Committee Members N. Heath – General Manager
Deputy Lord Mayor Ald Ron Christie (Chairman) Corporate Services
Ald Jeff Briscoe
Ald Eva Ruzicka
H. Salisbury – D.G.M./A.D.C.S.
A. Surtees – A.C.S.O.
Infrastructure Services
M. Painter – D.I.S.
S. Morgan – G.M.P.S.
G. Lang – G.M.E.S.
Media
Mercury
ABC Radio
Sub Total: 24
Ald Philip Cocker
Ald John Freeman
Aldermen
Lord Mayor Ald Damon Thomas
Ald Marti Zucco
Ald Peter Sexton
Ald Helen Burnet
Ald Bill Harvey
Ald Sue Hickey
Ald Leo Foley
R. Enders – P.E.O.L.M.
Financial Services
D. Spinks – D.F.S.
Community Development
P. Holliday – A.D.C.D.
Parks & Customer Services
R. Viney – D.P.C.S.
M. Cheng – A.M.R.E.E.
O. Gervasoni – M.T.E.
Minutes
Reception
G. Doyle – G.M.E.O.S. Public 2
S. Phillips – E.O.I.S.
Trolley/Spare
Total Distribution: 29
The Council is: about people professional enterprising responsive inclusive making a difference
Our mission is to ensure good governance of our capital City.
We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
We take pride in our work.
We look for ways to create value.
We’re accessible and focused on service.
We respect diversity in people and ideas.
We recognise that everything we do shapes Hobart’s future.

In 2025 Hobart will be a city that:
•
Offers opportunities for all ages and a city for life
•
Is recognised for its natural beauty and quality of environment
•
Is well governed at a regional and community level
•
Achieves good quality development and urban management
•
Is highly accessible through efficient transport options
•
Builds strong and healthy communities through diversity, participation and empathy
•
Is dynamic, vibrant and culturally expressive

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
MINUTES OF THE OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 26
FEBRUARY 2014 AND A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 11
MARCH 2014
2.
CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
3.
INDICATIONS OF PECUNIARY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
4.
TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS
5.
SANDY BAY ROAD CYCLING PROJECT – UPDATE – FILE REFS: 37-2-
1;820
6.
STRICKLAND AVENUE, SOUTH HOBART – ROAD SUBSIDENCE AND
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT – FILE REF: 843
7.
ROADS – NAMING OF STREETS – 25A WATERWORKS ROAD,
DYNNYRNE AND 97 PROCTORS ROAD, KINGSTON – FILE REF: 33-15-2
8.
COUNCIL DELEGATIONS – MANAGER ROAD AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING – FILE REF: 10-4-1
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER REGULATION 16 (5)
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETING PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS
2005
9.
MYER SITE – LIVERPOOL STREET, HOBART – PROPOSED CHANGE TO
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE – FILE REFS: 13-1-9; 5671014 & P/55-59/694
10.
HOBART BUS MALL – PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT – FILE REFS: 13-1-
9; 36-20-3
11.
BUSINESS ARISING
11.1
WASTE MINIMISATION PROGRAMS – RECURRING ANNUAL
FUND – FILE REF: 44-1-1
12.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – FILE REF: 13-1-10
13.
CLOSED PORTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE
MEETING
BUSINESS LISTED ON THE AGENDA IS TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE ORDER
IN WHICH IT IS SET OUT UNLESS THE COMMITTEE BY SIMPLE MAJORITY
DETERMINES OTHERWISE

I, Nicholas David Heath, General Manager of the Hobart City Council, hereby certify that:
1. In accordance with Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1993, the reports in this agenda have been prepared by persons who have the qualifications or the experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendations included therein.
2. No interests have been notified, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local
Government Act 1993, other than those that have been advised to the Council.
N.D. HEATH
GENERAL MANAGER
Committee Members
Deputy Lord Mayor Christie
(Chairman)
Briscoe
Ruzicka
Cocker
Freeman
Aldermen
Lord Mayor Thomas
Zucco
Infrastructure Services Committee (Open Portion of the
Meeting) - Wednesday 26 March 2014 at 5.00 pm in the
Lady Osborne Room.
PRESENT:
Sexton
Burnet
Harvey
Hickey
Foley
APOLOGIES :
LEAVE OF ABSENCE :
CO-OPTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE
EVENT OF A VACANCY
Where a vacancy may exist from time to time on the
Committee, the Local Government Act 1993 provides that the Council Committees may fill such a vacancy.
1. MINUTES OF THE OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING OF THE
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 26
FEBRUARY 2014 AND A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 11
MARCH 2014

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
2. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
In accordance with the requirements of Part 2 Regulation 8 (6) of the Local
Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005, the Committee, by simple majority may approve the consideration of a matter not appearing on the agenda, where 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.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager in accordance with the provisions of the
Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005.
3. INDICATIONS OF PECUNIARY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In accordance with Part 2 Regulation 8 (7) of the Local Government (Meeting
Procedures) Regulations 2005, the chairman of a meeting is to request Aldermen to indicate whether they have, or are likely to have, a pecuniary interest in any item on the agenda.
In addition, in accordance with the Council’s resolution of 14 April 2008, Aldermen are requested to indicate any conflicts of interest in accordance with the Aldermanic
Code of Conduct adopted by the Council on 27 August 2007.
Accordingly, Aldermen are requested to advise of pecuniary or conflicts of interest they may have in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the committee has resolved to deal with, in accordance with
Part 2 Regulation 8 (6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations
2005.
4. TRANSFER OF AGENDA ITEMS
Are there any items which the meeting believes should be transferred from this agenda to the closed agenda or from the closed agenda to the open agenda, in accordance with the procedures allowed under Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting
Procedures) Regulations 2005?

