Category Archives: News

McGill Rise update November 2023

Leave a reply

The McGill Rise saga continues. It’s disappearance from the media does not mean it is done and dusted.

Back in October last year I mentioned the disciplinary panel run by CBOS focusing on those involved in the development. Back in October CBOS said “action is underway to close this process out”. On March 14 I learnt that the panel continues. But readers might be pleased to learn that there have been consequences. CBOS said: “practitioners that are no longer licensed include both of the builders, the building surveyor and the building designer”.

The other strand to the story is Glenorchy City Council’s obligation to ensure public health and safety.

The legal list of the Tasmanian Supreme Court in the Mercury (March 15) contained the item “For notice to review: Aviation Consolidated Holdings Pty Ltd v Glenorchy City Council”. Council helpfully provided the following response to my query.

“The Council infringed Aviation Holdings (the developer company for McGill Rise) in relation to non-compliance with a building order which required the removal of unapproved fill from a pad at McGill Rise. That infringement notice was contested in the Magistrates Court, but the developer was convicted of that offence. The developer has recently appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court.”

In plain English:

  1. Council made a building order requiring the removal of unapproved fill from a pad.
  2. The developers did not do it in time.
  3. Council issued the developer an infringement notice.
  4. The developers disputed the notice in the Magistrates Court.
  5. The Court came down on the side of Council, and upheld the notice.
  6. The developer is now appealing the Magistrates Court decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The agenda for the coming March 27 Council meeting includes a closed session item “22. Approval of legal expenditure”. That item could include McGill Rise. Decisions on whether or not to continue legal action are not easy. Council does not have inexhaustible funds – and can get no external funding to help.

Are the developers, Aviation Consolidated Holdings, trying to wear Council down, to make them give up? My feeling is that most of us would want Council to hold the developers accountable for their actions. But how much do we want them to spend?

We’ll try to keep you up to date.

Council takes action on safety

At tonight’s open council meeting (27/11/2023) we “accidentally” learnt of action being taken right now to improve safety at the McGill Rise site.

Agenda item 20 relates to a fairly obscure report – the Procurement And Contracts Exemptions Report – explaining where council has in unusual or extreme circumstances taken a shortcut through the Council’s Code for Tenders and Contracts.

To quote the agenda, the exemption was for “the supply and installation of water filled barriers to be used at the base of batter slopes on the McGill Rise development at Claremont. The product installed is to provide a safety barrier for any potential rocks that become dislodged from the face of the building platform batters.” The action was urgent.

Ratepayers will be pleased to learn that they should not expect to have to contribute to the cost of $65,165 because council has issued abatement notices on the affected properties.

Please do not feed the ducks! Any ducks!

Leave a reply

There has been talk on some Facebook groups about the apparent disappearance of ducks from Windermere Bay. There was speculation that Glenorchy City Council had conducted a cull, possibly with poison.

Councillor Dunsby appeared in the Facebook group and undertook to look into the matter. But we’ve not seen a response yet.

In the meantime, I contacted the experts in ducks in Tasmania – Birdlife Tasmania – to see if they could shed any light on the situation.

Here is a very detailed response received from Jason Graham, a registered native duck carer, who currently helps to coordinate a joint-council education project in southern Tasmania about the impacts of duck feeding and about raising awareness of the existence of our different native duck species. The “Eric” he refers to is Eric Woehler, convenor of Birdlife Tasmania.

Response from Jason Graham

Thank you for your concern and making the effort to reach out to an organization! I’m passionate about the conservation and welfare of native ducks in Tasmania, particularly the Pacific black duck. I specialize in the identification of mallard x Pacific black duck hybrids, as I saw many of these crosses come into care when I worked at Bonorong Wildlife Sanctuary. While working there I started to learn about how widespread the issue of domestic ducks breeding with native Pacific black ducks (PBD) is in Tasmania, as the majority of ducks we were having called through the rescue service in some years were domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids. These hybrids are fertile, so over time and ongoing cross breeding, hybrids can replace PBDs.

Eric and I believe that the majority of ducks present in Windermere Bay, and therefore the ducks that are now missing, are domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids.

