Tag Archives: GlenorchyCityCouncil

Council’s Parking Plan is a weird beast indeed

Leave a reply

Council staff are now finalising a draft Parking Plan (GPP) for our city. If you want to learn more about Parking Plans there is precious little to go on. In this post I will attempt to describe the weirdness of the Parking Plan concept.

The concept of a Parking Plan is based on a single paragraph (read the original) which says:

“the site is subject to a parking plan for the area adopted by council, in which case parking provision (spaces or cash-in-lieu) must be in accordance with that plan;“

In essence, it says that if a proposed development is in a place covered by a Parking Plan then some or all of the usual State rules for off-street parking might be over-ridden by the Parking Plan.

The first weird thing … there is no other explanation or definition of what a Parking Plan looks like or the information it contains. Council’s approach has been to base its structure on the look of the Parking Code in the State rules.

The second weird thing … is that it is “adopted by council”. Councils have taken this to mean that the entire process of designing, writing, and putting a Parking Plan in place is controlled by council.

The third weird thing … is that our council has, despite the Parking Plan affecting the application of an integral part of the city’s planning scheme, used a variation of its usual policy development process so far … staff draft, consultation with public and stakeholders, etc.

The next weird thing … is that council has, as is usual for its policies, set a review period (four years). Reviews of many council policies are staff reviews only, done with no public visibility and presented to an open council meeting as a fait accompli. This will not do for the Parking Plan which must incorporate the same level of public consultation used for the first version.

The Parking Plan concept seems to be a fudge to the state planning scheme to allow councils to tweak off-street parking rules in their city without any external oversight by the Tasmanian Planning Commission (or anyone else for that matter).

Given the lack of information about Parking Plans, some questions arise.

The text I quoted above referred to “a Parking Plan”, not “the Parking Plan”. Does that mean that Glenorchy can have more than one Parking Plan, each relating to specific portions of the city?

If so, it could create a new Parking Plan quite quickly without waiting for the scheduled review date of the first plan. That might be useful. For example, it would allow council to create a Parking Plan for the site of any proposed development if it regarded the development as being of sufficiently great significance to the city?

And finally, there is the interaction between council and the planning authority. If council adoption of a Parking Plan takes immediate effect, it could create a new Parking Plan to suit a Development Application that council has received while assessment is still under way.

In conclusion, many readers might find a discussion on off-street parking a little weird. It may be … but it is also an internationally controversial and contested subject.

Many cities, large and small, across the world have removed all mandatory off-street parking requirements in part or all of the city. Many others have reduced the requirements. Many others have ongoing argument and debate.

A couple of the most common arguments for removing/reducing mandatory off-street parking requirements are:

a) Reducing the amount of space for parking provides more space for living space. What is not used for parking can be used for accommodation.

b) The developer knows best what amount and type of parking is most appropriate for the proposed development. So why not let them decide the quantity? Council’s interest should be in the size, design, and safety of any parking spaces.

It is of course not as simple as this in reality. For example, if there is little parking provided for a residential development then the availability of travel options such as public transport becomes an important topic for those without their own vehicle.

This is no trivial matter and should be treated seriously.

Did the rules not apply to Hidden Garden Estate?

Leave a reply

On 11 November 2025 a full page article appeared on page 7 of the Mercury newspaper telling the story of the closure of the Hidden Garden Estate, a major wedding venue in Berriedale Tasmania. The article was surprisingly balanced, and did not directly blame the Glenorchy City Council for the closure. Local government is often an easy target for those wishing to redirect the blame for a business failure.

The post in the business’s Facebook page announcing the closure, and quoted in full by the Mercury, did however spend many words attempting to describe Council as unwilling to  make any concession or give the owners time to sort it out, and create an image of a pedantic legalistic inflexible unfeeling organisation.

The owners had not gained a permit for either the major renovations or for occupancy after the work was done. Did the rules not apply to them?

The owners should feel relieved that those who had little choice but to cancel were satisfied with refunds and have not taken legal action. They clearly suffered from actions (or more accurately lack of action) of the owners. Imagine cancelling or relocating a wedding at a month’s notice!

PS. This content of this post is based on the Mercury article mentioned.

Mandatory off-street parking requirements more trouble than they’re worth

Leave a reply

Tomorrow (10/11/2025) I will attend a meeting of the Glenorchy Planning Authority (GPA), a meeting with exactly one item on the agenda.

An item I find utterly exasperating.