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
5.
SANDY BAY ROAD CYCLING PROJECT – UPDATE –
FILE REFS: 37-2-1; 820
11x’s
Report of the Director Infrastructure Services and the Group Manager Engineering
Services of 18 March 2014 and attachment.
DELEGATION: Council

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 1 26/3/2014
TO
FROM
: General Manager
: Group Manager Engineering Services and Director Infrastructure
Services
DATE : 18 March 2014
SUBJECT : SANDY BAY ROAD CYCLING PROJECT
FILE : 37-2-1; 820
GWL:AC/SW (o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\sandy bay road cycling project.docx)
1.1.
This report provides an update of the Sandy Bay Cycling project works
(Long Point Road to Derwentwater Avenue) and provides an initial assessment of the impact that the newly installed cycleway has had on vehicle travel times and cycling utilisation.
1.2.
This report details the proposal for the next stage of the project which will extend from Derwentwater Avenue to Marieville Esplanade.
1.3.
The report recommends that funds be allocated towards these proposed works.
2.1.
The Sandy Bay Cycling Project commenced in 2006 with a report recommending the concept of a bicycle link between Battery Point and the
City’s southern boundary at Taroona.
2.2.
A number of cycleway options were considered. Consultation with stakeholders suggested that there was concern from directly affected residents and businesses of Sandy Bay Road to the Copenhagen-style bidirectional cycleway concept. In particular concerns were raised regarding loss of parking, traffic and safety.
2.3.
After considering several options, Council resolved to adopt on-road bike lanes. On 11 June 2013 Council resolved that:
1. Approval be granted to proceed with a detailed design of Option
3 – On Road Bike Lanes, as described in the report attached to item 6 of the Open Infrastructure Services Committee agenda of
29 May 2013, with a view to implementing the project in the
2013/2014 year to be funded in part from Roads to Recovery funding.

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 2 26/3/2014
2. Approval be granted to progress the design of the sections, Long
Point Road to Beach Road and Lower Sandy Bay shops to the southern city boundary at Taroona, to feasible designs stage with cost estimates and consultation with the Hobart Bicycle Advisory
Committee and local residents, and these be the subject of a further report.
3. An appropriate communication strategy be developed, including a media release regarding the Council’s decision.
4. Once implemented, regular reporting be undertaken on uptake and safety outcomes including the surrounding road network to improve cyclist safety to enable consideration of incremental improvements.
2.4.
On-road painted bike lanes on both sides of the road have now successfully been put in place by Council’s workforce. The works necessitated concrete road repairs, manhole alterations, the installation of several traffic islands and the construction of pedestrian kerb ramps adjacent to each island.
Linemarking was undertaken by an external contractor.
2.5.
The photos below show the cycleway in place.
Figure 1 – near Maning Avenue Figure 2 – near Red Chapel Avenue

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 3 26/3/2014
Figure 3 – near Mawhera Avenue
Figure 4 - near Lipscombe Avenue
3.1.
When significant changes to traffic conditions are implemented, like those recently completed along Sandy Bay Road, approximately three months is typically required before changes to traffic or cycleway use can be assessed.
3.2.
However as an interim measure, officers have undertaken bike counts. A summary of the results are shown below:
Average Bike Count
(prior to works)
55
Average Bike Count
(after works)
77 North Bound (morning)
7am – 9am
South Bound (afternoon)
4pm – 6pm
48 64

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 4 26/3/2014
3.3.
The initial survey indicates that cycling usage has increased from between
33% to 40%.
3.4.
Initial surveys also indicate that travel times have not been significantly reduced.
3.5.
Notwithstanding this, it is considered that peak hour traffic may be able to be improved by reviewing bus stops near Nelson Road fronting Mount
Carmel School. Officers are currently discussing this matter with affected stakeholders.
3.6.
DIER has also recently adjusted the traffic signal timing at the Nelson Road intersection so as to provide Sandy Bay Road traffic additional signal
“green time”.
3.7.
Surveys will be undertaken in order to assess the impact of the above changes. The outcomes of the above investigation will be provided to
Aldermen in the coming months.
3.8.
Officers have also arranged for arranged for a safety audit of the completed cycleway by a traffic engineering consultant. A copy of this safety audit, along with any suggested modifications, will be provided to Aldermen upon its receipt.
4.1.
The next stage of the Sandy Bay cycleway is proposed to extend from
Derwentwater Avenue to Marieville Esplanade.
4.2.
The photos below show the relevant sections of Sandy Bay Road.
Figure 5 - Sandy Bay Road – Lambert Avenue to Drysdale Place

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 5 26/3/2014
Figure 6 - Sandy Bay Road – Drysdale Place to Marieville Esplanade
4.3.
The concept previously considered by Council involved the widening of the footpath to three metres. This width enables a shared cycleway and footpath. A shared cycleway and footpath of three metres, whilst not providing separation between cyclists and pedestrians, would provide a much improved level of service for cyclists.
4.4.
A cycleway with a width of three metres is present at the Tasman Highway from the Cenotaph to Evans Street (pictured below).
Figure 7 Figure 8
4.5.
Further investigation has been undertaken and it is considered that the width of the shared footpath/cycleway could be increased. This extra width was found by slightly decreasing the traffic travelling lanes.
4.6.
The cycleway/footpath widths are proposed be:
4.6.1.
Derwentwater Avenue to Drysdale Place – 3.15 metres

