Evans Against • Cr Lester For 

• Cr Lathey Against • Cr Shoobridge For 





THE AMENDED MOTION THEN BECAME THE 

MOTION WHICH WAS PUT AND CARRIED 

• Cr Evans Against • Cr Lester For 





24




10.5 WILLOW COURT PARANORMAL DOCUMNETARY 

Report To: 

Author: 






The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from Council for some members of 

the Willow Court and Barracks Working Group Special Committee to undertake a 

paranormal investigation of either the Alonnah or Carlton Ward. 


S3 

To encourage the development of local sporting, cultural and artistic activities. 

Discussion 

The Willow Court and Barracks Working Group Special Committee have advised that 

three members of their committee have discussed at the committee level their request 

to undertake a paranormal investigation of either Alonnah or Carlton Ward and to 

make a documentary video recording of the investigation for future display and 

possible sale. 

The Working Group has given in principle approval of the project subject to the 

following conditions: 

1. Council giving its approval for them to remain in the building overnight for up 

to three nights to undertake the investigation; and 

2. The Willow Court and Barracks Working Group Special Committee having 

final approval of the script and video before it is released. 

The Working Group also advised that the building to be used for the paranormal 

investigation is Alonnah and they need approval to stay overnight for up to three 

nights. 

There are things that Council would need more information on and these issues are as 

follows: 

1. The qualifications of the persons undertaking the investigation. 

2. The persons undertaking the investigations would also require appropriate 

insurances. 

25




3. Council may also wish to be involved in the final approval of the script and 

video content before its release. 

4. Assurances that the footage not used for the documentary is either destroyed, or 

approval must be sought from the Working Group and or Council for it use at a 

later time. 

5. It may also be prudent for all the above conditions to be included in a contract 

signed by all parties. 

Since this time the Paranormal Documentary Team have shown the video to some 

members of the Willow Court and Barracks Working Group Special Committee and 

Councillors. 

The Documentary has been scrutinised by the State Archivist in regard to the 

contents of the documentary. 

There has also been some discussion in regard to the MOU for the Willow Court 

and Barracks Working Group Special Committee, and the view that they do not 

wish to be liable for the release of the documentary. 

This committee was only an advisory committee when it was formed and 

recommendation from them was to be the subject of a report to Council. On that 

basic it would be Council that made the decision in regard to the release of the 

documentary. 

Some members of the Friends of Willow Court Special Committee were concerned 

in regard to the content in the video this as stated above was the subject of a review 

by the State Archivist and his approval for its release has been given. 




(b) Experts 



Willow Court and Barracks Working Group Special Committee and Derwent 

Valley Councillors and Staff 


That if approved by Council the Mayor and the Paranormal Documentary Team 

undertake a joint media release in regard to the availability of the video. 

26








Recommendation 



File: Willow Court 

Moved: Cr Lester 


That Council Authorise the release of the Willow Court Paranormal Documentary as 

provided to all Councillors in February 2013. 




File: Willow Court 


Seconded: Cr Bester 

1. That Council authorises the release of the Willow Court Paranormal 

Documentary as provided to all Councillors in February 2013, subject to the 

viewing of the documentary by Councils Solicitor. 

2. That the Council recognises APIU as the creator and owner of the Willow Court 

Documentary “If these walls could talk” and gratefully acknowledges APIU’s 

offer to contribute 100% of the net proceeds of the sale of the DVD copies of 

the film to the Willow Court fund for the period of 18 months followed by a 

review. 





• Cr Bromfield For • Cr Nicholson Against 



27





THE AMENDED MOTION BECAME THE 




• Cr Bromfield For • Cr Nicholson Against 



28




10.6 MOTIONS FOR THE LGAT GENERAL MEETING 24 JULY 2013 

Report To: 

Author: 






The purpose of this report is to seek from Councillors any Motions they would like 

placed on the Agenda Papers for the Annual General Meeting and General Meeting of 

the LGAT to be held on the 24 th July 2013. 


IS5 

Ec3 



To develop partnerships with State Government, industry and regional 

bodies to promote economic and employment development. 

Discussion 

For a number of years councillors have been commenting in regard to some motions 

that are on the Agenda of the Local Government Association of Tasmania. 

As has been the previous practice the LGAT have now called for motions for these 

meetings. Due to the previous comments from Councillors I have stated that once we 

are advised that there is a call for motions I would advise Council. 

As we are a member of the Association we can become further involved if we have 

issues that we feel should be brought to the attention of the LGAT and also other 

Councils. 

It could now be the ideal time for any councillor who has an issue that they feel needs 

to be addressed through this forum. 

29







(b) Experts 







The Cost associated with the production of Motions to the :LGAT General Meeting 

can be accommodated without the need to amend the 2012/13 Budget 



Decision 

Decision: 


File: 394 


Seconded: Cr Graham 

1. That Council set up a working Group made up of Cr Shoobridge, Cr Graham, 

Cr Lester and Mayor Evans to Develop on behalf of the Derwent Valley 

Council Motions for discussion at the General Meeting of the LGAT on the 24 th 

July 2013. 

2. That a copy of all motions are to be provided to all Councillors prior to them 

being forwarded to the LGAT. 

30







File: 394 


Seconded: Cr Lathey 

1. That Council hold a workshop to develop on behalf of the Derwent Valley 

Council Motions for discussion at the General Meeting at the LGAT on the 24 

July 2013. This workshop is to be held on Thursday 7 March 2013. 

2. That a copy of all motions are to be provided to all Councillors before they are 

forwarded to the LGAT. 
















31




10.7 CARINYA EDUCATION PARK – 103 BLAIR STREET, 

NEW NORFOLK 

Report To: 

Author: 






The purpose of this report is to request the approval of Council to take over the 

ownership from the State Government of the building known as 103 Blair Street, New 

Norfolk (Carinya Education Park). 


S1 

S2 

IS3 

Ec2 







Discussion 

Support for the RAFT project has been ongoing from Council since 2005; when the 

RAFT Steering Committee was initiated by Council to identify and work with at risk 

youth in a variety of ways that would fit their particular interest and skills sets. It was 

modelled on the Glenorchy City Municipality‘s programme called Chance on Main. 

During 2007, RAFT adopted a project business plan written by the consultants The 

Write Business, and jointly funded by Council and the Derwent Valley School 

Cluster. The name RAFT (Real Action…Forward Thinking) was adopted at the 

suggestion of D’FAT. 

In November 2007 Council adopted a recommendation to support the RAFT steering 

committee to further investigate the establishment of an educational woodwork, metal 

work and mechanic facility. This recommendation was to address issues raised via 

the 2007 Community Survey; Needs of Young People in the Derwent Valley 

Municipality. 

32




During 2008, the RAFT steering committee identified a venue for the project, and had 

plans drawn up in a jointly funded exercise by the Rotary Club of Hobart and the 

Derwent Valley School Cluster. 

Additionally during May 2008, Council adopted the following recommendations inregards 

to RAFT; 

• That Council confirms its support for the RAFT project. 

• That Council provides in-kind support for the RAFT project with administrative 

support to the steering committee. 

• That Council makes available a section of the Kensington Park betting complex 

for the RAFT project. 

During November 2008, the RAFT steering committee was successful in an 

application to the Tasmanian Community Fund to refurbish the identified venue for 

the RAFT project. 

During 2009, the RAFT Steering obtained quotes to undertake this refurbishment. 

The grant was cancelled in July 2010, due to insufficient funds required to complete 

the refurbishment works. 

During August 2010, a proposal was presented to the RAFT Steering Committee by 

the Principal of New Norfolk High School. This proposal consisted of a multipartnership 

initiative that would provide targeted, group and universal programs of 

mentoring and skill development for students in the Derwent Valley. This proposal 

was given in-principal support by the RAFT Steering Committee. 

Mission Australia was contracted by the Department of Education (Derwent Valley 

Learning Area Team, formally Derwent Valley Board of Principals) to implement the 

flexible learning proposal that was endorsed by the RAFT Steering Committee. A 

meeting was held during late November between representatives of Council and 

Mission Australia to further discuss this initiative. 

A Derwent Valley Youth Worker was appointed by Mission Australia during 

December 2010 to co-ordinate this initiative. 

In January 2011, a meeting was held between representatives of Council, the 

appointed Flexible Learning Youth Worker, and representatives of the Department of 

Education (Learning South-East). Additional meetings were convened in February 

2011 and included attendance by members of the RAFT Steering Committee. 

An agreement was reached at these meetings for the RAFT Steering Committee to be 

re-structured as an overarching supporting body to assist with co-ordinated delivery of 

youth programs. It was envisaged that the membership of the committee would 

expand to include further representation from youth service providers and initiatives, 

such as Mission Australia and Colony 47. 

33




The Principal of New Norfolk High School briefed Council in regards to the Flexible 

Learning initiative and RAFT at the March 2011 Council meeting. Council confirmed 

its support to the Flexible Learning initiative and a re-structured RAFT at this Council 

meeting. 

In April 2011, Colony 47 engaged a Partnership Broker for the Derwent Valley area, 

due to need identified through participation in RAFT. 

The re-structured RAFT includes representation from; 

• Derwent Valley Council Youth Services (and two appointed Councillors) 

• Colony 47 Partnership Brokerage Program 

• Mission Australia Flexible Learning initiative (Flex Program) 

• Derwent Valley Learning Area Team (LAT, formally Derwent Valley Board of 

Principals) 

• Mission Australia Youth Connections Program 

• Communities 4 Children (C4C) initiatives (Salvation Army) 

• New Norfolk High School Personalised Learning Program 

Derwent Valley RAFT is chaired by the Principal of New Norfolk High School. The 

Minute taker is the Derwent Valley Council Youth Participation Officer. Council is 

represented by Cr. Graham and Cr. Shaw. 

During the 2010/2011 period the BEC building was identified as an existing and 

underutilised building, suitable to house the project. The building was considered 

suitable on a number of grounds: 

• It is close to but not attached to the school, providing easy access and a non 

threatening environment. 

• It is a substantial building which will allow for expansion of the project over 

time 

• The building is currently underutilised 

• The building is in sound condition requiring minimal work to make it suitable 

for the purpose 

• The building already has a known association with education and is well 

recognised 

Council undertook initial discussions with the State Government to investigate the 

possibility of a peppercorn rental arrangement for the building, and have been 

successful in obtaining a lease for the building. After a period of a maximum of two 

years the Crown will transfer the land to Council. 

During this process it has become apparent that there was one resident in the building, 

whose temporary occupation licence agreement expired in 2008 and who was 

occupying the land unlawfully since that time. The State Government has undertaken 

to work with the affected person to resolve the matter. 

34




It is envisaged that the buildings currently referred to as the Business Enterprise 

Centre will become the base for the RAFT project. 

In the initial stages the buildings will provide office space for the Derwent Valley 

Flex Program. This will provide the Flex project officer with the opportunity to meet 

with students-at risk and families in a “neutral” space. It is the RAFT committee’s 

intention that the building also be used by Council Youth Services, and NGOs (e.g. 

Colony 47) involved in service provision for young people. The goal is the facilitation 

of face to face collaboration between organisations. It is anticipated that, in the short 

to medium term, educational links for students at risk will be managed from this 

facility. 

In the medium term (i.e. perhaps term 3, but more likely during 2012) the facility’s 

teaching spaces can be used for a range of courses for students disengaged or at-risk. 

There is opportunity for courses to be run which would be available for all students of 

the Derwent Valley, and beyond. 

Having a number of services housed in the same locality will provide a community 

focus for collaborative effort in evolving education and training. There is a possibility 

of hosting students and others from other areas of the state, interstate and overseas. 