An item necessary because the building in question, according to planning rules,  has too few parking spaces for its use.

An item necessary despite no response from any member of the public when the Development Application (DA) was advertised in the Mercury.

An item necessary because no Council staff member has the power to “determine applications with residential car parking discretions” (full list of delegations). Hence the Planning Authority must decide the matter.

But the situation arises originally because the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS) contains an algorithm for calculating the minimum amount of off-street parking required for the use to which the site will be put. If the amount of parking in a DA is not at least as much as the algorithm says, the DA does not have an “acceptable” parking solution and must be assessed against the “performance criteria”. Take a look at the algorithm and the table C2.1 it refers to; they both fit on only eight A4 pages.

The Parking Plan

What is remarkably timely about this particular DA is its timing. It comes while council staff are preparing a Parking Plan for the city of Glenorchy, a plan which is intended to “override the number of car parking spaces specified in the planning scheme and reduce car parking numbers in specific areas.”

Council employed GHD, an international consultancy, to “determine and summarise potential adjustments to minimum car parking rates for development applications within key areas of the Glenorchy LGA that may be applied in a Parking Plan for the municipality” and provide a report to council on the results. You can read the 12 August 2025 version of the GHD report on Minimum Parking Rates.

The GHD report states “evidence does not support a minimum parking requirement” and consequently shows, in order from most effective to least effective) options as:

  1. Removal of car parking minimum rates
  2. Partial removal by-location of car parking minimum rates
  3. Partial removal by location and size of development
  4. Reduction in minimum-parking rates (by location and/or use class)
  5. Adopt widely accepted rates where appropriate

What is particularly disturbing about the first draft of the parking plan is that it adopts, without any explanation, the option GHD regards as the least effective, option 5, “Adopt widely accepted rates where appropriate”. The result was a decrease across the board of about twenty percent.

The first draft plan, if adopted essentially as is, would not improve the situation. The item on tomorrow’s planning authority agenda would still come to the GPA for decision.

We heard at the parking plan workshop that council were being encouraged to “be brave” in their decision-making. I hope that council will do so, change its mind, and accept the consultant’s number one recommendation to reduce minimum off-street parking requirements by 100% ….. all the way to zero.

Now for a Walking Infrastructure Plan

Leave a reply
Katoomba Crescent laneway (entrance on Katoomba Crescent). 15/7/2025.

At its June 2025 open meeting council “endorsed” (whatever that means) the final draft of a Glenorchy Cycling Infrastructure Plan (GCIP) which contained no timeline, no description of what type of infrastructure might be where, and consequently no budget. It is in effect a vision for where cycling infrastructure might sit geographically long-term, but without any of the data needed to make a Priority Project. Still better than nothing and sufficient to satisfy, for now, the well organized lobby groups (such as Cycling South and Tasmanian Bicycle Council) in southern Tasmania.

By carefully reading the GCIP you will find the word “walking” mentioned 38 times, usually in the phrase “walking and cycling”. It seems the authors believed that the GCIP might serve as an infrastructure plan for all active transport, not just cycling.

It takes a few moments of thought to realize that those who walk have vastly different needs and considerations from those who ride. But it is not at all clear how those who often or mostly walk have their differing needs recognized by any level of government. There is a Facebook page “Pedestrian & Public Transport Users Group” that appears to focus exclusively on public transport. A recent addition is an organization known as Hobart Streets which shows some promise. So no organized lobby groups for those who walk.

Let me clear. I am not talking about tracks or trails designed purely for sport or recreation. Council already takes management of walking trails seriously, so seriously that you could say that Council has 4 R’s – Roads, Rates, Rubbish, and Recreation – instead of the usual three. I am talking primarily about people using “walking” as a way of getting about in their day-to-day life. To the shops. To the bus stop. To visit. To work. To school. To play sport. To the doctor. To study. etc. etc.

Infrastructure

It is easy to forget that there is a great deal of infrastructure in our city whose prime purpose is to cater for pedestrians. We drive past it. We walk over it. We can easily take it for granted.

Footpaths are the most ubiquitous. They are everywhere, well almost everywhere, and council does have policy documents related to them. The basic Footpaths Policy provides “guidance on the standards required for the provision and construction of footpaths and kerb ramps”. That policy refers to a footpath hierarchy defined exactly as follows:

  • Category 1 – CBD: footpaths in the main street in the CBD where there is significant business and pedestrian activity.
  • Category 2 – Primary: high pedestrian activity within the CBD areas and includes direct pedestrian links between the key CBD zones, such as the Intercity Cycleway.
  • Category 3 – Secondary: footpaths that provide the best link between key destinations and facilities (e.g. bus stops, local shops, schools, playgrounds, etc.)
  • Category 4 – Local: footpaths generally in the residential streets and any footpaths which are not included in the other categories above.