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 6 26/3/2014
4.7.
It is difficult to increase the cycleway widths greater than the above figures due to the presence of right turning lanes into Lambert Avenue and the need to retain two travelling lanes in each direction.
4.8.
The attached plans, Attachment A , detail this proposal.
4.9.
Under this proposal, four travelling lanes along Sandy Bay Road would be retained (two in each direction). The additional footpath width would be obtained by narrowing the existing travel lanes and the relocation of the kerb and gutter.
4.10.
The benefits of this proposal are:
4.10.1.
Traffic along Sandy Bay Road will not be affected due to the retention of the four travelling lanes;
4.10.2.
Parking is retained for the fronting properties (except during the afternoon peak hour which is an existing clearway); and
4.10.3.
There will be minimal impact on residents and other road users.
4.11.
DIER officers have reviewed this proposal and indicated they would support the proposed cycleway and modified travelling lanes.
4.12.
Officers have also reviewed the possibility of providing a separated footpath from the cycleway. However this was not progressed as it would necessitate the removal of a travelling lane which would result in several risks including increased traffic congestion, increased risk of crashes and criticism from the public.
4.13.
It is also highlighted that previously it was reported to Committee that the cycleway would enter into the grassed area fronting Wrest Point. After more detailed investigation it is proposed that the cycleway follow the existing footpath’s alignment, but the footpath be widened to allow for cyclists. The details of this proposal are detailed in Attachment A.
5.1.
It is proposed to:
5.1.1.
Construct the Sandy Bay Road cycleway from Derwentwater
Avenue to Marieville Esplanade in accordance with Attachment A to this report (shared footpath/cycleway).
5.1.2.
Allocate funds from the 2014/2015 Roads to Recovery funds for this stage of the works.

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 7 26/3/2014
6.1.
Further detailed design work will be necessary to develop the proposal to a level of detail required for submission to DIER for approval.
6.2.
Subject to obtaining Council’s endorsement, the proposal’s timeframes are expected to be as follows:
6.2.1.
Complete detailed design, specification, tender documentation and obtain DIER approval – 30 April 2014
6.2.2.
Advertise tender for external contractors – 10 May 2014
6.2.3.
Award contract – 16 June 2014
6.2.4.
Commence works – 1 July 2014
6.2.5.
Finalise works – 18 August 2014
6.3.
The above timeframes are subject to obtaining the necessary approvals from
Council and DIER, and may be subject to delays due to adverse weather conditions.
6.4.
It is noted that the decision to contract these works will delay the commencement date by approximately six weeks due to the public tendering process.
6.5.
In addition to the installation of the cycleway, works will be required to reconfigure the traffic signals to take into account cyclists. These works will be carried out by DIER’s contractors.
7.1.
The proposal would support the Council’s 2025 Vision Plan and 2008-2013
Strategic Plan
7.1.1.
Hobart 2025 – Transport Statement
“In 2025 Hobart will be a city that maintains its convenience and accessibility through the greater use of transport alternatives and an effective road and travel network”.
7.1.2.
Strategic Plan 2008-2013, Future Direction 5.1.1:
“ Improve walking and bike access to and within the city and provide infrastructure and facilities”; and “Plan and implement the City to Southern Boundary Cycle and Pedestrian Link .”
8.1.
The final costs associated with each option have not been finalised as the design has not been completed and the cost of reconfiguring the traffic signals is not yet known. However approximate costs of implementing the proposed works are estimated to be in the order of $700,000.

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 8 26/3/2014
8.2.
In addition to the capital cost of the project there would be an asset write off that needs to be accounted for. This is due to the project removing and replacing assets (mainly the kerbs and footpath) that have not reached their full standard life. It is currently estimated that the asset write off for the project would be in the order of $290,000 for the proposed works.
8.3.
The ongoing maintenance of the cycleway surface would be undertaken as part of Council’s planned and reactive maintenance schedule. It is anticipated that the cost of this would be in the order of $2,000 per annum.
8.4.
It is anticipated that the maintenance of the line marking would become the responsibility of DIER. This has been the case in similar projects in the past such as Argyle and Campbell Streets.
8.5.
This project has been assessed as compliant for funding under Council’s
Roads to Recovery allocation.
8.6.
There are insufficient funds within the current financial year to fund the next stage of the cycleway. The next Roads to Recovery Program commences on 1 July 2014. Sufficient funding will become available at that time for these works.
9.1.
It will be important to clearly communicate Council’s decision via a media release, being mindful of the level of community interest in the project during the earlier community engagement process and subsequent media interest.
9.2.
In addition to the media release a communication strategy would also be developed.
10.1.
Council.
11.1.
Consultation will occur with the fronting property owners and other stakeholders such as RACT, Bicycle Tasmania and the Hobart Bicycle
Advisory Committee prior to finalising the engineering design.
12.1.
There has been initial discussion with DIER officers. DIER has indicated in principle support for the proposal described within this report. However
DIER would need to review the final detailed designs before providing formal approval.

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 9 26/3/2014
13.1.
The Sandy Bay Road cycleway has been successfully installed from
Derwentwater Avenue to Long Point Road.
13.2.
A formal safety audit of the completed cycleway will be undertaken by a
Traffic Engineering Consultant and the results, along with any recommended modifications, will be provided to the Aldermen.
13.3.
It is proposed to implement the next stage of the cycleway, from
Derwentwater Avenue to Marieville Esplanade. These works involve the installation of a shared cycleway by widening the existing footpath and slightly reducing traffic lane widths.
13.4.
Funds for these works are available from the 2014/2015 Roads to Recovery
Programme.
That:
14.1. The report GWL:AC/SW (o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\sandy bay road cycling project.docx) be received and noted.
14.2. The Sandy Bay Road cycleway be extended from Derwentwater Avenue to Marieville Esplanade in accordance with Drawing Numbers A106-
076 and A106-077 dated 18 March 2014 to be funded from the
2014/2015 Roads to Recovery Program.
14.3. An appropriate communication strategy be developed, including a media release regarding Council’s decision.
As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local
Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local
Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.
(Geoff Lang)
GROUP MANAGER ENGINEERING
SERVICES
Attachment A
(Mark Painter)
DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICES

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 10 26/3/2014

ISC Agenda Item 5 / Page 11 26/3/2014

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
6. STRICKLAND AVENUE, SOUTH HOBART – ROAD SUBSIDENCE AND
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT – FILE REF: 843
9x’s
Report of the Director Infrastructure Services and the Group Manager Engineering
Services of 12 March 2014 and attachment.
DELEGATION: Council