There is a serious risk to the genetic identity of Pacific black ducks in Tasmania. A pure/actual Pacific black duck can be hard to find in parts of the Derwent such as Windermere Bay. On several visits over the last few years, I have counted large numbers of domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids, and rarely encounter any native species or non-hybrid PBDs. For example, on this survey I counted 61 domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids, and no native duck species: . Here are some of the photos from the area.

I’ve had a look through surveys for Windermere Bay and there are some records of low numbers of Australian wood ducks and Chestnut teals, but it’s likely these were not in the main duck area near the car park and gazebos. It’s also important to mention that native species are never culled by councils. Apart from duck hunting, the only native ducks that are culled in Tasmania as far as I’m aware are by farmers and golf courses. Wood ducks are unfortunately the main victims in both cases as their favourite food is grass. These permits are organised by the state government and have nothing to do with local councils. As far as duck conservation and welfare is concerned, Southern Tasmanian councils are doing far more good than the state government!

It’s also important to remember that when councils do remove domestic ducks, they only need to do so due to the cruel actions of people dumping unwanted pet ducks in the first place. It’s the same as with people who dump chickens on the side of the road. The big difference is that many of these chickens don’t survive long due to starvation, exposure and predators. Domestic mallard ducks don’t face these same problems and can thrive, especially when they’re fed by people.

Councils are in a tough spot, and don’t actually want to cull ducks, but are forced to by the actions of irresponsible and cruel duck owners. Down the track I want to push for a registration system for ownership, like with cats and dogs, to try and reduce dumping and the resulting culling.

There could be a bit of migration happening. Domestic mallards don’t usually stray far from feeding areas, but they may have moved to other problem areas in the Derwent, such as Old Beach, Newtown Rivulet, Wrest Point etc. Mallard x PBD hybrids are more capable of migration (due to PBD ancestry) and may have flown elsewhere, which can be a problem for pure PBD populations.

I also like to think that some ducks may have moved on due to there being less feeding, as was the council’s intention by placing new signage in the area. But this may be wishful thinking and may take years! The more that people feed and put water out for domestic ducks, the more they are supported and breed succesfully, meaning more ducks need to be removed by council. It’s unfortate that many of the people who have complained about the council’s actions in the past are partly responsible for the need for action!

Duck feeding only supports domestic ducks in Australia. Most natives are too timid to approach humans, and most have completely different diets to domestic ducks (musk ducks for example are mostly carnivorous!). Some like Chestnut Teals, PBDs and Wood Ducks will hang around for leftovers, and this increases mallard x PBD crossbreeding by encouraging the two species to hang around together. These species can simply fly and swim elsewhere for more nutritious, natural food anyway.

If interested, I moderate a facebook group on the issue. We share information about current action, hybrid x pure PBD identification tips, ways for people to help etc.

I helped Glenorchy Council create a page in their website last year about the impacts of duck feeding, and about what native species we have in Tasmania. This is especially relevant to Windermere Bay.

And lastly, if you are interested in learning how to identify them, I wrote an article on identifying mallard x PBD hybrids vs pure PBDs birds.

End of response.

In summary, next time you are carrying your bag of old bread to feed the ducks, think again! Put that bag in the bin. While the feeding may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, you may be doing more harm than good.

Just watch them. See the cute way in which they behave. And leave it at that.

Responsibility for bus stops in Glenorchy

2 Replies

There are many bus stops in Glenorchy where infrastructure can be described as truly awful in terms of safety.

But Council comments have always suggested that it was unclear where responsibility for those bus stops lay – Council or the state Department of State Growth (DSG).

A recent email from the DSG concerning the Bus Stop Upgrade Program said “it is expected that bus stop infrastructure on local roads or local footpaths will continue to be owned by local government”. Clearly, the department believes that Council “owns” the bus stops. However, the same email says “final arrangements for maintenance continue to be discussed between the department and councils”. That program will provide funds to Council for upgrades to “high priority” bus stops. Council will be responsible for the upgrades. It seems the program demands clarity on responsibilities when the program work is complete.

It will be interesting to see whether Council takes on responsibilities for bus stops unaffected by the program.

I certainly hope that Council informs us of the resulting situation because there are certainly bus stops in the city that require work. Here are a couple of the worst I’ve come across in my travels.