Notice the reference to the Intercity Cycleway as a “footpath”. Any regular user of the cycleway would regard it as “contested” in terms of whether pedestrians or cyclists have priority.

The Footpaths Policy also states that a “digital map of footpath hierarchy will be … maintained by Council”. It would be similar to the map underlying the Cycling Infrastructure Plan but not developed with any public consultation. The only map in Council’s map website is the Infrastructure Map which shows roads and kerbs but no footpaths.

The Footpath Trading Policy and Guidelines concern how businesses can operate on footpaths.

But there is much more infrastructure which exists to serve pedestrians.

  • Bus stop approaches (frequent destinations)
  • Kerbs (including ramps, kerb cuts and extensions)
  • Laneways and paths crossing blocks (e.g. Katoomba Crescent lane way)
  • Pedestrian crossings (with or without signals)
  • Pedestrian overpasses (e.g. Brooker near Montrose Bay) and underpasses (e.g. Brooker near Strathaven)
  • Pedestrian priority streets (access by vehicles limited and low speed)
  • Pedestrian refuge islands
  • Pedestrian safety and comfort (e.g. lighting, shelter)
  • Pedestrianized streets (vehicles excluded)
  • Rules regarding pedestrian priority (or not)
  • Spaces shared with cyclists (separate?)
  • Wayfinding (signage etc)

All this pedestrian-oriented infrastructure demands a pedestrian-oriented Infrastructure Plan.

Taking the bigger view

Before people walk, they think about how they will get from the starting point to the destination – everything in between – the route.

It is time for council to think the same way, in terms of routes, not simply individual pieces of infrastructure mitigating local issues.

It is time for walking infrastructure to be planned using routes as the primary focus, not apparently piecemeal addition here and there according to demands or complaints from residents.

Planning could in fact move to the next level via networks where integration and interconnection of major walking routes comes into play. This approach has been used elsewhere (such as Victoria (Australia), Queensland, and Dundee (Scotland)) so it has been tried and tested elsewhere.

A focus on the elderly

It is generally accepted that pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users. And older pedestrians are the most likely to be injured or killed in a crash. Furthermore, most demographic projections predict an increase in the proportion of older people in Glenorchy’s population. The State government’s Population Policy website says that for Glenorchy the “population of people aged 65 and above is projected to increase from 8,862 (17.4% of the LGA population) in 2023 to 12,074 (22.2%) in 2053.”

Clearly when considering pedestrian safety on roads, there must be a focus on the particular vulnerabilities of the older members of our community.

In conclusion

An interesting possible result of this type of planning is that it might trigger applications to the Black Spot Program for “walking” black spots in addition to the current almost exclusively “driving” black spots?

The State Government in their Active Transport Strategy tends to universally use the phrase “walking, wheeling and riding” as if they have identical requirements in all contexts. While many cycling and walking routes will overlap, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists differ dramatically and may even conflict.

Those differences demand a Walking Infrastructure Plan specifically designed for those for whom walking is important. Yes – a Glenorchy Walking Infrastructure Plan. The absence of an active lobby group should not delay council. Work must begin immediately.

Original sources

1. Council Footpaths Policy (downloaded 4/7/25)
https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Footpaths-Policy-2024-.pdf

2. Footpath Trading Policy (downloaded 4/7/25)
https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Footpath-Trading-Policy.pdf

3. Footpath Trading Guidelines (downloaded 4/7/25)
https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Footpath-Trading-Guidelines.pdf

4. “Planning for Walking”, Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation 2015
https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/4465/planning_for_walking_-_long_-_april_2015.pdf

5. Victoria Walks – https://www.victoriawalks.org.au

6. Public domain map showing laneways and cycleways – https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-42.81996/147.25748&layers=C

End.

Glenorchy is a city. Who cares?

Leave a reply

When Molly Kendall and Harry Quick attended their first council meeting after being elected at the 2022 election, they both declared their desire to be referred to as “Councillor” rather than “Alderman”.

According to the 1993 Local Government Act: “A person elected to a city council is a councillor but may be known as an alderman.”