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 1 26/3/2014
TO
FROM
: General Manager
: Group Manager Engineering Services and Director Infrastructure
Services
DATE
FILE
: 12 March, 2014
SUBJECT : STRICKLAND AVENUE – ROAD SUBSIDENCE AND
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
: RO843 og:
MB (o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\strickland ave-road subsidence and traffic management.doc)
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to implement a single lane treatment on a section of Strickland Avenue in South Hobart, due to instability of the road.
1.2.
The section of road is only used by 10 to 30 vehicles per hour during the day (total vehicles in both directions).
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1.
A section of Strickland Avenue, located between Huon Road and
Inglewood Road in South Hobart, is suffering from some surface subsidence in the vicinity of the Hobart Rivulet about 900 metres north of Huon Road.
2.2.
The locality of the area is shown in Figure 1, below:
Location of surface subsidence
Strickland Ave
Huon Road.
Figure 1 – Locality Plan

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 2 26/3/2014
2.3.
From Council’s records it is evident that there has been a long and ongoing history of embankment instability along this section of Strickland
Avenue. This includes:
2.3.1.
A published report on the Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) website (C.J Knights) in 1977 that identified two road failure locations within the current unstable section of road. It is unclear from the report whether any remedial measures were undertaken as a result of this report however some of the recommended measures in this report included, lopping of some large trees, slope re-vegetation works, drainage improvements, and works to protect the toe of the slope from stream erosion.
2.3.2.
In May 1996 there was a significant failure of the road embankment. The Council engaged HECEC Consultants (Jim
Bowling) to assess this failure and recommend remedial works.
HECEC’s recommendation was the construction of a gravity gabion wall (nominally 30m long) and approximately 5m high to stabilise the embankment. The gabion wall was constructed in
August/September 1996, using a gabion system offered by a company called Terra Services. It incorporated gabion cages as a facing tied to reinforced backfill thereby creating a composite mass of the gabions and backfill.
2.3.3.
Council’s records indicate that in construction of this wall problems were encountered in finding a suitable base for the wall. In an attempt to alleviate this problem a gabion mattress was installed along the entire base of the structure.
2.3.4.
It was noted in the records that once the Council became aware of the landslip in 1996 the uphill travelling lane on Strickland
Avenue was closed and the road reduced to one lane as a safety precaution measure. This arrangement was in place for several months and there is no indication that the lane closure created any significant problems.
2.4.
The area suffering surface subsidence is shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 – Road Surface Subsidence

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 3 26/3/2014
2.5.
In 2007 after this area again showed signs of movement and instability
(slope movement was evidenced by cracking of the asphalt road surface and visible displacement of the guide posts on the road shoulder) the site was monitored, and then in 2010/2011 engineering consultants GHD were engaged to undertake a geotechnical/risk assessment and provide recommendations on any works that should be undertaken to arrest the on-going slope movement.
2.6.
The report from GHD’s presented three options as possible remedial solutions. They were:-
2.6.1.
Option 1 - Construct more gabion walls to stabilise the slope and support the road. This option was discounted on the basis of major access issues, significant environmental impact in the
Rivulet, and the problems previously encountered in 1996 to find a suitable base for the gabion wall. It is noted that a gabion wall option would result in creation of a stable surface slope that would mitigate the risk of future slope failures below the road surface
2.6.2.
Option 2 - Full reconstruction of road using reinforced soil techniques. This would involve the full excavation of the road to a significant depth before re-constructing the road with geogrid reinforced granular backfill, tied into the mudstone/siltstone bedrock where possible. This option was not considered practicable and it was questionable with regard to the long term stability that it would afford the road.
2.6.3.
Option 3 - Construction of bored piles along the shoulder of the road with infill panels between the piles. This option could be constructed from road level and would have a lesser environmental impact than the gabion wall solution. This solution does not improve the existing ground slope surface but will ensure long term stability of the road as it would be held secure by the soldier pile wall. It does not protect from future failure of the slope below the road and soldier pile wall.
2.7.
After discussions with the Manager Road Engineering it was agreed to further investigate option 3. Further input was provided from GHD for the structural design of the soldier pile wall.
2.8.
Detailed design/construction drawings were subsequently produced based upon GHD’s design recommendations.
2.9.
An engineering estimator was then engaged to provide a cost estimate of the soldier pile wall option. This estimate included the associated works that would be necessary to build the wall including the relocation of a
TasWater water main, Telstra relocation works, and construction of a temporary turning area at the hairpin bend to facilitate bus turning whilst the road was closed through the construction period. The total estimate for the project at that time was in the order of $870,000 to $960,000.

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 4 26/3/2014
2.10.
The estimate for the project was well in excess of any budget allocation for the works. Alternative options were then investigated and from this the option of implementing a single lane treatment on the road was discussed. This option would at least provide safety to motorists by ensuring the vehicle travel paths are away from the unstable road edge.
Obviously however this option does not address the stability of the embankment or road edge.
3.
PROPOSAL
3.1.
It is proposed to implement a single lane on Strickland Avenue in the vicinity of the unstable road edge.
3.2.
The proposed single lane treatment would extend over a distance of approximately 45 metres.
3.3.
It would incorporate a single 3.0 metre wide traffic lane, with drivers on the approach to the single lane treatment being required to give way to traffic.
3.3.1 The low traffic volumes mean that vehicles would only need to give way on an occasional basis.
3.4.
A section of guardrail barrier would be installed on the existing road surface to separate this single 3.0 metre wide traffic lane from the part of the road surface at risk of subsidence.
3.5.
This area (between the proposed new guardrail and the existing road edge) would be available for use by pedestrians and cyclists, so they would not have to share the single traffic lane with through traffic.
3.6.
The figure below (Figure 3) demonstrates where this treatment would occur.
Figure 3 – Location of Treatment Concept (Strickland Avenue)