Stop 39 on Berriedale Road

A narrow path is the only access. Surrounded by trees and no street lighting, so unlit on a dark night. No assistance crossing the road from the bus stop. Anyone waiting would be invisible to bus drivers. No shelter whatsoever (but that is not unusual). No timetable attached to the pole. It is clearly designed to be a good-weather day-light drop-off stop only. Awful!

Stop on exit to Glenorchy from Bowen Bridge

Well here is another that is almost as bad, on the left hand side as you go toward Glenorchy from the Bowen Bridge. It is clearly intended (I hope) only for people to get off a bus – but it is unsafe even for that limited purpose. It takes more than a small bus stop sign stuck to a light pole to make a safe bus stop. Cheap and dangerous.

Further information from the Pedestrian & Public Transport Users Group
(on Facebook 04/04/2021 09:37)

Source: Christian Bell.

Met with State Growth, they stated that was their position. Policy no longer resides with Metro, it’s the departments position. The stated they might provide new seats and shelters on new routes (at their discretion) but on existing routes it was up to local government. Whenever the public ring up wanting a new seat. If they ring up the response they will get from the state government is “try local government”, if they ring up local they get the response “try state government”. Local government just views the State Governments position as cost shifting.

Pedestrian & Public Transport Users Group (on Facebook 04/04/2021 09:37)

Short-term cost cutting without clear strategy will not work

2 Replies

In four months we’ve moved from an innocuous agenda item entitled “Organizational Direction-setting” to the removal of positions and staff, and some Council activities placed on the endangered list.

The public has been surprised by the speed of the review and how quickly actions have been taken as a result. Some aldermen may also be surprised at the consequences of the review.

It seems that the agenda item arose from the development of the 22/23 budget. Aldermen seem to have experienced an epiphany after learning about “Council’s structural deficit position”, apparently for the first time. We learnt later that “Council’s structural deficit position” was an obscure way to describe a “trend of being in deficit in ten of the last twelve financial years”.

The first mystery is why the tenth deficit triggered alarm that was absent for the previous nine, and why that alarm generated a need for action on this occasion.

The agreed action was to investigate an increased focus on “core” services and to better understand the cost of “non-core” service delivery ‒ in other words, the services to investigate further. This has been simplistically described as the “back to basics” approach.

When the agenda item came up at Council, aldermen seemed to spend endless time on what “core” means, which somewhat bemused those watching. It was clear that legislation labels some council activities as “discretionary” and some not. But it is the needs and views of the public that determine whether a service is “core”, not legislation.

We learnt that the review was still on when Council in June approved its Annual Plan 2022/23‑2025/26 that contained the one-liner “Complete a targeted review of Council services”.

The second mystery is the use of the word “targeted”. That implies there are targets but we don’t know how they will be chosen.

Having been given the green light to go ahead, the review commenced. Council released a media release on July 8 .

The first decision I learnt of was the elimination of the Executive Officer position. Soon after, virtually the entire economic development team was gone.

The next visible target was childcare centres. Happily for their clients, they have been given a lifeline of half a million dollars. It wasn’t clear from the media release why. Aldermen were probably very relieved to learn of the “profits the service has made in recent years” mentioned in the media release – yes really! That made it easier to avoid a politically unpalatable decision to further reduce services or increase charges or shut them down so close to an election.

The most recent target was “Events and Awards Programs”. The survival of some events will  depend on Council finding partners which can reduce the funding required from Council.

In summary, we have seen an opaque process.

We do not know how Council activities are being chosen as targets.

We do not know why it is necessary for the process to take place at a breakneck pace.

We do not know how much influence aldermen have had over the decisions that are being made.

We do not know how Council will know when costs have been sufficiently reduced. How will Council know, how will the public know, when to stop, because stop we must? Slashing costs is a very blunt instrument; long-term we have to rethink Council strategies.

Greenshoots and Zinc Link are dead.

Leave a reply

When Council meets in open session next Monday (25/7/2022 agenda), it will dump two “economic recovery projects” – “Zinc Link” and “Greenshoots” – before they really started.

For residents who want to know how major council projects are going, the go-to item in Council meeting agenda is the “Capital Works Status Report”.

Normally this report simply reports. It provides informative progress reports on capital projects. But at this meeting the report recommends that two projects go no further.