Council has a lease on this building with the option after a two year period to 

request transfer of the site from the State Government subject to a suitable 

negotiated price. It has been Councils view that as the site had been vacant for a 

number of years that the consideration in regard to this site should be no greater 

than the actual fees for the transfer. Our position should be that as this site is 

providing education for the Derwent Valley region and also as it has been utilised 

for an evacuation centre on two occasions in recent times that we should request an 

exemption in regard to any applicable costs associated with its transfer. 




(b) Experts 



State Government, RAFT Committee, Derwent Valley Council, Principal New 

Norfolk High School, Mission Australia, Derwent Valley Learning Area Team 

(Department of Education), Colony 47 and Salvation Army (Communities for 

Children). 

35





Implementation of this proposal would provide an opportunity for Council to present 

a positive, proactive face to the community, particularly in terms of potential 

outcomes for at risk youth. There is potential for this proposal to draw other NGO 

services to the area for the benefit of the broader community. 


Council’s current budget has an allocation of $16,000 for Carinya Education Park and 

as the recommendation suggests that we don’t take owner ship until the 2013/14 

Financial Year there will be not need to amend the current budget. The budget for 

2013/14 will need to include the purchase price once known. 


Complies with and reinforces Council’s Youth Participation Policy. 

Decision 



File: 716 



1 That Council approve the taking over the ownership of 103 Blair Street, New 

Norfolk (Carinya Education Park) from the State Government as from 1 July 

2013. 

2 That Council authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and General Manager to 

negotiate a purchase price for this site from the State Government. 

3 That Council supports the development of the Business Enterprise Centre for a 

Trade Training Centre subject to Council receiving a grant for this purpose. 

36







File: 716 



1. That Council gives in-principal approval in the taking of the ownership of the 

land and buildings at 103 Blair Street, New Norfolk as at July 31, 2013. 

2. That the Council authorise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the General Manager 

to negotiate a not cost transfer from the State Government 

3. That the terms of the transfer be reported back to a full Council before final 

acceptance. 

4. That the Council give in principal support to the development of a trade training 

centre subject to receiving a grant for this purpose on the site. 














• Cr Shaw For • Cr Bester Against 


37




10.8 DA 68/2012 – RAIF SADRI – GLEBE AND RING ROAD, 

NEW NORFOLK - MAJOR SHOP/SHOPPING CENTRE 

Report To: 

Author: 



Planning Officer (M Mc Cance) 



In June 2012 the Applicant requested Council consider a Major Shop/Shopping 

Centre on lands located between the Lyell Highway, Glebe and Ring Road, New 

Norfolk. The purpose of this report is to consider the application and assess it against 

the requirements established in the New Norfolk Planning Scheme (the Scheme), the 

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act). 

The Site 

The proposed development site has been generated by a subdivision and boundary 

adjustment of three separate titles (C/T’s 148315/1; 148140/1 and 159779/38) all of 

which are in the ownership of Snowy Mountain Pty. Ltd in 2011. At this time the 

Land Titles Office has not issued new titles for the land. This new boundary layout is 

demonstrated on the submitted plans as being Lots 1 and 2 of the application. No Lot 

number is provided on the submitted plan for the Balance of the land that was part of 

the boundary adjustment, but not part of this application. At the time of the boundary 

adjustment no new titles were created. A cadastral plan of the site and broader 

surrounds is located below in Figure 1. The subject parcels of lands have been 

highlighted for ease of identification purposes. 

Figure 1.Cadastral plan of the subject site and surrounds (modified to highlight the area of the 

subject land). Source: www.thelist.tas.gov.au - 6 Feb 2013 

38




The subject parcel of land abuts the Lyell Highway to the north; Glebe road to the 

east; Ring road to the west, and a vacant parcel of land (C/T 159779/38) to the south. 

The subject site and the lands to its south, east and west are contained within the 

Special Development zone of the Scheme. The properties to the north of the Lyell 

Highway are zoned Residential in the Scheme. Figure 1 above demonstrates the 

zoning in the surrounding area (with the subject site highlighted). 

The subject site has a gentle slope that rises from approximately 30m above sea level 

(ASL) at the Lyell Highway to about 35m ASL at the southern boundary. 

The site has been heavily modified by European activity over many years and is not 

considered to contain any threatened or vulnerable native fauna and flora species. 

Combined the total size of the two titles proposed for development form a parcel of 

land is 5.4ha in size. 


Ec1. 

Ec2. 

Ec3. 

En1. 

S1.1. 

To encourage and facilitate greater opportunities for business development 

and tourism and work toward a strategic plan for tourism and business 

development in the area. 


To develop partnerships with State Government, industry and regional 

bodies to promote economic and employment development. 



Encourage residents to participate in community affairs and the Local 

Government process in collaboration with the Derwent Valley Council. 

39




Discussion 

Planning Scheme Provisions 

The development application (DA 68/2012) presented to Council consists of the 

following elements: 

Supermarket 4200m² 

Retail Tenancies (1 -7) 2690m² - in total 

Service station 115m² 

Take-away shop 280m² 

Future tenancy 1250m² 

Warehouse/showroom tenancies 

A – E 5600m² 

The warehouse/showroom tenancies (A-E) are located on Lot 2 while the remaining 

developments are proposed to be located on Lot 1. 

The subject site is located within the Special Development zone of the Scheme. The 

Intent of the zone is located at Clause 9.2 and reads: 

9.2 INTENT OF THE ZONE 

The intent of this Zone is to: 

(a) Facilitate the re-development and re-use of the former Royal Derwent 

Hospital and Willow Court Centre sites. 

(b) Protect the cultural heritage values of the significant Structures and 

spaces within the Zone. 

(c) Protect the natural landscape values of the Zone. 

(d) Integrate any new Development with the existing- open space, access and 

any reticulated service networks. 

(e) Ensure new Development addresses the identified potential environmental 

hazards. 

(f) Limit any potential land use conflicts and other environmental impacts for 

established uses in the Zone and in adjoining Zones. 

The proposal will re-develop the northern most part of the old Royal Derwent 

Hospital site without negatively impacting on the cultural Heritage values of any 

significant structures in the area or zone. The subject site has been heavily modified 

by European activity for many years and as a result any natural landscape values have 

been diminished significantly. It is considered that the footpaths required by a permit 

condition would ensure that the connectivity between this part of New Norfolk and 

surround areas would be well improved. The proposed uses are thought to have 

sufficient setback to adjoining lands or zones that there will produce no substantial 

land use conflicts. 

40




At Clause 9.3 the Scheme provides the opportunity for Council to require a 

Development Impact Statement from the Applicant. A Development Impact 

Statement was requested by Council and obtained. The Development Impact 

Statement requested was to address all the matters listed at Clause 9.3.2 with an 

emphasis on the “Land Use Impact” section where Council wanted particulars on 

what impacts the proposed development could be expected to have on the businesses 

in the New Norfolk C.B. D. 

Clause 9.3.2 (Development Impact Statement) 

• Site context and environmental assessment 

The subject site has been heavily modified by European activity over many years and 

therefore the Applicant’s assessment that the proposal would produce nil to low 

environmental impacts is supported. 

• Land Use Impact 

The Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted is considered to satisfactorily 

address the economic plus a number of social impacts and benefits that the proposal 

will have on the New Norfolk C.B.D.; greater New Norfolk and the Derwent Valley 

region (via employment and increased convenience and variety) while indicating that 

the proposal would not have a major impact on the businesses, particularly the smaller 

businesses of the C.B.D. 

The proposed development is due to commence operation in 2015 at which time the 

EIA indicates the development is likely to reduce the average turnover of businesses 

in the C.B.D. by 3% and Woolworths by 38%.The EIA indicates that Woolworths as 

the only supermarket in the Main Trade Area (MTA - as defined in the assessment) 

currently achieves higher than average turnover and that the predicted reduction in 

turnover would not cause the Woolworths supermarket to become unviable. 

The EIA lists some of the benefits of the proposal which include: 

• Direct employment of approximately 140 FTE (Full Time Equivalent – full 

time; part time; and casual) jobs; 

• Indirect employment of approximately 130 FTE jobs; 

• Enhanced shopping facilities and services; 

• Introduces competition into the market leading to benefits such as reduced 

prices and increased variety; 

• Makes the area more attractive to increased residential development; and 

• Potential to attract new businesses to New Norfolk that do not seek to operate 

out of the C.B.D. 

The EIA concluded to indicate that the proposal would not result in Woolworths 

becoming unviable or cause individual shop or business closures or loss of 

employment in the C.B.D. 

41




• Movement Connections 

A TIA was requested and received from the Applicant. The received TIA, “Proposed 

Retail Shopping Centre Development – Ring Road – Glebe Road New Norfolk June 

2012”, authored by Milan Prodanovic, was considered acceptable with some 

modifications by Council’s Municipal Engineer. The TIA provided some 

recommended road works which Council is addressing with DIER such as the 

removal of the 40 km/h sign on Ring Road and the road narrowing of Lyell Highway 

east of the site. All other matters raised in the TIA will be addressed by the 

development approval with conditions and Council undertaking some minor works. 

The completed works will comply with the TIA with some minor modifications such 

as Council requiring speed humps to remain in The Avenue for traffic calming. A 

number of conditions have been proposed if this proposal is approved by Council that 

would ensure that the road and pedestrian network/linkages in the surrounding area 

would be improved to a satisfactory standard for the use of the site. 

• Reticulated Service Connections 

The proposal was forwarded to Southern Water who sought further information from 

the Applicants. Southern Water have communicated that they are satisfied with the 

information thereby allowing Council to proceed with the application. 

• Open Space Connections 

It is considered that incorporating the improvements required by the TIA and 

Council’s Municipal Engineer (via permit conditions) will greatly improve the 

connectivity of the subject site with other areas of New Norfolk 

• Infrastructure Provision Costs 

Permit conditions establish that the developer will be responsible for the cost of 

upgrading or obtaining access to Council’s infrastructure. 

Clause 9.4 of the Scheme provides the “Status of Use or Development” and reads: 

9.4 STATUS OF USE OR DEVELOPMENT 

9.4.1 All use and/or Development within the Special Development 

Zone shall accord with the provisions of this Part. In the event of 

any consistency with any standard other requirement of the 

Scheme the provisions of this Part take precedence. 

9.4.2 Within the Special Development Zone, a use and/or Development 

of land is permitted if it is a use and/or Development that can 

demonstrate compliance with the applicable Acceptable 

Solutions contained in Clause 9.5 of this Scheme. 

9.4.3 Within the Special Development Zone, a use and/or Development 

of land is discretionary if it is a use and/or Development that 

relies wholly or in part on the use of applicable Performance 

Criteria contained in Clause 9.5 of this Scheme. 

42




9.4.4 An application must be made to Council for a permitted use 

and/or Development. Council is bound to grant a permit for a 

permitted use and/or Development but may impose conditions or 

restrictions to ensure compliance with the intent of the Scheme, 

the values and intent of the Special Development Zone and the 

objectives of any applicable Development standard. 

9.4.5 An application must be made to Council for a discretionary use 

and/or Development. The Council must: 

(a) grant a permit, with or without conditions that ensure 

compliance with the intent of the planning scheme, the 

values and intent of the Special Development Zone and the 

objectives of any applicable Development standard; or 

(b) refuse to grant a permit, where the application is unable to 

demonstrate compliance with the Development standards 

applicable to that use and/or Development. 

Clause 9.5 of the Scheme provides the “Development Standards” for the Special 

Development zone. There are six Development Standards covering Cultural 

Heritage; Lot Location and Size; Building Siting; Building Height; Landscaping and 

Access and Parking which are reproduced below with comments as appropriate from 

Councils Municipal Engineer and Planning Officer: 

9.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 

ISSUE AND OBJECTIVE 

• Cultural Heritage 

To ensure that the values of 

places, relics, objects and 

Structures of Aboriginal and 

historic cultural significance 

are conserved. 