Although Kendall and Quick were within their rights to ask to be called “Councillor”, it did trigger considerable discussion among those we now quaintly refer to as “elected members”.

Some were quite passionate about wanting to be called “Alderman”. Some didn’t seem to care. I still don’t understand why some took the subject so seriously, probably because I’m a newcomer to Glenorchy having lived here for only 40 years. I was curious.

A little background.

City status was granted to Glenorchy on October 24, 1964, exactly one hundred years after it was first proclaimed a municipality (the third city proclaimed in Tasmania).

The definitive list of Tasmanian councils appears in Schedule 3B of the Local Government Act and currently contains

  • Burnie City
  • Clarence City
  • Devonport City
  • Glenorchy City
  • Hobart City
  • Launceston City

Clarence is an outlier because you will not find “Clarence” on any map I’ve seen.

And you’ll find that Hobart Council has special status in various situations.

Here are the criteria that must be satisfied by a “city” in Tasmania. The Board referred to is the Local Government Board.

38.   Criteria for city status
For the purposes of section 214D(3) of the Act, the Board may make a recommendation relating to the declaration of a municipal area or part of a municipal area as a city if all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) for 5 years immediately preceding the Board’s review, the municipal area had a population of at least 20 000 persons;
(b) at least 60% of the population of the municipal area lives in an urban area;
(c) an elector poll conducted on behalf of the council has indicated that the majority of electors favour the recommendation.

[ Section 38 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2015 ]

Back to the original question: why do some care so much?

Is it a feel-good thing? Do the residents of Glenorchy have greater pride in where they live because it is a city?

Does it add to the Glenorchy brand (whatever that is)? Is it about having Glenorchy perceived as an urban centre rather than simply a collection of dormitory suburbs? The G brand needs all the help it can get because G is geographically simply an extension of the City of Hobart.

Does it give Glenorchy extra privileges, advantages, opportunities or powers? Commonwealth legislation?

I suppose that being a city means that Glenorchy can be a sister city to another city (Australian or overseas). Glenorchy can’t have a sister city if it isn’t a city.

I still don’t get it … so I shall ask Council. I’ll keep you posted.

Now make it safe for pedestrians at Montrose Bay

Leave a reply

Now that the efforts of Council and others appear to have finally persuaded the State Government to make the Montrose Bay Park entrance safer for drivers, maybe it can do the same for those who do not drive.

The State Government allocated funds for a project to improve safety at the intersection. The Department of State Growth (DSG) have had a draft design for the intersection to make it controlled by traffic lights. They’ve had that design on their books for years. Enquiries to DSG have always elicited the same response – “we’re waiting for the funds”.

The State Government (and many others) will claim that the proposed traffic lights will make the intersection safe for those on foot, on bike, on scooter, or on skateboard – in other words, for what is now called “active transport”.

Most who have attempted to cross the Brooker Highway on foot will tell a story of being extremely cautious, extremely nervous, extremely tentative. And they will say that using traffic lights does little to reduce the tension. 

Any reasonable person could easily come to the conclusion that the Brooker Highway has one prime purpose – to allow traffic to enter and leave Greater Hobart as quickly as possible. It is a facility for traffic. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that the Highway was in any way designed for the safety of people moving around in any other way, certainly not on foot.

So the proposed traffic lights may help drivers feel safer at Montrose Bay but will do little for pedestrians.

Which brings me to the pedestrian overpass at Montrose Bay High School. The only place in a two kilometre stretch of highway where you can cross without walking on the road surface.

A passing glance at the overpass might fool a casual observer that the overpass is the solution. And it is in roughly the right place, not too far from the school and Montrose Bay Park.

View of pedestrian overpass at Montrose Bay High School facing north. 2025.

But on a second glance, the sets of stairs on each side of the highway will become evident. Those stairs are an impassable barrier for anyone with any significant mobility issues.

That problem has been recognized officially. That overpass is not DDA-compliant, in other words, not compliant with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. This is after all what the State Govt’s own Brooker Highway Transport Plan said back in February 2011.

You might look at its title and think that the DDA is just for the disabled. Not so. It is all about access. It is about everyone having the right to “have access to places used by the public”.

To learn more about the DDA, take a look at the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

To see an aerial view of a compliant overpass you need go no further than Bellerive.

Pedestrian overpass on Rosny Hill Road 2025.