In the section headed “Interest Free Loan Funded Economic Recovery Projects” you will read about projects entitled “Zinc Link” and “Greenshoots”. The penultimate paragraph says

“this report recommends that these two projects do not progress and are withdrawn from Council’s future capital works programs”

As far as Greenshoots is concerned, how quickly things changed since the last Council meeting (27/6/2022) where we were told that the project was continuing but without the proposed grant from the Tasmanian Community Fund.

Many in Glenorchy may not be familiar with the term “Zinc Link”. It refers to a disused rail spur from Derwent Park across the Brooker Highway by bridge and on to near the Zinc Works.

If you search for “Zinc Link” in the entire Council website and all historical meeting agendas and attached reports, you will find very little.

  • “new gravel pathway along sections of the Zinc Link connecting the intercity cycleway to Lutana as part of stimulus measures” appears in the list of potential projects arising from the Paths, Tracks and Trails Project (open council 25 May 2020, agenda item 10).
  • If you drill down into the “Marine and innovation precinct” in the Economic Recovery Program page on the Council website you will see a reference to “Council investment in connecting infrastructure (the Zinc Link)”.
  • All versions of the “Prince of Wales Bay Marine and Innovation Master Plan” in the website mentions the Zinc Link as part of a medium term action.

Zinc Link does not appear in any list of economic recovery projects published by Council – except in the fine print of the website.

It is truly fortunate that Council borrowed only a small “interest free” five million dollar loan from the State Government, because its management of the project list (and the projects) has been opaque and uninformative.

Some modest/cheap projects on the list seem to have been successful but most will be lost in the mists of time.

Should we be nervous about the Jobs Hub – a project most would regard as relatively successful –  when its continued operation depends on continued State Government grants? The subject of grant funding to 2025 is on the agenda of the closed session next Monday.

Extended hours for pokies at the Claremont Hotel

Leave a reply

The development application (PLN-22-176) for the Claremont Hotel is creating intense argument in our city, particularly the potential extension of operating hours for Electronic Gaming Machines.

It has been interesting to see pokie-focused politicians, such as Andrew Wilkie and Kristie Johnston, weigh into the discussion.

For many years EGMs (pokies) have been rightly regarded as repugnant by the Glenorchy City Council for the harm they do to many members of the community. So it is not surprising to read Kristie’s contribution in today’s Mercury (Talking Point 9/7/2022).

Many of us recall the days when Johnston chaired many a meeting of the Glenorchy Planning Authority (GPA), and often reminded those present that the Authority must make decisions based solely on the provisions of the planning scheme. Wilkie will also be well aware of the legal situation. Johnston and Wilkie both understand that the Authority does not make political decisions; it applies the law. No amount of flag-waving or political posturing will make a jot of difference.

Some may not like the manner in which the applicant piggybacked an extension to hours onto an un-related extension to the building.

It is a classic political technique – combine a controversial change with a relatively routine change hoping that the decision-makers will feel compelled to pass the package as a whole because the procedure of excluding the controversial seems too difficult. Classic but not illegal. In this case however, the GPA could easily approve the application without approving the extension in hours.

We have also in the past seen members of the Authority worrying about the cost to Council of potential appeals against their decisions. The hotel industry would probably welcome an appeal on opening hours regarding it as a test case – so the Authority will have to be very confident in their reasons if they reject.

So it is a bit rich to have Johnston, now out of local government, overtly applying pressure on the Council to reject the application – without providing a single supporting argument that involves the planning scheme.

Johnston knows perfectly well that it is unlikely that the application breaches the planning scheme.

Sadly, for all the antipathy in the community to pokies, there appears to be no visible ongoing political campaign to change the rules. Those involved seem to wait for an event to trigger action. Such as this application.

References

Statement of Commitment on Gambling endorsed by Glenorchy City Council on 28 September 2020, Read here.

Development application PLN-22-176, Read copy downloaded from Council website (7 Aug 2023) here.

What has “sterilisation” to do with land use?

Leave a reply

At last night’s planning authority meeting (21/3/2022), a rarely used word appeared in the agenda item (page 70) concerning the rezoning of property in Austins Ferry (PLS43A-21/03).

UV sterilizer

The word was “sterilise”. A word we associate with hand sanitizer. A word we use in relation to creatures unable to reproduce.

Let me give some context.