Note 

* Conservation Plans 

shall be prepared to the 

satisfaction of the 

Tasmanian Heritage 

Council. 

** A heritage assessment 

of areas of aboriginal 

significance shall be 

prepared to the 

satisfaction of the 

Secretary of the 

Department of 

Environment and Land 

Management. 

PERFORMANCE 

CRITERIA 

1. The use and/or 

Development of land 

within the area identified 

as being of 'potential 

Aboriginal heritage 

significance' identified in 

Figure 1 (b) which 

involves modification of 

the existing landscape 

shall comply with the 

principles and provisions 

of a heritage 

assessment. 


Development within the ' 

core or peripheral site 

areas ' identified in 

Figure One (a) shall 

comply with the 

principles and provisions 

of a heritage assessment 

to the satisfaction of the 

Tasmanian Heritage 


ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS 



which is outside the 

'core’ or 'peripheral’ site 

areas identified in Figure 

One (a), or the area of 

'potential Aboriginal 

heritage significance’ in 

Figure One (b). 



does not involve 

modification of the 

existing landscape within 

the area identified as 

being of 'potential 


significance in Figure 

One (b). 

43






involves modification of 

the existing landscape 

within the area identified 

as being of 'potential 


significance in Figure 

One (b) where a heritage 

assessment** states that 

there are no sites or 

relics of Aboriginal 

heritage. 


Development within the ' 

core’ or ‘peripheral’ site 

areas identified in Figure 

One (a), that is 

specifically provided for 

by the principles and 

provisions or a 

“Conservation Plan”* for 

the Site. 

5. Signs located within the 

‘core’ or ‘peripheral’ site 

areas as identified in 

Figure One (a) and 

which are in accordance 

with a provision in a 

Conservation Plan. 

9.5 – Cultural heritage – being located in the Peripheral and Core site areas of Figure 

One (a) of the Scheme, the development application cannot comply with the 

Acceptable Solutions (AS) and therefore must rely on the Performance Criteria (PC) 

when making and assessing the proposal. Heritage Tasmania were informed of the 

application who then informed Council that; “given that the significant features of the 

place have been substantially destroyed and that the Heritage values no longer exist to 

any appreciable degree” they had no interest in the proposal and therefore did not 

require a Heritage Assessment; a Conservation Management Plan or a Works 

Application. 

44





ISSUE AND 

PERFORMANCE 

OBJECTIVE 

CRITERIA 

• Lot Location and Size 

To provide Lot sizes to suit 

a variety of uses with 

areas and dimensions that 

meet user requirements. 

Note 

* the minimum lot size 

excludes the area of 

any Access Strip. 

1. Lots have the 

appropriate location, 

area and dimensions 

for the siting and 

construction of 

Buildings suitable for 

uses and their 

associated Site 

facilities such as 

parking and access 

and Landscaping. 

ACCEPTABLE 

SOLUTIONS 

1. All Lots shall be 

designed so as to contain 

Development between 

the 10 and 100 metre 

elevation contours. 

2. Lots for Business and 

Civic use class shall have 

a minimum size* of 200 

m2, a minimum Frontage 

of 5 metres, with a 

Minimum Internal 

Rectangle of 10 metres X 

10 metres. 

3. Lots for the industrial use 

shall have a minimum 

size* of 1000 m2, a 

minimum Frontage of 7 

metres with a Minimum 

Internal Rectangle of 20 

metres X 20 metres. 

4. Lots for residential use 

shall have a minimum size 

* of 450 m2, a minimum 

Frontage of 3.6 metres 

with a Minimum Internal 

Rectangle of 10 metres X 

15 metres. 

5. Lot sizes for residential 

development shall be 

sufficient to accommodate 

the provisions of Clause 

2.9.4 of the Scheme. 

Lot Location and Size – the development complies with all Acceptable Solutions (AS) 

relating to the Lot location and size of Part 9.5 of the Scheme. 

45





ISSUE AND OBJECTIVE 

• Building Siting 

To enable flexibility in 

building siting while 

achieving appropriate visual 

bulk, adequate daylight to 

Dwellings and sunlight to 

Private Open Space and to 

address potential conflicts 

between uses. 

To Setback Buildings from 

the street to provide for 

Landscaping or open space, 

visual and acoustic privacy 

and car parking, while 

assisting in establishing an 

attractive Streetscape. 

PERFORMANCE 

CRITERIA 

1. Building siting is 

related to land form 

and is designed to 

minimise cut and fill. 

2. Siting of residential 

Developments or 

Developments adjacent 

to residential 

Developments are 

sufficient to ensure:- 

• adequate levels of 

daylight reach 

Habitable Rooms. 

• that there is no 

unreasonable loss 

of privacy or 

overshadowing of 

adjacent 

Dwellings and 

their principle 

areas of Private 

Outdoor Space. 

3. Setbacks are 

progressively 

increased as Wall 

Height increases to 

reduce bulk. 

4. The Setback of 

Buildings from the 

street is to contribute 

to the Streetscape 

character, assists the 

integration of new 

Development into the 

public Streetscape and 

makes efficient use of 

the Site. 

5. The siting of Buildings 

are sufficient to 

accommodate 

necessary attenuation 

distances to address 

potential conflicts 

between uses. 

ACCEPTABLE 

SOLUTIONS 

1. In areas of established 

Development, front 

Setbacks shall accord 

with the prevailing 

building line. Where no 

prevailing setback 

exists, Buildings are to 

be Setback a minimum 

of 4.5 metres from the 

Road alignment. 

2. Setbacks for residential 

and commercial 

Development shall 

accord with the 

provisions of Clause 

2.8.2 (a) and (b) of the 

Scheme. 

3. Setbacks for residential 

Development on any Site 

shall be sufficient to 

accommodate the 

provisions of Clause 

2.9.3 of the Scheme. 

4. Industrial Development 

shall be setback not less 

than 50 metres from a 

Dwelling. 

46




6. The siting of 

residential 

Development is to 

provide sufficient 

areas to accommodate 

adequate Private 

Outdoor Space and 

Communal Open 

Space. 

Building Siting – the application does not comply with 2.8.2(a or b) therefore relying 

on the Performance Criteria to achieve their preferred site layout which causes the 

application to become Discretionary for Building Sitting. However, the proposed 

siting of buildings is considered appropriate for the site and provides adequate space 

in and around the site to ensure the development will not impact adjoining properties 

via overshadowing effects and the like. The buildings of Tenancies A-E are the only 

buildings proposed to abut neighbouring land which is currently vacant. Any 

proposed development of this abutting parcel of land would have to consider the 

effects of overshadowing from the Tenancies A – E in their assessment of the site 

suitability for the specific use being requested. 


ISSUE AND 

OBJECTIVE 

• Building Height and 

Form 

To ensure that the Height 

and form of Buildings and 

Structures is of a 

compatible scale with 

existing Development to 

limit the visual impact, to 

protect cultural heritage 

values and impact upon 

residential Amenity. 

Note 

* Building Height Areas 

are shown in Figure 

Two. 

PERFORMANCE 

CRITERIA 

1. Building Height is related 

to land form. 

2. Building form is generally 

distributed to reduce 

impact on neighbours, 

established viewscapes 

and on the public street. 

3. Buildings are designed to 

minimise their impact 

upon the natural skyline 

and any relevant cultural 

heritage values. 

4. Building Heights are 

similar to those existing 

in the vicinity, with higher 

Buildings sited so as to 

minimise adverse impacts 

on neighbours and on the 

Streetscape. 

ACCEPTABLE 

SOLUTIONS 

1. The maximum Height 

of any Building or 

Structure does not 

exceed the Height 

limit. For the relevant 

Building Height Area* 

which are as follows : 

• Area A - 

No Buildings or 

Structures shall 

exceed 8 metres in 

Height. 

• Area B. - 

No buildings or 



Height. 

• Area C - 

No buildings or 



Height. 

47




2. Buildings have a 

maximum 

unarticulated length of 

15 metres to the public 

street frontage. 

Punctuation by 

elements such as 

verandas, wall offsets 

or other structural 

features is considered 

to be adequate 

articulation. 

The Building Height and Form presented in the submitted plans complies with AS in 

the Scheme. In addition, Permit conditions have been recommended if the proposal 

is approved to ensure the development will comply with the AS (Acceptable 

Solutions) for building height and form in Building Area Height Area A and B of the 

Scheme. 


ISSUE AND 

OBJECTIVE 

PERFORMANCE 

CRITERIA 

• Landscaping 

1. Landscaping shall, as 

To ensure adequate 

appropriate: 

Landscaping in order to • define a theme for 

minimise conflicts of scale, new streets, or 

provide shelter and 

compliments existing 

screening, and improve 

streets, and integrates 

visual Amenity, 

new Development; 

microclimate and public 

• be sensitive to Site 

safety and Amenity. 

attributes; 

• complement the 

functions of the street; 

• reinforce desired 

traffic speed and 

behaviour; 

• minimise conflicts 

between differing 

uses; 

• improve the privacy 

of Private Outdoor 

Space and Habitable 

Rooms of residences; 

• incorporate existing 

vegetation, where 

possible; 

• compliment 

ACCEPTABLE 

SOLUTIONS 

1. Landscaping shall be 

carried out in 

accordance with a 

Landscape Plan 

approved by the 


48




Streetscapes and 

landscapes of 

heritage significance; 

• assist in microclimate 

management; 

• maximise absorptive 

Landscaped Areas for 

on-Site infiltration of 

stormwater; 

• achieve adequate 

lines of sight for 

pedestrians, cyclists 

and vehicles; 

• provide adequate 

lighting for 


and vehicles; 

• satisfy maintenance 

and utility 

requirements and 

minimises the visual 

impact of above 

ground utilities and 

on-Site facilities and 

parking areas. 

• integrates with 

existing open space 

provisions and forms 

linkages with parks, 

reserves and 

transport corridors; 

• enhances pedestrian 

comfort. 

Landscaping – complies with AS of the Scheme. In addition, Permit conditions have 

been recommended if the proposal is approved to ensure the development will comply 

with the Acceptable Solutions for Landscaping in the Scheme. 

49





ISSUE AND 

OBJECTIVE 

• Access and Parking 

To ensure adequate 

provision of secure, safe 

and accessible on-Site 

parking for residents, 

workers and visitors. 

• Note: 

Council shall 

determine the most 

appropriate use 

category to determine 

car parking 

requirements under 

Schedule 5 

PERFORMANCE 

CRITERIA 

1. Car parking is provided 

according to projected 

needs which are 

determined by: 

• the size and type of 

the proposed 

Development and its 

parking demand 

generation 

characteristics; 

• the availability of 

on-street car 

parking; 

• the possible demand 

for car parking 

space from 

adjoining localities; 

• the occasional need 

for overflow 

parking; 

• the Streetscape 

impact of parking 

provisions; 

• the car parking 

requirements of 

people with 

disabilities. 

2. Car parking facilities 

are designed and 

located to : 

• conveniently and 

safely serve users, 

including 


and vehicles; 

• enable efficient use 

of car spaces and 

accessways, 

including adequate 

manoeuvrability for 

vehicles between the 

street and the 

Development Site; 

ACCEPTABLE 

SOLUTIONS 

1. Access and parking 

requirements for any 

Development in 

accordance with the 

following Clauses of 

Schedule 5* of this 

Scheme – S5.2, S5.3, 

S5.4, S5.5 & S5.7. 

50




• limit the visual 

impact of provisions 

upon the 

Streetscape; 

3. Open car parking areas 

and accessways are 

suitably Landscaped to 

enhance amenity while 

providing for security 

needs. 