It has become clear over many years that no state government of any political persuasion has had any interest in the safety of pedestrians on or around the Brooker Highway. Their strategy has been to stonewall any request for change and rely on lobbyists giving up in frustration.

Council must now add the provision of a DDA compliant overpass to its priority list for funding.

It must not put up the white flag on the safety of its residents – and everyone else from the region – who go to the high school or park.

Do we need another Whitestone Point?

Leave a reply

Council owns the property at 261 Main Road, Austins Ferry, a property known in the past as “Nortonville”. While its total area is just over eight hectares, only 7.14 hectares is available for development.

It is one of the largest remaining parcels of undeveloped land inside the Urban Growth Boundary that is owned by Council and potentially suitable for residential development.

Council has designated a large part of the property an “Off-Lead Dog Exercise Area” and given it the name “Austins Ferry Park”. Regularly mowed but certainly not developed!

In March 2022, Council decided to begin an investigation to determine whether it is suitable for disposal.

In parallel with that process, it has worked to “clean up” the land to remove any impediments to disposal. According to the minutes of July 2024 Council,

“Council has undertaken a contamination report on the land. All contaminated soil has now been removed from site and awaiting written confirmation. An in-ground fuel tank has been removed and the site remediated.”

The same minutes state

“potential heritage values at the 261 Main Road site (a well, an oak tree and possible structural remains) which means the site warrants further investigation for listing as a ‘Place of Archaeological Potential’.”

Aerial photo of western corner of 261 Main Road, Austins Ferry. 2024.

According to the Council’s 2009-2010 Annual Report, Council had asked its Heritage Officer to investigate a water well on the property as a “potential heritage site”. The well is currently covered for public safety (the image for this post shows the wire and plastic webbing used). Underneath is a circular well lined with dry stone, about a metre across and less than two metres deep. I couldn’t find the “possible structural remains”.

But even if the well and tree were found to require protection, their location in the far western corner would only slightly reduce the land area available for development.

So an investigation apparently did begin 15 years ago. According to a recent email from Council, the current investigation is being carried out by external experts and is expected to be finished in the first quarter of 2025.

But what is a ‘Place of Archaeological Potential’ and what are the consequences of a declaration?

The State Planning Provisions contains a Local Historic Heritage Code. Its purpose is to “recognise and protect the local historic heritage significance of local places, precincts, landscapes and areas of archaeological potential”.

It defines Place of Archaeological Potential as:

“a place that is a site, precinct or parcel of land that has been identified as having the potential to contain archaeological evidence that provides information about the past and is:
(a) shown on an overlay map in the relevant Local Provisions Schedule; and
(b) listed and identified in the places or precincts of archaeological potential list in the relevant Local Provisions Schedule.”

Note that the Code does not apply to Aboriginal heritage values.

Glenorchy’s Local Provisions Schedule contains a list entitled “GLE-Table C6.4 Places or Precincts of Archaeological Potential”. You can read that list through this link.

Top of the current list is the “Ashburton farm complex”. Much of the land it contains is in the old Claremont Primary School site where a permit for a major residential development was granted by Council in April 2021. So being declared a Place of Archaeological Potential does not preclude even major development on a site.

According to the March 2022 Open Council agenda 261 Main Road is a “very large, 7.14-hectare block which is zoned as a combination of Light Industrial 58%, Open Space 24%, General Residential 11%, Rural Living (Zone A) 7%.”

At that meeting Council decided to “authorise a community engagement process to be undertaken to identify any community concerns about the potential disposal” of the property. This in line with Council’s policy on Disposal of Council Land.

That decision was the result of a “strategic review of land suitable for disposal for housing” by Council officers.

The agenda described the property as “land with potential for significant multiple dwelling housing developments and are considered priority potential sites for increasing the supply of land for housing.”

The report goes to state that Council will soon start “preliminary public consultation process to identify any significant concerns about the potential sale” of that land.

Council’s own Statement of Commitment on Housing (adopted 30 January 2023) lists actions Council intends to take. The last says Council will “release surplus Council owned land to increase residential land supply for housing.” There is no evidence that Council has considered the property for residential development of any sort or in fact regards it as surplus.

Given the current housing crisis, it would be a tragedy if 261 Main Road were to become another Whitestone Point, another large residential subdivision to be sold as a commercial development. Half of the property slopes down to the river with fantastic views over the river. Too good for social or affordable housing? It would be tempting for Council to “land bank” the property to maximize its return on disposal.