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 5 26/3/2014
3.7.
A design for this option has been prepared, and approved by the
Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources (DIER).
3.8.
A copy of the proposed design forms
Attachment A
to this report.
3.9.
The cost for the road narrowing works is estimated at $63,000, plus the cost of any street lighting upgrade that would be required. The preliminary estimate for the street lighting cost is $35,000.
3.10.
The total cost of implementing the single lane treatment would be in the order of $98,000.
3.11.
The relevant section of roadway would be the subject of an ongoing monitoring program.
3.12.
Obviously the lane closure would not address the fundamental instability problems of the road embankment. Therefore further consideration will need to be given in the future as to whether the Council wishes to implement a longer term strategy to address the road embankment instability. All options could be considered, including:-
3.12.1.
The soldier pile solution;
3.12.2.
The gabion wall solution;
3.12.3.
Widening the road carriageway through cutting into the existing top side embankment. This option would require major earthworks and support (retaining) structures as well as land acquisition, and the ongoing risk of slope instability on the lower side of the road remains;
3.12.4.
Extending the major culvert that pipes the Hobart Rivulet under
Strickland Avenue to a point where it would discharge much further down the gully and beyond the unstable section of road.
After extension of the pipe the gully would be backfilled to create a stable embankment for support of the road;
3.12.5.
Permanently close the unstable section of Strickland Avenue. In conjunction with this option a permanent turning area could be provided at the hairpin bend to enable vehicles (including buses) to turn around at this point. Permanent closure would need to include provision of one lane emergency access for bush fire safety and so on.
4.
STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
4.1.
The Hobart 2025 Strategic Framework contains the following Future
Direction / Strategy that may be relevant to the proposal.
4.1.1.
FD 5.1.4. “Improve the efficiency and safety of the existing road and travel network through provision of appropriate infrastructure and road management”.\

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 6 26/3/2014
5.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1.
The current proposal, essentially reducing this section of Strickland
Avenue to a single traffic lane (open to traffic in both directions), has an estimated cost of $98,000.
5.2.
The lifespan of the revised proposal in not known, being dependant on the rate of subsidence of the road surface.
5.3.
At the present time, the road surface seems stable and it is considered that a lifespan of between three and ten years before further works are required is likely. Notwithstanding this, prolonged rainfall may reduce this expected lifespan.
5.4.
Funds can be made available from the Roads to Recovery Program to carry out these works.
5.5.
In order to address the embankment instability by adopting the construction of a soldier pile wall, it is estimated that $870,000 to
$960,000 would need to be expended.
5.6.
Any further proposed works would be the subject of future reports to
Council.
6.
DELEGATION
6.1.
Council.
7.
CONSULTATION
7.1.
Officers from DIER have been consulted during the preparation of this report.
8.
CONCLUSION
8.1.
A section of Strickland Avenue, located between Huon Road and
Inglewood Road in South Hobart, is suffering from some surface subsidence in the vicinity of the Hobart Rivulet about 900 metres north of Huon Road.
8.2.
To build a wall to repair the roadway, including the relocation of a
TasWater water main, Telstra relocation works, and construction of a temporary turning area at the hairpin bend to facilitate bus turning whilst the road was closed through the construction period, is estimated to cost in the order of $870,000 to $960,000.
8.3.
An alternative proposal is to install a single lane treatment (over a distance of approximately 45 metres) incorporating a single 3.0 metre wide traffic lane, with drivers on the approach to the single lane treatment being required to give way to traffic.

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 7 26/3/2014
8.4.
The total cost of implementing the single lane treatment is estimated to be $98,000.
8.5.
It is proposed to implement a single lane treatment in Strickland Avenue using Road to Recovery funding.
8.6.
The road would then be the subject of an ongoing monitoring program.
9.
RECOMMENDATION
That:
9.1.
The report og:mb (o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\strickland ave-road subsidence and traffic management.doc) be received and noted.
9.2.
A single lane treatment be implemented in Strickland Avenue at an approximate cost of $98,000 using funds from the Road to Recovery
Programme.
9.3.
The relevant section of roadway be the subject of an ongoing monitoring program.
As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local
Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local
Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.
(Geoff Lang)
GROUP MANAGER ENGINEERING
SERVICES
(Mark Painter)
DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICES
Attachment(s) A – Single Lane Treatment Plan

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 8 26/3/2014

ISC Agenda Item 6 / Page 9 26/3/2014

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
7. ROADS – NAMING OF STREETS – 25A WATERWORKS ROAD,
DYNNYRNE AND 97 PROCTORS ROAD, KINGSTON – FILE REF: 33-15-2
5x’s
Report of the Director Infrastructure Services and the Group Manager Engineering
Services of 17 March 2014 and attachments.
DELEGATION: Committee

ISC Agenda Item 7 / Page 1 26/3/2014
TO
FROM
DATE
: General Manager
: Group Manager Engineering Services and Director Infrastructure
Services
: 17 March 2014
SUBJECT : ROADS – NAMING OF STREETS – 25A WATERWORKS
ROAD AND 97 PROCTORS ROAD
FILE : 33-15-2 MHC:MF
(o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\roads - naming of streets - 25a waterworks rd and 97 proctors rd.docx)
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
The purpose of this report is to recommend that names be assigned to two new roads, one located at 25a Waterworks Road, Dynnyrne and another located at 97 Proctors Road, Kingston.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1.
The new roads have recently been constructed as part of new subdivision developments. The new roads are located at:
2.1.1.
25a Waterworks Road, Dynnyrne and provides frontage to 18 new residential lots, shown in Attachment A; and
2.1.2.
97 Proctors Road, Kingston and provides frontage to 8 new residential lots, shown in Attachment B .
2.2.
The roads now require names. The developers have suggested the following names:
2.2.1.
25a Waterworks Road, Dynnyrne
Option 1 – McDevitt Avenue (Preferred by developer)
Option 2 – Cherry Terrace
2.2.2.
A third name was suggested by the developer however subsequent advice from Australia Post has been that it would not be supported because it is too similar to existing road names.
2.2.3.
97 Proctors Road, Kingston
Option 1 – Satchell Drive (Preferred by developer)
Option 2 – Heathridge Way