4. Accessways and 

manoeuvring areas 

ensure safe and efficient 

access for the envisaged 

vehicle types operating 

on the Site. 

Access and Parking – The application does not comply with the AS because of a lack 

of on-site parking and therefore relies on PC’s to enable the application to be 

approved. Permit conditions have been recommended if the proposal is approved to 

ensure the development will comply with the PC for Access and Parking in 

accordance with Schedule 5 of the Scheme with the inclusion of additional parking or 

a cash in lieu payment. 

The proposal meets the requirements of the Acceptable Solutions (AS) or 

Performance Criteria (PC) for all of the Issues and Objectives to be address when 

proposing to undertake a development in Part 9 - Special Development Zone of the 

Scheme. A number of permit conditions have been recommended to ensure the 

proposal will comply with the requirements of the Scheme such as increasing the 

number of parking spaces on site and maximum building heights. 



The community was consulted during the public notification period during which time 

Council staff were available to assist community members. The proposal was 

advertised for a period of two (2) weeks in accordance with Section 57(3) of the Act 

and Section 8 of the Land Use Planning and Approval Regulations 1993. Four 

representations were received during the public notification period and are addressed 

below. 

51




Rep 1. 

1. Development too large for New Norfolk which will have detrimental effects on 

the businesses in the New Norfolk C.B.D. 

Planners Comment: The Economic Impact Assessment prepared by Essential 

Economics Pty. Ltd. November 2012 clearly states that there are only 7 

specialty shops proposed as part of the Major Shopping Centre that will 

compete with the smaller businesses in High Street. The report continues to 

state that due to this small number of speciality stores and other contributing 

factors such as being in a position to pull previously untapped passing traffic off 

the Lyell Highway; there will only be an anticipated 3% decline in turnover in 

2015 for the local businesses in High Street, New Norfolk. 

The Economic Impact Assessment indicates that the greatest completion and 

impacts of the proposed supermarket development will be afforded to the 

existing Woolworths supermarket as they compete for their share of existing and 

future trade in the area. However the Economic Impact Assessment clearly 

states that the introduction of a second supermarket would not cause 

Woolworths to become unviable. 

2. Does not accord with the spatial plan to develop between Willow Court, the 

C.B.D. and the Esplanade. 

Planners Comment: This part of the old Royal Derwent Hospital site is not 

incorporated into the Councils Spatial Plan that connects the Esplanade to 

Willow Court via the C.B.D. 

3. Lack of car parking in proposal. 

Engineers Comment: The development is acceptable and can provide ample 

parking on site for the intended use. 

Planners Comment: There is ample room on site for additional car parking on 

the site, therefore, if approved; a condition on the permit would require the 

applicants to submit a new car park plan showing a minimum of 653 car park 

spaces to the satisfaction of Council’s Engineer or; 500 parking spaces and a 

cash in lieu payment. 

Rep 2. 

1. Indicates that as this proposal is not located in the C.B.D. the proposed 

development will have a detrimental effect on the viability of the businesses in 

the New Norfolk C.B.D. 

Planners Comment: See response above for Rep 1 item 1. 

2. Lack of car parking in proposal. 

Engineers Comment: See response above for Rep 1 item 3. 

Planners Comment: See response above for Rep 1 item 3. 

52




3. No heritage assessment was provided in the application materials. 

Planners Comment: The development was referred to Heritage Tasmania who 

advised Council that they required no formal heritage assessment or 

Conservation Management Plan for the proposed development. 

Rep 3. 

A letter of support for the application suggesting the proposal will be good for the 

community, town and region, and that the proposed development will assist to 

revitalise that part of the old Royal Derwent Hospital site and its surrounds. 

Rep 4. 

1. Will fragment the retail sector and adversely affect business operators in the 

C.B.D. 

Planners Comment: See response to Rep 1 Item 1 above. 

2. Believes the proposal will introduce a third supermarket which does not accord 

with a previous decision of Council. 

Planners Comment: The Representor refers to the subdivision of Gateway 

Estate (DA 89/2005) in which a small area (1.1ha in size) of that title that fronts 

the Lyell Highway had been proposed for commercial development by the 

Applicant. The proposed development is to be located on a totally separate 

title which is removed from the Gateway Estate land. This is the first 

application Council has received to develop this part of the old Royal Derwent 

Hospital site for a commercial activity. 

(b) Experts 

Essential Economics Pty. Ltd; M. Prodanovic; W. Cromer; Heritage Tasmania; 

Council’s Municipal Engineer; DIER and Southern Water staff. 


The Applicant; Council and the local community of Gateway Estate and greater New 

Norfolk plus passing traffic generated from within and beyond the MTA. 


Nil 

53





Nil 


Nil 

Recommendation/Conclusion 

The application is considered to accord with the Intent and Development Standards of 

Part 9 – Special Development Zone - of the Scheme. The application relies on both 

AS and PC for assessment and was classified as a Discretionary application for 

matters such as Cultural Heritage; Building Siting and Form, and Access and Parking, 

all of which conditions have been proposed in any permit issued by Council for this 

proposal. 

It is considered that this application can be approved with conditions. 

Decision 



File: DA 68/2012 



That Derwent Valley Council (Planning Authority) in accordance with the provisions 

of the New Norfolk Council Planning Scheme 1993 and Section 57 of the Land Use 

Planning & Approvals Act 1993, approve the application for major Shopping Centre 

at Glebe and Ring Road’s, New Norfolk, Certificates of Title 148315/1; 148140/1 and 

159779/38, subject to the following conditions: 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT: - 

General 

1. The use or development must be carried out substantially in accordance with the 

application for planning approval, the endorsed drawings and with the 

conditions of this permit and must not be altered or extended without the further 

written approval of Council. 

54




2. The new Titles must be sealed and obtained from the Land Titles Office before 

construction commences. 

3. The development must be carried out in accordance with the recommendations 

contained in Cromer, W.C. (2012). Geotechnical assessment, proposed 

shopping centre between Glebe and Ring Roads New Norfolk. (Unpublished 

report for North Hobart Developments Pty. Ltd. by William C. Cromer Pty. 

Ltd., 17 Feb 2012; 159 pages). 

4. This permit shall not take effect and must not be acted on until the 18 th March 

2013 or 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE LAST LETTER TO ANY 

REPRESENTOR, OR THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, WHICH EVER IS LATER, 

in accordance with Section 53 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 

1993. 

5. The development must proceed in the order of stages shown on the endorsed 

plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by Derwent Valley Council. 

Development standards 

6. All windows and openings on the south facing walls for Tenancies A-E must 

comply with fire resistance levels of the BCA 2000 as amended and filled with 

translucent or opaque materials. 

7. All buildings contained within Area A of Figure two (Building height) of Part 9 

of the New Norfolk Council Planning Scheme 1993, must have a maximum 

height of 8.00 metres, measured vertically between the natural ground level and 

the highest point of the building directly above that point, excluding minor 

protrusions such as chimneys, flues, antennae and the like. 

8. All buildings contained within Area B of Figure two (Building height) of Part 9 

of the New Norfolk Council Planning Scheme 1993, must have a maximum 

height of 10.00 metres, measured vertically between the natural ground level 

and the highest point of the building directly above that point, excluding minor 

protrusions such as chimneys, flues, antennae and the like. 

Amenity 

9. All metal building surfaces must be clad in non-reflective pre-coated metal 

sheeting or painted to the satisfaction of the Council’s General Manager 

Noise 

10. Noise emissions from the use or development must not exceed a time average 

acoustic environmental quality objective weighted sound pressure level 

(LAeq,T) of 5 dB(A) above the background level, adjusted in accordance with 

Standards Australia: AS 1055, Acoustics – Description and measurement of 

environmental noise, Standards Association of Australia, Sydney, 1997 when 

measured at the boundary with another property. All methods of measurement 

must be in accordance with relevant Australian Standards and DPIWE (2003): 

Draft Noise Measurement Procedures Manual, Department of Primary Industry, 

Water & Environment, Hobart. 

55




Protection of water quality 

11. This permit shall not take effect and must not be acted on until a Soil and Water 

Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by a consultant approved by Council’s 

Municipal Engineer detailing measures to control erosion and stormwater runoff 

from the land and to prevent sediment and construction materials from being 

deposited on roads, adjoining properties or entering the stormwater system and 

water ways in accordance with accepted guidelines - Soil and Water 

Management on Large Building & Construction Site guidelines and the 

State Policy for Water Quality Management 1997 has been submitted to and 

approved by the Council’s General Manager (refer to advice below).(Guidelines 

can be downloaded from 

http://epa.tas.gov.au/documents/soil_and%20_water_management_fact%20_she 

et_1.pdf) 

12. Prior to any other works approved by this permit commencing, install temporary 

run-off, erosion and sediment controls in accordance with the measures detailed 

in the approved SWMP and inspect and maintain these controls at full 

operational capacity until the land is effectively rehabilitated and stabilised after 

completion of the development to the satisfaction of Council’s General 

Manager. 

13. Drainage from the proposed development must drain to a legal discharge point 

to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer and in accordance with a 

Plumbing permit issued by the Permit Authority in accordance with the Building 

Act 2000. 

14. All waste oil and other contaminants generated by the approved development 

must be stored appropriately and disposed of by a licensed contractor. Prior to 

the approved use commencing, the applicant shall apply for and be issued with a 

Plumbing and Special Plumbing Permit for Trade Waste issued by the Permit 

Authority in accordance with the Building Act 2000. 

Landscaping 

15. The site must be landscaped by trees, shrubs, fences or other means approved by 

Council’s General Manager. Planting must bear a suitable relationship to the 

proposed height of the buildings and must not use species listed as noxious 

weeds within Tasmania, displaying invasive characteristics or unsuitable for fire 

prone areas. 

16. A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or other person approved by 

Council’s General Manager must be submitted to and approved by Council’s 

General Manager prior to the commencement of the development. The 

landscape plan must show the areas to be landscaped, the form of landscaping, 

and species of plants and estimates of the cost of the works. The landscaping 

plan shall form part of the permit when approved 

17. The landscaping works must be completed in accordance with the endorsed 

landscape plan and to the satisfaction of Council’s General Manager prior to use 

of the development. All landscaping must continue to be maintained to the 

satisfaction of Council. 

56




18. Vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without separate Council 

planning approval, except:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

for fire hazard reduction required by an abatement order under the Local 

Government Act 1993 or the Fire Services Act 1979; 

to provide for public safety or to protect property; 

required for the development of a use approved under this planning 

scheme; 

that impairs the access of vehicles along an existing track or driveway; 

declared weeds under the Weed Management Act 1999; and 

for general maintenance of domestic gardens and existing pastures or 

cropping lands. 

Parking & access 

19. At least six hundred and fifty three (653) parking spaces, including fifteen (15) 

visitor space designed and marked out for use by the disabled, and three marked 

out for Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) must be provided on the land at all times 

for the use of the occupiers in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – 

Parking Facilities Part 1: Off Street Car Parking; Standards Australia, Sydney, 

2004; or; provide at least 500 parking spaces, including fifteen (15) visitor space 

designed and marked out for use by the disabled, and three marked out for 

Recreational Vehicles (RV’s) in accordance with Schedule 5.6 of the Scheme, 

and a cash in lieu payment of 350 dollars per car park. 

20. Prior to the development commencing, a parking plan (with a minimum 653 

parking spaces – or 500 parking spaces with cash in lieu of parking spaces 

payment) prepared and certified by a civil Engineer or other person approved by 

Council’s General Manager must be submitted to and approved by Council’s 

General Manager. When approved the parking plan will form part of this 

permit. 

21. The areas set-aside for parking and associated accesses and turning must have: - 

(a) A driveway access with a minimum 3.5 metres internal width and a 

maximum of 1 in 5 (20%) longitudinal grade or, if the topography makes 

this impractical, an absolute maximum longitudinal grade of 1 in 4 (25%). 