It is hard to understand why Council has never shown visible signs of urgency in putting the property to a useful purpose. Perhaps we will see some movement after Council receives the report from the investigation into the heritage values of the property early this year.

Sources

May 2023 Council agenda (page 22).

Plastics in the yellow bin. Any point?

Leave a reply

For many years my family has taken the use of our yellow bin seriously, giving careful consideration to deciding what can and can’t be placed in that bin. I have also wondered at times what happened to the contents of our yellow bin. For some reason, I’ve generally felt that most glass, aluminium cans, paper and cardboard, was probably recycled – without any real evidence of that. I’ve never had the same confidence that any of our plastic has in fact been put to any useful purpose.

To get a brief overview of Council’s kerbsite recycling operation, read this 2021 post in council’s own special website about its Waste Services. It says that “Council pays Veolia Environmental Services to empty our recycling bins and take the recyclables to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Derwent Park. Cleanaway Waste Management Ltd runs the MRF and is the contractor for all southern Councils.” Taswaste South, a Joint Authority established by the 12 Councils of Southern Tasmania, handles the contact with Cleanaway.

I started my search for information back in April 2024. To summarize what I’ve learnt so far:

  1. Council receives a report, originally written by Cleanaway and marked “Confidential”, containing some statistics.
  2. Council files those reports and appears to do nothing with them.
  3. It appears that Cleanaway decides what statistics it will provide and who will see them. Council has no say. It is not clear whether Taswaste South has any say.
  4. By the end of July, “Council had requested that volumes of recyclables received, and volumes of recyclables being recycled or reused be made available to the public and this has been agreed to be provided. The timeline for release has not been advised but we have been advised it will be soon.”

Latest question sent 19 December 2024. Waiting.

A brief history of Council and plastics

At the March 2019 Open Council meeting, Bob Pettit asked in public question time

“What is the position of Glenorchy City Council on the ban on petroleum based single use plastic products (which the City of Hobart recently moved to ban)?”

The question was taken on notice. Later in the same meeting, newly elected aldermen Bec Thomas and Peter Bull moved a motion without notice which after some discussion became

“That Council receives a report on the options for and impacts of reducing the use of single-use plastics in our community including a staged approach.”

Council finally received a report on “the potential options for regulating single-use plastics in Glenorchy City” at its November 2019 council meeting. The delay gives us some idea of council’s lack of interest. The report recommended that council “continue in accordance with our Waste Management Strategy including action to work with our business community to assist in the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste.” It states “Officers do not recommend that Council moves to introduce any process or measures to reduce the use of single-use plastic in our municipality now.”

Ironically, it seems that Rosetta Primary School has done more than Council to reduce the use of plastics. They received a Glenorchy Community Award in 2022 in part because of their organization of Plastic Free Days in their school.

Public Question Time (April 2024)

At the April 2024 Open Council I asked in Public Question Time: “Can Council provide me with any evidence or statistics to reassure me that any of the plastic I put into my yellow bin is in fact being recycled or reused?”

In response, I was first given a brief synopsis of the recycling situation including Cleanaway and the Southern Tasmania Regional Waste Authority (STRWA). The second part of the response informed me that Council does indeed receive detailed statistics relating the amount of various types of material that are processed by Cleanaway. I was informed that the statistics were for “internal use”. When I asked if Council would publish those statistics, the answer was non-committal.

Not feeling particularly reassured, I followed up with some Questions on Notice so I could get answers in writing. In my experience Council has generally provided comprehensive answers to Questions on Notice (even if I wasn’t always happy with those answers).

Questions on Notice (May 2024)

Here is my first set of questions on notice with the answers as they appear in the May 2024 Open Council agenda.

Q1: What “internal use” are the statistics put to?

A1: They are provided to Councils for information on volumes of recyclables and comparisons across the various municipal areas.

Q2: Will council publish the most recent statistics and each new set of statistics as they are received by Council, and if not, why not?

A2: The reports include information on all of the Southern Councils, not just Glenorchy, as well as commercial information relating to the commodities and processors. The reports are received with a “confidential” marking. Council is happy to request if the reports, of a version of the reports, can be publicly released by the regional body each month.

I immediately sent back some clarification questions. They were included with the original questions and answers.

Q2a: I didn’t quite understand what Council actually did with the reports. Can you clarify that please?

A2a: They are simply provided as “for information” reports to Council. They provide GCC with information on volumes of recyclables and comparisons across the different Council areas.