The application on the GPA agenda requested in part the rezoning of a land parcel from Rural Living (Zone A) to General Residential to allow a subdivision and residential development to take place. The major effect is to reduce the minimum lot size from one hectare (10,000 square metres) down to 450 square metres.

On the face of it, this seems an uncontroversial move until you learn that land on Whitestone Drive just over the hill is zoned Light Industrial.

General Residential and Light Industrial can make unhappy bedfellows – the peace and quiet preferred at home versus the noisier environment of industry. At times the relationship between residents and the nearby light industry was fraught to say the least.

Before this application, the method used to minimize potential conflict was to insert a ten metre wide strip of land zoned Open Space between the two zones. That Open Space has disappeared from the new SAP (Specific Area Plan) proposed to regulate development.

Council in the agenda argued that the previous application of the Open Space Zone would effectively “sterilise the use of the land”. And that, they say, would be a bad thing.

So what does that mean?

In general we would probably agree that the word “sterilise” means “to make sterile” but that begs the question “what does ‘sterile’ mean?”.

In our day to day conversation can mean a few things.

When referring to a person, to be sterile means “unable to have children”.

When referring to medical equipment, to be sterile means “free from living germs or microorganisms”.

When a farmer describes land as sterile, they mean “nothing will grow on that land”.

In land use management it has a more general definition. Land will be sterile with regard to various uses. There may be only one use impossible on that land or a variety of uses.

Here are some examples mentioning a broad-based sterility.

  • The Melbourne City Council in a planning document describes an inner-city precinct as “at risk of being sterilised by institutions. This growth needs to be balanced with a range of other uses that provide activity over a 24-hour period to create a lively and integrated knowledge precinct.”
  • In Western Australia, the explanatory memorandum for a piece of legislation states one of its purposes as – “Clarify the capacity of a responsible authority to acquire or purchase zoned land to avoid sterilisation of development potential.”
  • A report from a Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry wrote:
    “The removal of buildings from the flood affected area, coupled with a moratorium on any new development, can amount to ‘sterilisation’ of the land.”

Here are a couple of references describing sterilization for a single use.

  • In a Tasmanian example relating to Rural and Agricultural zones we read about “reducing setbacks for agricultural buildings such as sheds to ensure that land is not sterilised by the need to put a shed in the middle of a paddock.”
  • Here is an example showing sterility with regard to residential development. In New South Wales in 2021 after their major floods, the government gave “councils the power to refuse development occurring on land above the previously prescribed one-in-100 year floodline”. That was described at the time as “effectively sterilis[ing] land from residential use” (Sydney Morning Herald May 29, 2021).

Some sterilisation may result from a previous use of the land. Here is an example from the Department of Mines in Western Australia which is clearly concerned that subdivision and residential development may block any exploitation of mineral resources. They write in a planning document that it is important to avoid “unnecessary sterilisation of mineral and energy resources from incompatible land uses, such as subdivision and development proposals”.

Some forms of sterilisation are more permanent than others. Some may be reversed simply by rezoning the land.

The Essex County Council in the UK in their planning policy for minerals development helpfully defines “sterilisation” as “the term used when development or land-use changes take place which permanently prevent the extraction of mineral resources from the ground.”

In a planning document from the Moray Council in the UK we read :-
“the development must not sterilise significant workable reserves of minerals, prime quality agricultural land, or preferred areas for forestry planting.”

…

I hope you found that brief explanation interesting, for a word that most of us would think had no place in land use planning conversations.

2022 a big year for BMX in Tasmania

2 Replies

November 21-27 will see, all being well, the National AusCycling 2022 National Championship for BMX in Launceston.

The 2022 Tasmanian BMX championship is scheduled for a month earlier (October 21-23) with Southern City BMX as the venue – all being well. But the status of that venue is still up in the air after Glenorchy City Council discovered belatedly that the issues with the proposed new location raised the cost estimate to over triple the original estimate.

In the Mercury today (14/3/22) we read an article headed “Growth bid in BMX move”. The Tasmanian state manager for AusCycling – the national governing body for cycling in Australia – Craig Notman, appointed only last year, is quoted as saying AusCycling had “contingencies” if the Berriedale site was no longer available.

Craig may have a plan B but since the Tasmanian championship is now only six months away, I suspect he would prefer certainty concerning the Berriedale facility.