(b) Space on site to allow cars to turn with a single turning movement and 

leave the site in a forward direction. 

(c) An all weather pavement constructed and surfaced to the satisfaction of 

the Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

(d) Line-marking or some other means to show the parking spaces to the 

satisfaction of Council. 

(e) Internal signs not exceeding 0.3 square metres to direct drivers to the area 

set aside for visitor parking. 

(f) Drainage discharging to the stormwater system in accordance with the 

requirements of a plumbing permit issued by the plumbing Permit 

Authority. 

57




22. The eastern access to the site at Glebe Road must be designed and constructed 

with a minimum width of 7.0 metres for a distance of 6.0 metres from the 

carriageway of the road to allow vehicles to pass each other, or otherwise as 

required by Australia Standard AS 2890.2 – 2002, Parking facilities - Part 2: 

Off-Street, Commercial vehicle facilities, Sydney, 2002. 

23. The vehicle access from the carriageway of Glebe and Ring Roads onto the 

subject land must be constructed of reinforced concrete and be located and 

constructed in accordance with the approved Engineer designs and to the 

satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

24. The loading and unloading of goods from commercial vehicles must only be 

carried out in accordance with Australian: Standard AS 2890.2 – 2002, Parking 

facilities - Part 2: Off-Street, Commercial vehicle facilities, Sydney, 2002. 

25. The loading and unloading of goods from commercial vehicles must be carried 

out on the land between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm. 

26. All parking and associated turning, loading and unloading areas and access must 

be constructed in accordance with the approved parking plan. 

27. The completed parking and associated turning, loading and unloading areas and 

access must be certified by a practicing civil engineer to the effect that they 

have been constructed in accordance with the endorsed drawings and 

specifications approved by Council before the use commences. 

28. All areas set-aside for parking and associated turning, loading and unloading 

areas and access must be completed before the use commences or any building 

is occupied and must continue to be maintained to the satisfaction of the 

Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

29. All car parking and pedestrian thoroughfares internal roadways are to be sealed 

with an impervious dust free surface and drained to an approved stormwater 

system prior to occupancy. 

30. A B1 type barrier kerb and gutter to be constructed on all roadways associated 

with this development and to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

Traffic Impact Assessment 

31. All works recommended in the submitted Traffic Impact Assessment “Proposed 

Retail Shopping Centre Development – Ring Road – Glebe Road New Norfolk 

June 2012”, authored by Milan Prodanovic are to be completed at the 

developers cost and to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer and 

DIER before the use commences. 

32. Upgrade Middle and Ring Roads to full urban road standard using a 30mm 

Asphalt overlay and including footpaths with disabled pedestrian ramps on both 

sides of the roads including Disabled pedestrian ramps on both sides of the 

Link/Ring Road junction in accordance with Municipal Standard Drawings 

No’s SD 1001 – SD 1006 and to the satisfaction of Councils Municipal 

Engineer. 

58




33. Upgrade The Avenue from the Glebe/the Avenue/Poulters Road intersection for 

a distance of 520 metres to full urban road standards using a 30mm Asphalt 

overlay with speed humps positioned every 100m and including footpaths and 

disabled pedestrian ramps on both sides of The Avenue in accordance with 

Municipal Standard Drawings No’s SD 1001 – SD 1006 and to the satisfaction 

of Councils Municipal Engineer and Heritage Tasmania. (Tony Ellis should do 

his little bit and Humana the bit in front of the oval) 

34. Construct pedestrian footpaths on both sides of Glebe Road from the subject 

sites eastern access to Lyell Highway and Gateway Drive in accordance with 

Municipal Standard Drawings No’s SD 1004 – SD 1006 and to the satisfaction 

of Councils Municipal Engineer. 

35. Construct a pedestrian footpath on the southern side of Lyell Highway between 

Glebe and Ring Roads to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer and 

DIER. 

36. Construct a pedestrian footpath on the southern side of Ring Road to the 

southern boundary of the subject site in accordance with Municipal Standard 

Drawings No’s SD 1004 – SD 1006 and to the satisfaction of Councils 

Municipal Engineer. 

Engineering Designs 

37. Submit Engineering designs for a slip lane and pedestrian refuges incorporating 

disabled pedestrian ramps at the Lyell Highway/Glebe Road intersection a 

roundabout at the Glebe Road/Site Access intersection; and the Glebe Road/The 

Avenue/Poulters Road intersection to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal 

Engineer and DIER prior to commencing works. 

38. Submit Engineering designs to upgrade the intersection of Lyell Highway/Ring 

Road including pedestrian refuges to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal 

Engineer and DIER prior to commencing works. 

39. Submit Engineering designs for a footpath on the southern side of Lyell 

Highway between Glebe and Ring Roads to the satisfaction of Council’s 

Municipal Engineer and DIER prior to commencing works. 

40. Submit a car parking plan showing a minimum 653 car parks including a 

minimum 15 disabled car parks spaces in accordance with AS 2890 and three 

RV parking spaces to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer and 

including all traffic Islands, painted or otherwise, within the development site is 

to be clearly shown and dimensioned. 

41. Submit a car park on the submitted Engineering designs prior to commencing 

works on site. 

Design drawings 

42. Engineering design drawings are to be prepared by a qualified and experienced 

civil engineer, or other person approved by the Municipal Engineer. 

59




43. All engineering plans are to be prepared in accordance with AS1100.101 

“Technical Drawing – General principles” and AS1100.401 “Technical 

Drawing – Engineering survey and engineering survey design drawing”. 

44. Two sets of engineering plans are to be submitted to Council for initial 

inspection and comment. Four (4) sets of engineering plans are to be submitted 

for final approval by Council. Council will keep two (2) sets of approved plans 

and two (2) sets will be returned to the developer’s engineer. 

45. Approved Engineering Plans will remain valid for a period of 2 years from the 

original date of approval. 

Access from State Road 

46. All works required by the submitted Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) in respect 

of access or works within the Lyell Highway road reserve are to be approved 

and completed to the satisfaction of that Department of Infrastructure Energy 

and Resources before the use commences. 

47. All work on or affecting the State Road, including drainage, must be carried out 

in accordance with a permit provided by the Transport Division of the 

Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources. No works on the State 

Road shall commence until the Minister’s consent has been obtained and a 

permit issued in accordance with the Roads and Jetties Act 1935. 

Southern Water 

48. All Southern Water’s conditions form part of this permit. See Annex A for 

Southern Water’s conditions. 

Services 

49. Relocate the street lighting substation from the subject site and relocate to 

Auroras preferred location in the Ring Road road reserve and to the satisfaction 

of Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

50. The developer must meet the cost of Council upgrading the stormwater service 

to the land by installing a 600mm Blackmax pipe underground from Ring Road 

to Lachlan Creek in accordance with section 251 of the Local Government 

(Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and to the satisfaction of 

Council’s Engineer. Alternatively, the developer is to submit a concept design 

for a storm water detention system capable of reducing stormwater run-off from 

the site to the Municipal Engineers satisfaction. The developer is to construct 

the approved storm water detention system in accordance with the approved 

storm water detention system design and connect to Councils storm water 

system to the Municipal Engineers satisfaction prior to the use of the site. 

51. Stormwater from the roof must discharge to a storage tank with an overflow 

connected to an absorption drain with an area of 5% – 10% of the roof area, a 

road drain or other legal point of discharge in accordance with a Plumbing 

Permit issued by the Permit Authority in accordance with the Building Act 2000. 

52. Any works within Council’s road reservation is to be carried out by a Councilregistered 

contractor. A road-opening permit from Council’s Planning Services 

Program is required. An inspection fee of $50.00 is payable upon application. 

60




53. Telecommunications and electrical reticulation for power and street lighting 

must be installed in accordance with the requirements of Telstra and Aurora 

Energy Pty. Ltd. Prior to the work being carried out a drawing of the electrical 

reticulation and street lighting in accordance with the appropriate Australian 

Standard must be submitted to and approved by the Council’s Municipal 

Engineer. 

54. All new public infrastructure must be designed and constructed in accordance 

with the statutory requirements in the:- 

• Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 

• Local Government (Highways) Act 

• Sewers & Drains Act 1954 

• Waterworks Clauses Act 

• Australian Standards 

• Building and Plumbing Regulations 

• Relevant By-laws and Council Policy 

• WSAA 02-2002 Sewerage Code Of Australia 

• WSAA 03-2002 Water Supply Code Of Australia 

• Current IPWEA and Derwent Valley Council Municipal Standard 

Drawings 


Specification 

55. Water and other property services must be contained wholly within each lot 

served to the satisfaction of the Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

56. Kerb ramps must be provided to accommodate the needs of disabled people in 

accordance with the standard drawings prepared by the IPWE Aust. (Tasmania 

Division) and to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

57. A pavement design must be submitted for approval with the engineering plans. 

The pavement design shall be in accordance with ARRB Special Report No. 41 

using the estimated traffic volumes, the expected traffic type and the sub-grade 

California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The subgrade CBR values must be determined 

from laboratory tests, or other method approved by the Council’s Municipal 

Engineer, and must be based on a minimum of three (3) separate samples for 

each street. 

58. Carriageway surface course to be hotmix asphalt unless approved otherwise by 

the Municipal Engineer. 

Construction traffic management plan 

59. A Traffic Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person in 

accordance with Section G2.6 of DIER: Standard Specification for Roadworks, 

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart, August 2003 and 

the referenced document DIER: Traffic Control at Work Sites Code of Practice, 

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart, June 2004, or the 

61




current replacements must be submitted to the Council’s Municipal Engineer 

prior to the commencement of any work within a public road reserve. All traffic 

control is required to be performed and certified by accredited traffic control 

personnel and all works within the road reserve to comply with all relevant 

occupational health and safety regulations. 

60. Prior to the development of the land commencing on site or within a council 

roadway, a “start work” notice must be lodged with and accepted by the 

Council’s Municipal Engineer. The “start work” notice must be accompanied 

by evidence of payment of the Building and Construction Industry Training 

Levy, where the cost of the works exceeds $12,000. 

61. Not less than 48 hours written notice must be provided to Council before 

reaching any stage of works requiring inspection by Council unless otherwise 

agreed by the Council’s Manager Engineering Services. 

62. Prior to the works being placed on the maintenance period an “as constructed” 

drawing must be provided to the satisfaction of the Council’s Municipal 

Engineer of all engineering works provided as part of this approval. These 

drawings must be prepared by a qualified and experienced civil engineer or 

other person approved by the Municipal Engineer and provided in both digital 

and “hard copy” format. 

Construction amenity 

63. The development must only be carried out between the following hours unless 

otherwise approved by the Council’s General Manager: 

• Monday to Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

• Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

• Sunday and State-wide public holidays 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

64. All works associated with the development of the land shall be carried out in 

such a manner so as not to unreasonably cause injury to, or prejudice or affect 

the amenity, function and safety of any adjoining or adjacent land, and of any 

person therein or in the vicinity thereof, by reason of: 

(i) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, odour, fumes, smoke, vapour, 

steam, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or otherwise. 

(ii) The transportation of materials, goods and commodities to and from the 

land. 

(iii) Obstruction of any public footway or highway. 

(iv) Appearance of any building, works or materials. 

65. Public roadways or footpaths must not be used for the storage of any 

construction materials or wastes, for the loading/unloading of any vehicle or 

equipment; or for the carrying out of any work, process or tasks associated with 

the project during the construction period. 

62




66. Any accumulation of vegetation, building debris or other unwanted material 

must be disposed of by removal from the site in an approved manner. No 

burning of such materials on site will be permitted unless approved in writing 

by the Council’s General Manager. 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

67. The activity endorsed by this permit must be carried out in accordance with the 

requirements of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 

1994, and Regulations made thereunder. 