ISC Agenda Item 7 / Page 2 26/3/2014
2.3.
McDevitt Avenue is named after Private Edward McDevitt from the 26 th
Infantry battalion who fought and wounded at Poziers, Ypres, and later suffered multiple gunshot wounds from a machine gun on the 4 th of
October 1917 at the battle for Passchendale Ridge. He had his left leg amputated and returned to Australia in 1920. He spent his life helping other returned soldiers, became president of the AIF Association.
Edward McDevitt was the grandfather of the developer.
2.4.
Satchell is a family name associated with the Buckleys who lived at the property.
3.
CONSULTATION
3.1.
Consultation has occurred with the officer supporting the Nomenclature
Board and neighbouring Councils and no objections were raised to the names proposed earlier in this report.
4.
PROPOSAL
4.1.
Given the advice of the Nomenclature Board and support of the developer and neighbouring councils it is proposed the new roads at:
4.1.1.
25a Waterworks Road, Dynnyrne, as identified in Attachment A be named McDevitt Avenue; and
4.1.2.
97 Proctors Road, as identified in Attachment B be named
Satchell Drive.
5.
IMPLEMENTATION
5.1.
Should the Council resolve to name the new roads as suggested a request will be made to the Nomenclature Board under the Survey Co-ordination
Act 1944 to register the names.
5.2.
The registration will then be formally notified in the Tasmanian
Government Gazette and the statutory maps will be updated.
5.3.
New road name signs will also be installed.
6.
STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
6.1.
The naming of new roads contributes to achieving Future Direction 5.1:
“ Convenience and accessibility through the greater use of transport alternatives and an effective road and travel network ”.

ISC Agenda Item 7 / Page 3 26/3/2014
7.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1.
The cost of new road signs and associated infrastructure is approximately
$400 will be funded from the existing Traffic Strategy and Projects operational budget.
8.
DELEGATION
8.1.
Committee.
9.
RECOMMENDATION
That:
9.1.
The report MHC:MF (o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\roads - naming of streets - 25a waterworks rd and 97 proctors rd.docx
) be received and noted.
9.2.
The new road at 25a Waterworks Road, Dynnyrne be named McDevitt
Avenue.
9.3.
The new road at 97 Proctors Road, Kingston be named Satchell Drive.
As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local
Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local
Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.
(Geoff Lang)
GROUP MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Attachments: A and B
(Mark Painter)
DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICES

ISC Agenda Item 7 / Page 4 26/3/2014 d oa R rks rwo ate a W 25

ISC Agenda Item 7 / Page 5 26/3/2014

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
8. COUNCIL DELEGATIONS – MANAGER ROAD AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING – FILE REF: 10-4-1
5x’s
Report of the Director Infrastructure Services and the Group Manager Engineering
Services of 14 March 2014.
DELEGATION: Council

ISC Agenda Item 8 / Page 1 26/3/2014
TO
FROM
DATE
: General Manager
: Group Manager Engineering Services and Director Infrastructure
Services
: 14 March 2014
SUBJECT : COUNCIL DELEGATIONS - MANAGER ROAD AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
FILE : 10-4-1 SMLP:MF
(o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\council delegations - manager road and environmental engineering.doc)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.
The purpose of this report is to seek the endorsement of the Committee and Council for the transfer of delegations from the superseded role of
Manager Road Engineering to the new role of Manager Road and
Environmental Engineering.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1.
Following the General Manager’s decision to amalgamate the Road
Engineering Unit and the Environmental Engineering Unit to create the
Road and Environmental Engineering Unit it is appropriate that the delegations of the new Manager’s role be considered.
2.2.
The delegations concerned exist under Section 124 of the Local
Government (Highways) Act 1982.
2.3.
These powers are also delegated to the General Manager, Director
Infrastructure Services and Group Manager Engineering Services, however the Manager Road and Environmental Engineering will be the operative officer of these matters on a day to day basis.
3. PROPOSAL
3.1.
In line with the current organisational structure, it is proposed that the current Council delegation to the Manager Road Engineering under
Section 124 of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 be transferred to the role of Manager Road and Environmental Engineering.
3.2.
The delegations are as follows:
3.2.1.
To approve plans and specifications for proposed roads or other ways for the improvement, widening or alteration of a road or other way already existing on land in building estates, pursuant to Section 10 of the Act.

ISC Agenda Item 8 / Page 2 26/3/2014
3.2.2.
To take over roads or other ways constructed as part of a plan of subdivision or building estate pursuant to Section 10 of the Act.
3.2.3.
To consider and make recommendations to the Lord Mayor in relation to the closure of a highway for the purpose of a public function, or to facilitate work on land adjoining a highway, pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, and to exercise the powers of
Council to grant exclusive licences to occupy part of a local highway closed by the Lord Mayor for the purpose of a public function, or to facilitate work on land adjoining a highway, and to issue such licences for such periods and on such conditions as he thinks fit, pursuant to Section 19(1)(c) of the Act.
3.2.4.
To act on behalf of the Council in relation to the closure of a highway and the issue of a licence to occupy a highway for the purpose of the sale of goods and for entertainment, pursuant to
Section 20 of the Act.
3.2.5.
To exercise the powers of Council pursuant to Section 34 of the
Act to make, cleanse and keep open all drains or local watercourses he considers necessary in and through any adjoining land or near a local highway maintainable by the
Council.
3.2.6.
To issue notices pursuant to Section 35 of the Act requiring repairs or construction works to be carried out in a highway under Council management, to a vehicular crossing over a table drain, gutter or footpath at or opposite the entrance to land adjoining the highway.
3.2.7.
To issue notices pursuant to Section 36 requiring a fence to be erected between the footpath and adjoining land and to authorise the carrying out of the works pursuant to Section 36(2) of the
Act in the event that the notice is not complied with.
3.2.8.
To exercise the powers of Council pursuant to Section 45 of the
Act to authorise the removal and disposal of articles abandoned on a highway.
3.2.9.
To approve private underground works, and the erection of hoarding or scaffolding, in Council highway reserves in accordance with Section 46 of the Act.
3.2.10.
To exercise the powers and functions of the Council contained in
Section 52 of the Act relating to projections onto highways.
3.2.11.
The power to lease Council conduits within Council’s highway reserves.