The pressure is definitely on the Glenorchy City Council to find a feasible new location for a replacement of the Berriedale track. Not only feasible from an engineering point of view but also from a funding point of view.

It may well be that any new track of a championship standard will require more funds than that set aside by Council. It would not surprise if Council were looking for other sources of funds to supplement its own resources. Given Commonwealth and State government elections this year, could Council extract a funding commitment from electioneering candidates or political parties? Will Council also work with the club to search for potential sponsors willing to provide funds in return for naming rights?

If Glenorchy cannot resolve the situation inside our city then we could see the club track, the only BMX racing track in the Hobart region, move outside the city. This potential outcome would embarrass Council, and upset members and supporters of a club who spent a great deal or time, effort and money building their Berriedale facility.

The question that Council, aldermen and staff, should answer now is: what lessons have been learnt from the BMX track saga?

Damn the Brooker Highway

1 Reply

Next Monday (28/2/22) Council will inevitably adopt a “Regional Sport, Recreation and Entertainment Hub Masterplan” (the “MP”). Public consultation ran through the Christmas holiday break concluding at the end of January.

The genesis of this most recent of Council master plans was as the following line item in the Glenorchy Economic Development Strategy 2020 – 2025 (approved by Council in February 2020)

“Establish Glenorchy as a regional hub for sport, recreation and entertainment
Develop Glenorchy as a sport, recreation and entertainment hub for Tasmania’s southern region”.

which in June 2020, after the COVID pandemic had taken hold, was included in their list of ten economic stimulus projects.

The general public heard nothing more of this project until, like the proverbial rabbit out of a hat, ratepayers saw the draft MP in the agenda for the November 2021 Open Council meeting, a full eighteen months after the previous public mention of the project.

Those eighteen months clearly involved a great deal of activity from Council staff, aldermen, and many stakeholder groups (primarily organizations and companies operating in the geographic area covered by the MP).

Council engaged Urbis Pty Ltd as the principal consultant, while Pitt & Sherry provided traffic engineering expertise.

The draft MP described itself as “a bold and ambitious strategic tool that seeks to guide investment priorities to meet future demand and encourage a coordinated approach to Glenorchy Park in the future.”

As with most master plans, this MP has two primary purposes.

Firstly, it can function as a prospectus, the type of document that a company might use to support a fund-raising effort. That would explain the presence on every page of colour images designed to catch the eye without, in most cases, adding any useful information.

Secondly, the MP can function as a menu of funding opportunities for potential suppliers of funds, state and commonwealth governments in particular (containing a variety of supporting information such as consultant reports – always a good look – to give credence to the opportunities appearing in the menu).

But this MP has very specific third purpose, to create connections between venues in Glenorchy where none exist now or where existing connections have not been promoted or encouraged or maintained.

Damn the Brooker Highway

A primary reason for the current lack of connectivity is the presence of the Brooker Highway – constructed to provide rapid movement to and from Hobart with little thought apparently given to the way it would effectively build a wall splitting Glenorchy between the riverside and the hillside, a wall difficult or dangerous to cross on foot.

It has made pedestrian access to the riverside virtually impossible. Only the brave, foolhardy or desperate would use any pedestrian crossing near the ElwickRoad – BrookerHighway intersection.

Virtually no-one walks to the Montrose Bay Community Park. Everyone drives.

Virtually no-one walks to the MyState Arena. Everyone drives as close as possible before taking to their feet.

Virtually no-one walks to the Elwick Racecourse. Everyone drives.

Only locals walk to Giblins Reserve in Goodwood. No fancy regional playspace will change that.

It is consequently no surprise that this MP requires only two significant constructions, pedestrian overpasses crossing the Brooker Highway at the MyState Arena and the Hobart Showgrounds. Both are likely to have seven figure costs if they are to cater to all levels of personal mobility, costs that the State Government must bear since they are responsible for the Brooker Hwy. The need for those overpasses had already been noted in the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Brooker Highway Transport Plan published in 2011 which says on page 10:

“Connectivity between suburbs separated by the Brooker will be improved, through improvements at key intersections, to improve both safe pedestrian movements and cross‐highway traffic movement. In addition, pedestrian overpasses will be Disability Discrimination Act compliant and appropriately located at key locations between intersections to maximise cross‐highway pedestrian connectivity.”