68. The applicant shall not in the course of carrying out the activity, without the 

prior written approval of Council, change any process, construct, install, alter or 

remove any structure or equipment or change the nature or quantity of materials 

used or produced which might cause or increase the issue of a pollutant, or 

otherwise result in environmental harm. 

69. No odours determined to be offensive by Council’s Environmental Health 

Officer shall be emitted so as to be detectable beyond the boundaries of the 

premises. 

70. No dust or particulates determined by Council’s Environmental Health Officer 

to be a nuisance, a pollutant, or prejudicial to health, shall be emitted beyond the 

boundaries of the premises. 

71. When an emergency accident or malfunction of equipment may or does result in 

the release of a pollutant from the site which is different from, or in excess of, 

normal emissions, the person responsible for the activity shall (in accordance 

with section 32 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 

1994) IMMEDIATELY (and not later than within 24 hours) contact the 

Derwent Valley Council Environmental Health Office on telephone 

(03)62618530 or fax (03)62618546 and take all practicable action to contain the 

emission(s) and to minimise the adverse environmental effects of any pollutant 

which is unavoidably emitted. The person responsible for the activity shall, 

following any such incident, report all events occurring during the unplanned 

emission episode (2) in writing to the Derwent Valley Council within 5 working 

days of the cessation of the episode(s). 

THE FOLLOWING ADVICE APPLIES TO THIS PERMIT: 

A. This permit does not imply that any other approval required under any other 

legislation or by-law has been granted. 

B. A separate permit is required for any signs unless otherwise permitted by 

Council’s planning scheme. 

C. The issue of this permit does not ensure compliance with the provisions of the 

Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in relation to access to or 

use of premises that the public can enter or use. Building access issues may 

also arise under other Disability Discrimination Act 1992 provisions relating to 

employment, access to services and accommodation provisions. The operator 

may be liable to complaints in relation to any non-compliance with the 

Disability Discrimination Act 1992. 

63




There are currently no standards prescribed for compliance with the Disability 

Discrimination Act 1992, however, Australian Standards associated with the 

Act, including AS 1428.1-2001 - Design for access and mobility - General 

requirements for access - New building work and the Building Code of 

Australia (BCA) may apply to occupants of the building. It is recommended 

that you obtain further information concerning the Disability Discrimination Act 

1992 from the Office of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities 

Commission or the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission. 

D. The approved setback may require the building fabric to be altered to comply 

with the construction requirements of ABCB, Building Code of Australia, 

ABCB, Canberra, 2004. Advice should be sought from your building designer 

or building surveyor. 

E. The permit issued under the Road and Jetties Act 1935 will detail those 

conditions that are specific to the site, including requirements for warning signs, 

lighting and barricading in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. 

Contact should be made with Department of Infrastructure Energy and 

Resources’ Southern Region Network Supervisor, Mr. Geoff Lewis, by 

telephone on 6233 8684 to define and outline any applicable conditions or 

before commencing any work within the State Road reserve. 

The detailed design plans for the Department of Infrastructure, Energy & 

Resources need to address the requirements of the Department’s ‘Standard Brief 

for Professional Services’, which also references the Department’s ‘Standard 

Specification for Roadworks’. Both these documents can be found at 

http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/ road/tenders/web_spec/index.html and then by 

following the prompts to the “Specifications Listing”. In the event that specific 

components of these documents are unavailable, contact should be made with 

the Department’s Technical Officer. 

F. The standard specification and Code of Practice for traffic management plans 

for roadworks are available on: - 

http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/road/tenders/web_spec/index.html, and 

http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/safety/traffic_control_code/index.html). 

G. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the Soil and Water 

Management on Large Building & Construction Site guidelines and the State 

Policy for Water Quality Management (1997) and show the following: 

• Allotment boundaries, north-point, contours, layout of roads, 

driveways, building envelopes and reticulated services (including 

power and telephone and any on-site drainage or water supply), 

impervious surfaces and types of all existing natural vegetation; 

• Critical natural areas such as drainage lines, recharge area, wetlands, 

and unstable land; 

• Estimated dates of the start and completion of the works; 

• Timing of the site rehabilitation or landscape program; 

• Details of land clearing and earthworks or trenching and location of 

soil stockpiles associated with roads, driveways, building sites, 

reticulated services and fire hazard protection; 

64




• Arrangements to be made for surface and subsurface drainage and 

vegetation management in order to prevent sheet and tunnel erosion; 

• Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to be used on the site; 

and 

• Recommendations for the treatment and disposal of wastewater in 

accordance with Standards Australia: AS/NZS 1547:On-site wastewater 

management, Standards Australia, Sydney, 2000. 

Appropriate temporary control measures include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Minimise site disturbance and vegetation removal; 

• Diversion of up-slope run-off around cleared and/or disturbed areas, or 

areas to be cleared and/or disturbed, provided that such diverted water 

will not cause erosion and is directed to a legal discharge point (e.g. 

temporarily connected to Council’s storm water system, a watercourse 

or road drain); 

• Sediment retention traps (e.g. sediment fences, straw bales, grass turf 

filter strips, etc.) at the down slope perimeter of the disturbed area to 

prevent unwanted sediment and other debris escaping from the land; 

• Sediment retention traps (e.g. sediment fences, straw bales, etc.) 

around the inlets to the stormwater system to prevent unwanted 

sediment and other debris blocking the drains; 

• Gutters spouting and downpipes installed and connected to the 

approved stormwater system before the roofing is installed; and 

• Rehabilitation of all disturbed areas as soon as possible. 

H This planning approval shall lapse at the expiration of two (2) years from the 

date of the commencement of planning approval if the development for which 

the approval was given has not been substantially commenced. Where a 

planning approval for a development has lapsed, an application for renewal of a 

planning approval for that development shall be treated as a new application. 

I The owner is advised that a fee of 1% of the value of the approved engineering 

works, or a minimum of $200.00, must be paid to Council in accordance with 

Council’s fee schedule. 

j. The permit issued under the Road and Jetties Act 1935 will detail those 

conditions that are specific to the site, including requirements for warning signs, 

lighting and barricading in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. 

Contact should be made with Department of Infrastructure Energy and 

Resources’ Southern Region Network Supervisor, Mr. Geoff Lewis, by 

telephone on 6233 8684 to define and outline any applicable conditions or 

before commencing any work within the State Road reserve. 

65




K. The detailed design plans for the Department of Infrastructure, Energy & 

Resources need to address the requirements of the Department’s ‘Standard Brief 

for Professional Services’, which also references the Department’s ‘Standard 

Specification for Roadworks’. Both these documents can be found at 

http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/road/tenders/web_spec/index.html and then by 

following the prompts to the “Specifications Listing”. In the event that specific 

components of these documents are unavailable, contact should be made with 

the Department’s Technical Officer Asset Management Strategies, Mr. Brian 

Watson, on telephone (03) 6233 2747. 

L. The traffic management Code of Practice can be found at 

http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/safety/traffic_control_code/index.html. Typical 

details are shown in the relevant Australian Standard field guide. 


CARRIED 




• Cr Shaw For • Cr Bester Against 


66




The Mayor called for a break of the meeting for five minutes at 9.00pm. 

The Meeting resumed at 9.07pm 

10.9 DA 169/2011 – 10 LOT SUBDIVISION – BACK RIVER ROAD, 

MAGRA 

Report To: 

Author: 






The subject of this report is an application for a ten (10) Lot subdivision at Back River 

Road, Magra. The parent parcel of land is CT 162244/1 that is 1.028ha in size. 

The proposal is to generate ten (10) Lots varying in size from 890m² to 1200m², with 

an average size of approximately 1027m². The parent parcel of land is located in a 

Residential zone. 

The Site 

The land proposed for subdivision used to form part of the New Norfolk Golf Club 

however in January 2011, the 1.028ha parcel of land was subdivided from the Golf 

Club land (C/T 162245/1). 

The golf club continues to use the land west of the Lot proposed subdivision as a golf 

course. The golf club land (C/T 162245/1) is zoned Open Space zone. 

The subject site has Residential zoned land to the north, south and directly across 

Back River Road, and the proposed Lots are considered suitable for the future 

development of structures appropriate for residential purposes. A Cadastral plan of 

the subject parcel of land and surrounding area is provided below (see Figure 1.) 

67




Figure 1.Cadastral plan of subject site and surrounds. Source: www.thelist.tas.gov.au - 6 Feb 2013 

The proposed site for subdivision consists of gently sloping land that has been heavily 

modified by human activity and contains no significant trees or vegetation. The land 

in the area slopes from the golf club at the rear down to the lowest point on the site in 

front of the proposed Lot 9. 

The site is currently vacant Residential land. 

Background 

A portion of the golf course was rezoned from Open Space to Residential prior to the 

introduction of the New Norfolk Council Planning Scheme 1993. In January 2011 

the golf club land underwent a subdivision at which time the 1.028ha site of this 

application (C/T 162244/1) was formed. 

Proposal 

The proposal is to subdivide the subject property into ten (10) Lots of various sizes. 

The proposed Lot sizes are: 

Lot 1 890m² 

Lot 2 902m² 

Lot 3 970m² 

Lot 4 1013m² 

Lot 5 1086m² 

Lot 6 1078m² 

Lot 7 1073m² 

Lot 8 1200m² 

Lot 9 950m² 

Lot 10 1113m² 

68





S1 

To make our people feel worthwhile by building greater self-reliance 

and self worth in our community. 

S1.1 Encourage residents to participate in community affairs and the Local 

Government process in collaboration with the Derwent Valley Council. 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

The Community 

The community has been consulted during the public notification; in addition 

Planning staff were available to provide advice and additional information to 

interested members of the public upon request. 

Experts 

Southern Water and Council’s Engineer and Planner. 

Stakeholders 

Stakeholders that have been consulted by planning staff during the development 

application assessment process included the applicants, interested members of 

the public & members of Council such as Council’s Engineer. 


The application was publicly advertised from the 17 th December 12012 to the 8 

January 2013 during which time Council received no representations. 

Discussion 

Planning Scheme Provisions 

On the 19 th of December 2011 an application to subdivide CT 162244/1 into ten (10) 

Lots was received by Council. 

The Intent of the Residential zone is located at Clause 2.2 of the New Norfolk Council 

Planning Scheme 1993, and is reproduced below. 

2.2 INTENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. 

The intent of this Zone is: 

(a) to ensure sufficient serviced residential land is available to meet the 

anticipated demand for the next 10 years; 

(b) to ensure a high level of urban services such as water,sewerage, 

storm water and road access are available; 

69




(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

to facilitate consolidation by encouraging the utilisation of existing 

serviced land; 

to protect residential amenity by reducing the potential for land use 

conflicts between residential use and other land use activities; 

to encourage a range of house lots sizes, housing types and housing 

designs to suit different needs within the community; and 

to retain and improve the existing streetscape. 

The development is considered to accord with the Intent of the Residential zone. 

Development Standards 

The subdivision of land in the Residential zone within the New Norfolk Council 

Planning Scheme 1993 is classified as Discretionary and must comply with the 

development standards for subdivision for the zone. The development standards for 

subdivision in the Residential zone is found at Clause 2.12 of the New Norfolk 

Council Planning Scheme 1993. Those subdivision standards are reproduced below. 

SUBDIVISION. 

Minimum Subdivision Standards. 

Subdivision of land shall be in accordance with Table 3. 