ISC Agenda Item 8 / Page 3 26/3/2014
4.
IMPLEMENTATION
4.1.
Upon determination by the Council, the delegations will be reflected in the Council’s Delegations Register.
5.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1.
No financial implications arise from this proposal.
6.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1.
This is essentially a procedural matter which ensures that the Council’s powers under Section 124 of the Local Government (Highways) Act
1982 are delegated to the appropriate officer.
7.
DELEGATION
7.1.
Council.
8.
CONCLUSION
8.1.
In order to reflect the amalgamation of the Road Engineering Unit and the Environmental Engineering Unit to create the Road and
Environmental Engineering Unit it is appropriate that the delegations of the new manager’s role be created.
8.2.
These delegations relate to Section 124 of the Local Government
(Highways) Act 1982 .
9.
RECOMMENDATION
That:
9.1.
The report SMLP:MF (o:\council & committee meetings reports\isc reports\2014 meetings\26 march\word version of reports\council delegations - manager road and environmental engineering.doc) be received and noted.
9.2.
The Manager Road and Environmental Engineering be delegated the following powers pursuant to Section 124 of the Local Government
(Highways) Act 1982:
9.2.1.
To approve plans and specifications for proposed roads or other ways for the improvement, widening or alteration of a road or other way already existing on land in building estates, pursuant to Section 10 of the Act.

ISC Agenda Item 8 / Page 4 26/3/2014
9.2.2.
To take over roads or other ways constructed as part of a plan of subdivision or building estate pursuant to Section 10 of the
Act.
9.2.3.
To consider and make recommendations to the Lord Mayor in relation to the closure of a highway for the purpose of a public function, or to facilitate work on land adjoining a highway, pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, and to exercise the powers of
Council to grant exclusive licences to occupy part of a local highway closed by the Lord Mayor for the purpose of a public function, or to facilitate work on land adjoining a highway, and to issue such licences for such periods and on such conditions as he thinks fit, pursuant to Section 19(1)(c) of the
Act.
9.2.4.
To act on behalf of the Council in relation to the closure of a highway and the issue of a licence to occupy a highway for the purpose of the sale of goods and for entertainment, pursuant to
Section 20 of the Act.
9.2.5.
To exercise the powers of Council pursuant to Section 34 of the
Act to make, cleanse and keep open all drains or local watercourses he considers necessary in and through any adjoining land or near a local highway maintainable by the
Council.
9.2.6.
To issue notices pursuant to Section 35 of the Act requiring repairs or construction works to be carried out in a highway under Council management, to a vehicular crossing over a table drain, gutter or footpath at or opposite the entrance to land adjoining the highway.
9.2.7.
To issue notices pursuant to Section 36 requiring a fence to be erected between the footpath and adjoining land and to authorise the carrying out of the works pursuant to Section
36(2) of the Act in the event that the notice is not complied with.
9.2.8.
To exercise the powers of Council pursuant to Section 45 of the
Act to authorise the removal and disposal of articles abandoned on a highway.
9.2.9.
To approve private underground works, and the erection of hoarding or scaffolding, in Council highway reserves in accordance with Section 46 of the Act.

ISC Agenda Item 8 / Page 5 26/3/2014
9.2.10.
To exercise the powers and functions of the Council contained in Section 52 of the Act relating to projections onto highways.
9.2.11.
The power to lease Council conduits within Council’s highway reserves.
9.3.
The Council’s delegations register be updated accordingly.
As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local
Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local
Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.
(Geoff Lang)
GROUP MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
(Mark Painter)
DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICES

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER REGULATION 16 (5)
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETING PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS
2005
9. MYER SITE – LIVERPOOL STREET, HOBART – PROPOSED CHANGE TO
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE – FILE REFS: 13-1-9; 5671014 & P/55-59/694
LORD MAYOR That a report be prepared investigating options to change the physical appearance of the Myer site in
Liverpool Street for the benefit of the community.
Rationale:
Opportunities exist to make temporary improvements to the current open space at the vacant Liverpool Street Myer site prior to works commencing on the proposed development, particularly if building works are not imminent.
The Council should consider approaching the owner of the site with a view to a range of treatments, including frontage or facade work on the Liverpool Street alignment or ground work with the site which could remain in place until the development starts.
Any physical materials placed at the site might be capable of being used by the
Council at other locations in the future.
The General Manager reports:
“In accordance with Clause 5 of the Notices of Motion procedures, I provide the following qualification as to whether the substance of this Notice of Motion resides within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council:
The Notice of Motion falls within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as it relates to a key site within the City which is generating significant publicity.”