Even if the MP were to increase the connectivity between the various venues as designed, in order to achieve significant usage of that connectivity we must see people using the connections, walking to and fro.

But the predominant Glenorchy way to go somewhere is to to drive as close as possible to their destination and then walk from there. I do not mean to criticize; given the manner in which Glenorchy has expanded and poor public transport, choosing to drive is a completely logical decision to take most of the time.

Cultural change is required to make this MP work, change that is always difficult, but that is what Council hopes to achieve with this MP.

The agenda for next Monday (28/2/22) shows the Department of State Growth responding to the draft MP with the comment that “transport projects proposed within the plan do not form part of their current forward investment plans and because of their corridor or metropolitan wide impacts, would require an assessment of their relative benefits, feasibility and costs”. The State Government will take some convincing.

Despite a great deal of effort, funding of unknown amount, and a great deal of interesting statistical data about the movement of people and vehicles, this MP is distinctly underwhelming. Some lovely visitation heatmaps appear in the MP that essentially state the bleeding obvious (I’ve included one below). And it is not clear how all that statistical data contributed to the recommendations.

Visitation heatmap from the Masterplan (see key at bottom lefthand corner).

The residents and ratepayers of Glenorchy will take a great deal of convincing that this Masterplan will in reality change anything.

The Black Spot Program and Marys Hope Road

Leave a reply

In early February 2022 I asked Council some questions about impending roadway upgrades near the top of Marys Hope Road in Rosetta.

Council has given me permission to publish here in full the questions and answers.

It seems that the approval of two large developments at 190 and 192 Marys Hope Road has increased the level of risk around Gentile Court so much that Council believes that a 60 km/h speed limit at that location is no longer safe. Council applied for a Black Spot Program grant for a project to prepare the nearby portion of Marys Hope Road for a reduction in speed limit. Council was successful and the tender for the roadworks at Gentile Court (and two other locations) closed at the beginning of February. You can view the drawings for the works at Gentile Court here.

Council has also helpfully provided a copy of its full submission to the Black Spot Program. Don’t worry; it’s only five pages. Council has permitted me to provide it on this website. Use this link to read the full document.

Get an insight into the Council thinking behind the project.

The questions and answers in full.

My question relates to a recent tender (contract #0869) for roadworks to be done at a number of locations in Glenorchy. One leapt off the page for me because it is not far from where I live. Titled “Marys Hope Road & Gentile Court Intersection Traffic Islands 2021/22 Blackspot Project”, it involved two small traffic islands at the intersection. Back in 2019 the advice from Council to the Planning Authority for the 190 Marys Hope Road DA was that the intersection was safe with adequate sight distances in both directions on Marys Hope Road. 

Q1. Can Council please inform me why Council later submitted a request to the Black Spot Program for that location? 

A. The developer of 190 Marys Hope Rod submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment which considered the safety of the intersection of Marys Hope Road and Gentile Court.  It was concluded that the development would not have a detrimental effect on the safety of the intersection. 

Marys Hope Road is very wide in the vicinity of this intersection and along this stretch of road which sets a road environment with a posted speed of 60km/h.  Over time Council would like to reduce this speed limit due to developments in the area. However, before this can occur the road environment needs to be suitable for a 50 km/h speed limit. 

To achieve this, the Black Spot project at the intersection involves the installation of kerb blisters at the intersection, as shown on the plan below.  This will narrow the perception of Marys Hope Road to help reduce vehicle speeds. A similar treatment has been undertaken at the nearby intersection with Kilander Crescent.  The project also has other benefits including increased sight lines at the intersection and improved pedestrian facilities. Upgraded kerb ramps will greatly improve the accessibility for pedestrians crossing Gentile Court. 

Q2. Did Council have new advice? 
A. No 

Q3. Can I please have a copy of Council’s submission? 
A. A copy of the report is attached. 

Q4. What process does Council undertake to determine whether to submit requests to the Black Spot Program? Does it invite or accept public input? 

Council reviews our road network and crash data annually to highlight any potential Black Spot projects. Black Spot projects can either be based on crash history or from a road safety audit perspective.  Nominations for Black Spot locations are invited from state and territory governments, local councils, community groups, industry, and individuals. 

More information about the Black Spot process and submissions can be found here on their website.