Table 3: Minimum Subdivision Standards 

Zone 

Minimum Lot 

Size (a) (m2) 

Minimum 

Frontage(m) 

Minimum 

Internal 

Rectangle(m) 

Residential 450 3.6 10 x 15 

Village 450 3.6 10 x 15 

Future Residential 450 3.6 10 x 15 

Rural Residential A 

Rural Residential B 

Refer to Clause 2.12.2 for standards 

Refer to Clause 2.12.3 for standards 

Note: (a) the minimum lot size excludes the area of any Access Strip. 

The 10 Lots proposed for subdivision all exceed the minimum subdivision standards 

of the New Norfolk Council Planning Scheme 1993. When the Lots are fully serviced 

with reticulated infrastructure and a suitable access they will be considered suitable 

for Residential development. 

The road network around the subject land is capable of accommodating the perceived 

traffic generated from the ten (10) Lot subdivision. 

Conclusion 

An application has been made to subdivide CT 162244/1 a 1.028ha parcel of land 

located at Back River Road, Magra into ten (10) Lots of various sizes. 

The application was advertised and no representations were received during the 

advertising period. 

70




It is considered that in addition to standard conditions, the proposal complies with the 

relevant objectives of the Planning Scheme and the application is able to be approved. 

Recommendation 



File: DA 169/2011 Back River Road, Magra 



That Derwent Valley Council (Planning Authority) in accordance with the provisions 

of the Derwent Valley Council Planning Scheme 1993 and Section 57 of the Land Use 

Planning & Approvals Act 1993, approve the application for a ten Lot subdivision of 

CT 16224/1 at Back River Road, Magra, subject to the following conditions: 

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT: - 

Planning 

1. The subdivision layout or development shown on the endorsed plan of survey 

and specified in the associated application information must not be altered 

without the further written consent of Council. 

2. This permit shall not take effect and must not be acted on until the 8 th March 

2013, OR THE DATE OF THIS LETTER, WHICH EVER IS LATER unless, as 

the applicant and the only person with a right of appeal, you notify Council in 

writing that you propose to commence the use or development before this date>. 

3. Easements must be created over all drains, pipelines, wayleaves and services in 

accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Municipal Engineer. The 

cost of locating and creating the easements shall be at the subdivider’s full cost. 

4. Covenants or other controls must not be included on the titles to the lots created 

by the subdivision where they are in conflict with any provisions of, or seek to 

prohibit any use provided within the Derwent Valley Planning Scheme 1993. 

No covenant shall be included on the titles to the lots created by the subdivision 

unless approved by the Council’s General Manager. 

5. As insufficient provision has been made for recreational space, and having 

formed the opinion that such a provision should be made in respect of the 

proposal, Council requires that an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the 

unimproved value of C/T 162244/1 must be provided as cash-in-lieu of public 

open space in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Local 

Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993. The subdivider 

must obtain a valuation for the unimproved value of the subdivision from a 

registered Valuer or other approved method. 

71




6. The cash-in-lieu of public open space must be in the form of a direct payment 

made before the sealing of the final plan of survey or, alternatively, in the form 

of a Bond or Bank guarantee to cover payment within ninety (90) days after 

demand, made after the final plan of survey has taken effect. 

7. All works associated with the development of the land must be carried out in 

such a manner so as not to cause injury to, or prejudicially affect the amenity, 

function and safety of any adjoining or adjacent building, and of any person 

therein or in the vicinity thereof, by reason of: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Emissions from activities or equipment related to the use or development, 

including noise and vibration, which can be detected by a person at the 

boundary with another property. 

Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. 

Appearance of any building, works or materials. 

8. The development must be carried out between the following hours: 

• Monday to Friday 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

• Saturday 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

• Sunday and Statewide 

10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 

public holidays 

9. Public roadways or footpaths must not be used for the storage of any 

construction materials or wastes, for the loading/unloading of any vehicle or 

equipment, or for the carrying out of any work, process or tasks associated with 

the project during the construction period. 

10. Survey pegs to be stamped with lot numbers and marked for easy identification. 

11. A fee of $150.00, or as otherwise adopted by Council resolution from time to 

time, must be paid to Council prior to the sealing of each stage of the final plan 

of survey. 

12. A final plan of survey and two (2) copies must be provided together with the 

schedule of easements as necessary. 

13. All conditions of this permit must be satisfied before the Council seals the final 

plan of survey for each stage. It is the subdivider’s responsibility to arrange any 

required inspections and to advise Council in writing that the conditions of the 

permit have been satisfied. The final plan of survey will not be dealt with until 

this advice has been provided. 


14. All Southern Water’s conditions form part of this permit. See Annex A for 


72




Engineering 

General 

15. The Subdivider must pay the cost of any alterations and/or reinstatement to 

existing services, Council infrastructure or private property incurred as a result 

of the proposed subdivision works. Any work required is to be specified or 

undertaken by the authority concerned. 

16. All new public infrastructure and subdivision work must be designed and 

constructed in accordance with the statutory requirements in the:- 

• Local Government (Building & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 

• Local Government (Highways) Act 

• Sewers & Drains Act 1954 

• Waterworks Clauses Act 

• Australian Standards 

• Building and Plumbing Regulations 

• Relevant By-laws and Council Policy 

• WSAA 02-2002 Sewerage Code Of Australia 

• WSAA 03-2002 Water Supply Code Of Australia 


Drawings 


Specification 

17. Water and other property services must be contained wholly within each lot 

served to the satisfaction of the Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

18. Any work within Council’s road reservation is to be carried out by a Councilregistered 

contractor. A road-opening permit from Council’s Technical Services 

is required. An inspection fee of $50.00 is payable upon application. 

Other utilities 

19. Electrical and telecommunication services must be provided to each lot in 

accordance with the requirements of the responsible authority and to the 

satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

20. Electrical reticulation for power and street lighting and telecommunication 

reticulation must be installed underground in accordance with the requirements 

of Aurora Energy Pty. Ltd., Telstra and the gas authority. Prior to the work 

being carried out a drawing of the electrical reticulation and street lighting and 

gas conduits in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standard must be 

submitted to and endorsed by the Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

73





21. All Southern Water’s conditions form part of this permit. See Annex A for 


Design drawings 

22. Engineering design drawings are to be prepared by a qualified and experienced 

civil Engineer, or other person approved by the Municipal Engineer. 

23. All engineering plans are to be prepared in accordance with AS1100.101 

“Technical Drawing – General principles” and AS1100.401 “Technical 

Drawing – Engineering survey and engineering survey design drawing”. 

24. Two sets of engineering plans are to be submitted to Council for initial 

inspection and comment. Four (4) sets of engineering plans are to be submitted 

for final approval by Council. Council will keep two (2) sets of approved plans 

and two (2) sets will be returned to the developer’s engineer. 

25. Approved Engineering Plans will remain valid for a period of 2 years from the original date 

of approval. 

Drainage 

26. Stormwater drainage though private property is to be piped unless approved 

otherwise by the Municipal Engineer. 

27. Separate stormwater connections must be supplied to each lot in accordance with 

Council standards and specification and the requirements of Council’s Municipal 

Engineer. 

Access and roads 

28. Kerb ramps must be provided to accommodate the needs of disabled people in 

accordance with the standard drawings prepared by the IPWE Aust. (Tasmania 

Division) and to the satisfaction of Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

29. A reinforced concrete access must be provided from the carriageway of the road 

to each lot on the plan in accordance with the construction and sight distance 

standards shown on standard drawings SD 1003 and SD 1030 prepared by the 

IPWE Aust. (Tasmania Division) (attached) and to the satisfaction of Council’s 

Municipal Engineer. 

30. A pavement design must be submitted for approval with the engineering plans. 

The pavement design shall be in accordance with ARRB Special Report No. 41 

using the estimated traffic volumes, the expected traffic type and the sub-grade 

California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The subgrade CBR values must be determined 

from laboratory tests, or other method approved by the Council’s Municipal 

Engineer, and must be based on a minimum of three (3) separate samples for 

each street. 

74




31. A B1 type barrier kerb and gutter to be constructed along the frontage with 

Back River Road including allowance for suitable vehicle access provision to 

individual Lots on the submitted plan of subdivision and to the satisfaction of 

Council’s Municipal Engineer. 

Construction 

32. A Traffic Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person in 

accordance with Section G2.6 of DIER: Standard Specification for Road works, 

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart, August 2003 and 

the referenced document DIER: Traffic Control at Work Sites Code of Practice, 

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart, June 2004, or the 

current replacements must be submitted to the council’s Municipal Engineer 

prior to the commencement of any work within a public road reserve. All traffic 

control is required to be performed and certified by accredited traffic control 

personnel and all works within the road reserve to comply with all relevant 

occupational health and safety regulations. 

33. Prior to the development of the land commencing on site or within a council 

roadway, a “start work” notice must be lodged with and accepted by the 

Council’s Municipal Engineer. The “start work” notice must be accompanied 

by evidence of payment of the Building and Construction Industry Training 

Levy, where the cost of the works exceeds $12,000. 

34. Not less than 48 hours written notice must be provided to Council before 

reaching any stage of works requiring inspection by Council unless otherwise 

agreed by the Council’s Manager Engineering Services. 

35. The subdivision must be placed onto a 12 month defects liability period in 

accordance with Councils Specification and Policy following the works 

reaching the stage of practical completion in accordance with the approved 

engineering plans and permit conditions. 

36. Prior to the works being placed on the maintenance period an “as constructed” 

drawing must be provided to the satisfaction of the Council’s Municipal 

Engineer of all engineering works provided as part of this approval. These 

drawings must be prepared by a qualified and experienced civil engineer or 

other person approved by the Municipal Engineer and provided in both digital 

and “hard copy” format. 

75




THE FOLLOWING ADVICE APPLIES TO THIS PERMIT: - 

A. This permit does not imply that any other approval required under any other 

legislation or by-law has been granted. 

B. If you notify Council that you intend to commence the use or development 

before the date specified above you forfeit your right of appeal in relation to this 

permit. 

C. This planning approval shall lapse at the expiration of two (2) years from the 

date of the commencement of planning approval if the development for which 

the approval was given has not been substantially commenced. Where a 

planning approval for a development has lapsed, an application for renewal of a 

planning approval for that development shall be treated as a new application. 


CARRIED 






76




10.10 COMMUNITY HOUSE MEMORANDUM OF LEASE EXTENSION 

Report To: 

Author: 






The Purpose of this report is to gain approval from Council to take up the first 

renewal option of the lease for the Community House Building in Willow Court. The 

Option period is nine years. 


IS3 

IS5 

S1 

S2 

S3 








To encourage the development of local sporting, cultural and artistic 

activities. 

Discussion 

The matter of the extension of the lease for Community House was raised at a recent 

councillors workshop and at that time it was suggested that a SWOT analysis in 

regard to this site and Carinya Education Park. 

There has been three meetings with representatives of Community House and at this 

point in time there needs more work in regard to the SWOT analysis and therefore it 

was felt prudent to take up the first extension of the Lease being for a further 9 year 

period. 

77




In discussions with representatives from Community House they have requested that a 

more formal sub-lease be provided for their use of Community House in its present 

location. They also suggested that if after undertaking the SWOT analysis another 

location was feasible they would communicate this to their board and then if 

appropriate relocate and cease the lease on their current site. 

This would only be achieved if it was more beneficial to them to move to the new 

location, and that the terms of a lease for the other site was satisfactory. 




(b) Experts 



Representatives of Community House and Derwent Valley Staff 


Not applicable at this stage 


If Council supports the extension of the Lease on the Current Community House the 

costs associated with the extension can be accommodated in the budget for 2012/13 

without amendment. 



78




Decision 



File: 380 

Moved: Cr Lathey 


1. That Council write to the current owner of the Community House in the Avenue 

New Norfolk Requesting under Clause 1.2 Option to renew for a period of 9 

years from the 24 th June 2013. 