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
10. HOBART BUS MALL – PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT –
FILE REFS: 13-1-9; 36-20-3
DEPUTY LORD MAYOR That a report be prepared exploring all opportunities at Local, State and Federal
Government levels of securing funds and redeveloping the Hobart Bus Mall to include a rapid transit station for MTT buses at ground level, and an underground facility (similar to Queens Mall –
Brisbane) for the use of Regional and Intrastate buses and taxis
Rationale:
This Motion follows on from a Council resolution of 25/9/2013 that Council continue to discharge its obligation to the Liveable Cities Program and commitment to project partners (DIER, METRO and TASBUS) in line with funding agreement with the
Commonwealth Government and the GEHL Stusy. Following the recent RACT forum titled An Arterial Transport Plan: Vision for Hobart City it was evident that an infrastructure solution to the growing traffic problems in Hobart was more an urgency than vision of the future. Guest speakers at the forum included Bob Cotgrove and John
Livermore –commentators on transport issues and transport law.
Mr Cotgrove stated he is an advocate of an underground bus mall, and could be an immediate solution to a long term problem. Tunnelling along Macquarie Street was an expensive operation ($1B) diverting only a small percentage of through traffic 11-14% from the Southern Outlet to the Brooker Highway.
It was stated, in June 2014 Tasrail and Toll would commence moving to Brighton.
This will see an increase of 600,000 tonnes per annum of additional movement on the
Brooker Highway.
The Macquarie and Davey Street couplets are creating a physical barrier between the
City and the Cove, particularly pedestrian access. Tunnel portals might address this (at expense), however scatter crossings would be an effective solution.
Several bus companies are not at all opposed to a rapid transit station in the current
Bus Mall location, with an underground station to assist regional bus networks from around the state. This area could also accommodate waiting areas, food outlets, escalator access to Elizabeth Street Mall, bicycle access and bike lockers for commuters and a taxi rank. Perth is now constructing a larger type facility. See following link: http://www.perthcitylink.wa.gov.au/ cont.../

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
Item No. 10 continued.
The recent Parsons Brinckerhoff Report to Council in January 2014, briefly addresses an underground Bus Mall. The report does not oppose such a facility, but simply refers to it as “challenging”.
There has been lengthy discussion and funds spent on the feasibility of a Light Rail
($200M) and Ferry Service on River Derwent ($300M+). These projects are visionary and will take more than 10 years to implement. To address and improve the current public transport system with an effective CBD Interchange (METRO and Regional) could be complete and operating in under 5 years.
The new Liberal Government in one of its pre-election commitments earmarked $1M to Hobart (CBD) transport problems. These monies could be contributed to the current
Council “Parsons Brinckerhoff Report” on the Bus Mall and Franklin Square. Based on the latest Council report and consultation, relocation of the bus mall is not a consideration.
A request from the mover of this motion on the success and operation of the
Launceston Council Bus Interchange approximately 2 blocks from the Launceston
CBD will be forthcoming. It is believed the operation is not fulfilling the task it was designed for.
Council Officer advice to the writer is:
• Launceston bus terminus is a disaster
• Metro don’t use it
• Manions coaches don’t use it
• TassieLink looking to get out
• Customers, especially those on short hauls, don’t like to use it.
The reasons are, the location (3 blocks away from the Mall is too far) and the high cost.
It is proposed an urgent Council workshop with all stakeholders including bus operators, taxi industry representatives, tourism operators and engineers to discuss the possibility of an underground bus mall be considered, as a part of this report.
The General Manager reports:
“In accordance with Clause 5 of the Notices of Motion procedures, I provide the following qualification as to whether the substance of this Notice of Motion resides within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council:
The Notice of Motion falls within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as the bus mall is presently a matter before the Council.”

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
11. BUSINESS ARISING
11.1 WASTE MINIMISATION PROGRAMS – RECURRING ANNUAL
FUND – FILE REF: 44-1-1
Ref. Open Council 11, 15/4/2013
That a further report be prepared examining the commitment by the Council of a recurring annual fund, commencing in 2014/2015, to be utilised for waste minimisation programs with funding to be provided from savings achieved as a result of kerbside and litter bin rationalisation.
Director’s comments:
A report will be provided to the Committee prior to preparation of the
2014/2015 budget.

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
12. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE – FILE REF: 13-1-10
Pursuant to Section 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations
2005, an Alderman may ask a question without notice of the Chairman, another
Alderman or the General Manager or the General Manager’s representative in accordance with the following procedures endorsed by the Council on 10 December
2012:
1.
The chairman will refuse to accept a question without notice if it does not relate to the Terms of Reference of the Council committee at which it is asked.
2.
In putting a question without notice, an Alderman must not:
(i) offer an argument or opinion; or
(ii) draw any inferences or make any imputations – except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.
3.
The chairman must not permit any debate of a question without notice or its answer.
4.
The chairman, Aldermen, General Manager or General Manager’s representative who is asked a question without notice may decline to answer the question, if in the opinion of the intended respondent it is considered inappropriate due to its being unclear, insulting or improper.
5.
The chairman may require an Alderman to put a question without notice, to be put in writing.
6.
Where a question without notice is asked at a meeting, both the question and the response will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
7.
Where a response is not able to be provided at the meeting in relation to a question without notice, the question will be taken on notice and
(i) the minutes of the meeting at which the question is put will record the question and the fact that it has been taken on notice.
(ii) a written response will be provided to all Aldermen, at the appropriate time.
(iii) upon the answer to the question being circulated to Aldermen, both the
Question and the Answer will be listed on the agenda for the next available ordinary meeting of the committee at which it was asked, whereat it be listed for noting purposes only, with no debate or further questions permitted, as prescribed in Section 29(3) of the Local Government (Meeting
Procedures) Regulations 2005.

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE AGENDA
(OPEN PORTION OF THE MEETING)
26/3/2014
13. CLOSED PORTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE
MEETING
The following items were discussed:-
Item No. 1
Item No. 2
Item No. 3
Item No. 4
Item No. 5
Minutes of the Closed Portion of the Infrastructure Services
Committee Meeting held on 26 February 2014
Consideration of Supplementary Items to the Agenda
Declarations of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest
Committee Membership – File Ref: 37-1-4
Questions Without Notice