2. That a formal sub-lease be drafted between Council and the Community House 

Board reflecting the extension of the lease subject to Clause 1.3 Assignment etc. 

3. That once the SWOT analysis has been completed between Derwent Valley 

Council and the Community House a further report is to be tabled at a Council 

Meeting detailing the outcome of this analysis and including the preferred 

location for Community House. 




File: 380 

Moved: Cr Bester 

Seconded: Cr Bromfield 

That a decision in regard to the Community House lease be further discussed once the 

Swat Analysis has been completed, the timeframe for the completion of the Swat 

Analysis be set at six (6) weeks. 


THE AMENDEMENT WAS PUT AND CARRIED 


• Cr Lathey For • Cr Shoobridge Against 




79





THE AMENDEMENT MOTION BECAME THE 



• Cr Lathey For • Cr Shoobridge Against 




80




10.11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS 2013 

Report To: 

Author: 






The purpose of this report is to obtain the opinion of Councillors in regard to the possibility of delaying 

the Local Government Election for 2013 for twelve months. 


IS2 

IS5 

S1 

S2 

To maintain high standards in the provision of all Council services in line 

with community needs, Council’s policies and regulatory requirements. 







Discussion 

At the Council meeting on the 18 th October 2013 Council discussed the discussion 

paper titled “Local Government Electoral Arrangements”. The report to council at that 

meeting was as follows: 

The Director of Local Government has written advising as follows: 

“As you are aware, at the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) 

Annual Conference on 13 th July 2012 the Minister for Local Government, Bryan 

Green MP, announced his intention to consult on a number of proposed changes to 

Local Government electoral arrangements. 

81

The proposed changes include: 




• Introducing opt-in compulsory voting whereby a council may choose to make 

voting in local government elections compulsory within its municipal area; 

• Introducing all-in, all-out elections every four years, with four-year terms for 

Mayors and Deputy Mayors; 

• Moving to election of Deputy Mayors ‘around the table’ rather than by popular 

vote; and 

• Banning dual representation, so that a person cannot in future hold a seat on 

council and in State Parliament at the same time. 

The Premier’s Local Government Council considered the proposals on 15 th August 

2012 and agreed to the formation of a working group to consider the proposals 

comprised of representatives from the Division of Local Government, Security and 

Emergency Management, LGAT, and Local Government, with technical advice 

provided by the Tasmanian Electoral Commission. 

Please note that legislation will need to be considered by Parliament as early as 

possible if changes are required in advance of the October 2013 elections. Depending 

on the complexities of the formal drafting process, the time allowed for consultation 

on the draft legislation may need to be shortened. In addition, the consultation period 

is unfortunately likely to occur over summer. 

As such please ensure that elected members, and any council officers who may be 

interested in commenting, are aware that this consultation period should be considered 

the primary formal consulting period in relation to these proposed changes. Any draft 

legislation will of course be provided to LGAT for comment however the time 

allowed for comment may not be sufficient to allow for consideration of issues at an 

ordinary council meeting. 

Given the tight timeframe, I would be grateful if you could provide the Council 

feedback on the proposed changes by Wednesday 31 st October 2012. If there are any 

issues with this timeframe, please contact this office on (03) 62327022. 

In addition I will be running regional workshops in early October, if demand is 

sufficient, to give elected members the opportunity to provide feedback directly to me 

on the proposed changes. 

At this Council Meeting the following Resolution was passed: 

1. That council approve the setting up of a working group made up of Councillors 

Shaw, Lester, Graham, Lathey, Bester, Shoobridge, Nicholson, Evans and the 

General Manager to review and make comments on the discussion paper 

“Proposed Changes to Local Government Electoral Arrangements. This meeting 

is to be held on Tuesday 23 rd October 2012 at 6.30pm. 

82




2. That a copy of the working group’s comments is to be provided to all 

councillors prior to it being forwarded to the Director of Local Government. 

The draft letter was provided to councillors by e-mail on the 26 th October 2012 at 

8.52am. 

After the feedback from Councillors the following letter was forwarded to the 

Director of Local Government: 

24 th October 2012 

Mr. Mathew Healey 

Director 

Division of Local Government 

G P O Box 123 

Hobart 

TASMANIA 7001 

Dear Mr. Healey 

Thank you for your letter of the 19 th September 2012, wherein you sought 

Councils comments in regard to the Discussion Paper Changes to Local 

Government Electoral Arrangements. 

Council has reviewed the Discussion Paper and would like to make the 

following comments for your consideration: 

1. Does your Council support the introduction of council-opt-in compulsory 

voting, whereby those councils that wish to do so may opt-in to make voting in 

council elections compulsory for all electors in their municipal area? 

Comment 

Council has been fully supportive of the proposal for compulsory voting for all 

council elections since it was first raised, but council does not support the 

option for councils to opt-in. It should be compulsory voting for all municipal 

areas in Tasmania. 

2. Does the Council support a move to prevent people, in future, from serving on 

Council and in State Parliament at the same time? 

Comment 

Council is of the view that a Mayor or Deputy Mayor should not hold these 

positions and also be in State Parliament. It is our view that if the Mayor or 

Deputy Mayor were to be elected to Sate Parliament they should immediately 

resign from the position of Mayor or Deputy Mayor, but they would still be 

able to sit on council for the remainder of their term. With this said we are of 

the view that a councillor should if they so desire hold the role as a councillor 

and also be a member of State Parliament. 

83




3. Does the Council support a move to all-in, all-out elections with four-year 

terms for councillors, Mayors and Deputy Mayors? And 

Comments 

Council supports the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for a period of 

4 years. Our view is that the Mayor and Deputy Mayors position should be 

seen as statutory positions from those of councillor. 

With regard to the above comment we feel that candidates should nominate 

for these statutory positions and not for the position of councillor and Mayor 

or Deputy Mayor. This would then mean that a half spill of Councillors only 

would occur every two years, and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor election every 

four years. 

An example of the above is as follows: 

If a council currently has 9 councillors the election would be on the basis of 

the two statutory positions and the seven councillors would be split 4 at one 

election phase and 3 at the subsequent election. 

If the proposal mentioned above is not supported and all in , all out is the 

preference we would propose that the term for the elections be three yearly 

intervals. 

4. Does the Council support a move to around the-the-table election of deputy 

mayors? 

Comment 

Council does not support this proposal. 

Another point that has not been raised as an issue in the discussion paper is 

that of being able to nominate for the position of Mayor. It is our view that to 

nominate for this position a person must have at least one years experience in 

Local Government as an elected representatrive. 

Hoping the above comments are of assistance to you. 

Yours sincerely 

Stephen Mackey 

GENERAL MANAGER 

84




Major Local Government Reforms 

Sun 17 February 2013 

Bryan Green 

Minister for Local Government 

The Deputy Premier, Bryan Green, today announced a package of 

major local government reforms that include new set terms for Mayors 

and full council elections. 

Mr Green said Mayors and Deputy Mayors will face electors every four 

years together with all elected local government representatives. 

"Rather than elections for half the council ever two years this will 

provide continuity for our leaders in local government and the 

communities they represent," Mr Green said. 

"All-in, all-out council elections will enable councils to focus on 

delivering their policies over a fixed-term like all other levels of 

government. 

"Rather than being in constant election mode, these changes will help 

ensure councils are even more accountable and responsive to their 

communities, while also letting them get on with the job that voters 

have elected them to do. 

"Communities can then make decisions on whether their elected 

representatives have performed well over that period. 

"These reforms are about ensuring our democracy is strong and works 

well by engaging and involving local communities. 

Mr Green also announced the introduction of opt-in compulsory voting 

for councils and an end to dual representation. 

"We want to encourage greater community participation in the election 

of councils which provide many services directly to their local 

communities. 

Mr Green said preventing dual representation would ensure that 

elected representatives can focus all of their efforts on the interests of 

their local communities. 

"This will relieve elected representatives of conflicting demands on 

their time." 

Mr Green said public consultation on the reforms would begin 

immediately before legislation is introduced in April to allow the 

changes to be in place for local government elections later this year. 

85




There appears to be some confusion in regard to the staging of the next Local 

Government Elections, and also the period of time they may be for. An e-mail from 

Allan Garcia advised in a recent e-mail that due to the Staging of the Australian 

Government Elections in September 2013 Local Government Elections may be 

delayed for one month not 12 months. 

Information to hand now is that it is proposed to move Local Government Elections 

for 2013 for twelve months and at that time bring all electoral changes as proposed by 

the Minister for Local Government. 

I can assume the reason for the twelve month delay is due in part to an Australian 

Government Election in September 2013 and the fact that the Tasmanian Government 

is scheduled to have their election on or before the 17 th May 2014. 

This may cause confusion by votes in having to vote on three occasions within a six to 

seven month period. 

Another matter that is or could be a concern for some councillors, especially those last 

elected for a four year term, is that fact that their term has been reduced by one year 

and also they will have to fund an election campaign if they wish to stand again, 

twelve months earlier. 




(b) Experts 



Local Government 


Not applicable as this stage 


If the election was to be held in 2014 the amount allocated for this year can be saved 

and transferred to the 2014/15 Budget. 

86






Decision 






• That Council support the delaying of the 2013 Local Government Elections for 

a period twelve months 

• That a working Group be formed with the following Councillors to review and 

make comment on the Consultation Draft Local Government amendment 

(Elections) Bill 2013. 







That a workshop be held on Thursday 28 February 2013 to review and make comment 

on the consultation draft amendment (elections bill 2013). 

THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT AND CARRIED 







87




THE AMENDMENT BECAME THE 








Motion 






That a letter be forwarded to the President of the Local Government Association of 

Tasmania, the Minister for Local Government, the Director of Local Government and 

all Lyons members advising that the Derwent Valley Council does not support the 

delaying of the 2013 Local Government Elections for a period of 12 months. 


THE MOTION WAS PUT AND CARRIED 






88

11. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE 


File: 200 

Nil 




12. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 


File: 200 

NAME 

Cr Bromfield 


That Council write to John Simpson congratulating him for 

receiving the Variety Club Chairman’s Citation Award. 

The Mayor advised that a letter will be forwarded to Mr 

John Simpson. 

Cr Bester 

Can the Mayor write to the Molesworth Recreation Reserve 

Committee thanking them for their support during the local 

bushfire? 

The Mayor advised that a letter will be forwarded to the 

Molesworth Recreation Reserve Committee. 

Cr Lester 

Can the Mayor update the Council in regard to the Burnett 

Street tunnel? 

The Mayor undertook to obtain further information and 

report to Council. 

What is occurring in regard to the Water Meters being 

installed above ground in the Avenue at Willow Court? 

The Mayor advised that the Manager of the Works 

Committee of the Tasmanian Heritage Council has been up 

and looked at the meters and Council has also advised the 

Heritage Council and Southern Water that we wish the 

metres to be installed underground 

Where are we in regard to the 2 High Street Lease and 

occupancy of this building? 

The General Manager advised that discussions would be 

held with the owner of the site in the near future. 

89




Cr Bester 

NAME 


Advised that the Bushy Park Pool had been closed due to 

water quality issues and that it will open again on Saturday. 

The information was noted by Councillors. 

Cr Shaw 

What is being undertaken in regard to further education in 

the Derwent Valley? 

The Mayor advised that Council is attempting to have a 

meeting with the Minister for Education to discuss these 

matters. 

Can Council request that the timber on the Child and Family 

Centre in Blair Street be stained? 

The General Manager advised that this matter had been 

discussed at Child and Family Centre meetings and that 

there is no intention to have the timber stained as it is the 

architects design to allow the boards to weather naturally. 

13. LEAVE OF ABSENCE 


File: 196 

Nil 

14. CLOSE 

There being no further business the meeting was declared closed at 10.17pm. 

90

21 February 2013 - Derwent Valley Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?