Q2b: Is the confidentiality a provision of STRWA’s contract with Cleanaway? If not, who marks the reports as “confidential” – Cleanaway or STRWA or someone else?

A2b: Cleanaway.

Q2c: I would definitely like Council to follow up to find out if the entire reports (or portions) might be made publicly available. Can you make that followup happen?

A2c: Yes, these discussions have already been had with STRWA, and are currently underway between STRWA and Cleanaway.

Questions on Notice (July 2024)

In the absence of any further contact from Council on my questions, I sent another batch of questions on notice. They appear in the agenda of the July 2024 Open Council meeting. Here they are.

Most of the following questions relate to STRWA (now TasWaste South). That organization appears to be doing its best to be operationally invisible to the general public, dealing only with member councils. So, I ask these questions of my council.

Q1. What does Council know about the status of discussions between TasWaste South and Cleanaway regarding provision of statistics?

A1: The TasWaste South CEO has advised that a draft of the report for public viewing has been produced by Cleanaway and reviewed by the CEO, this is being progressed by Cleanaway for release in the near future (date unknown at this stage).

Q2. What has Council done to encourage or expedite those discussions?

A2: A publicly available report was requested by the previous Mayor when she was on the STRWA forum, and the Director of Infrastructure and Development has also requested its release.

Q3. Has Council received permission from either TasWaste South or Cleanaway to release any data? If so, which data and why haven’t we seen it?

A3: No

Q4. Has Council been informed by TasWaste South that public access to data is denied?

A4: The report in its current format includes commercially confidential information and Cleanaway’s intellectual property and cannot be released by any third party.

Q5. Will Council demand from TasWaste South details of any confidentiality provisions in their contract with Cleanaway? That should include provisions relating to publication of data for volumes of recyclables received, and volumes of recyclables being recycled or reused?

A5: Council has requested that volumes of recyclables received, and volumes of recyclables being recycled or reused be made available to the public and this has been agreed to be provided. The timeline for release has not been advised but we have been advised it will be soon.

Email to Taswaste South (30 August 2024)

I have now contacted Taswaste South using the “Contact” page in their website, saying this:

“My family and I are very interested in recycling in general, and in particular the recycling of whatever we place in our Glenorchy City Council recycling bin. Our specific interest at the moment is plastics. Earlier this year we asked our council if they had any statistics on how much of our plastics are in fact recycled or reused. We learnt that their data came from Cleanaway and they did not have the right to share the data. We then asked council to request through your organization some statistics. The last report from council (July 2024 open council agenda) said this:

“Council has requested that volumes of recyclables received, and volumes of recyclables being recycled or reused be made available to the public and this has been agreed to be provided. The timeline for release has not been advised but we have been advised it will be soon.”

What can you tell us about the “timeline for release” and when they may be provided?”

I followed up by sending the same text in an email directly to Taswaste South at their general address admin@taswastesouth.tas.gov.au on September 5.

Response by TasWaste South to September 5 email (21 October 2024)

After an apology for “the delay in responding”, the email went on to say

“I am pleased to let you know that we have published some data regarding the operation of the material recovery facility at Derwent Park that we have obtained from Cleanaway via the Rethink Waste website.  

https://rethinkwaste.com.au/cleanaway-derwent-park-material-recovery-facility-mrf/

This information is being made available to the public broadly to answer similar questions to the one that you’ve asked below.  We intend to keep this information update and hopefully we can include further information as it becomes available to demonstrate the positive impact from this facility.”

The information content appeared in the following image:

Source: https://rethinkwaste.com.au/cleanaway-derwent-park-material-recovery-facility-mrf/.
Downloaded 5 Jan 2025.

The alert reader will notice that the source was not the Cleanaway website. It was “Brought to you by Tasmania’s regional waste management groups in partnership with the Tasmanian Waste & Resource Recovery Board using the state waste levy.”

To be clear, the information relating to plastics can be summarized in a single sentence:

Cleanaway recovered during the 2024 financial year 1,208 tonnes of rigid plastics (HDPE, PET, PP).

I have since replied (19 December) to the email asking: What exactly does “recovered” mean in that context?

Traffic calming in Glenorchy … unlikely

Leave a reply

At about 11pm on 25 July 2023, a crash involving two cars and a telegraph pole took place in Marys Hope Road 25 metres from my home. Both cars were seriously damaged. The power pole was pulled out of the ground and left suspended in the air between the poles on either side. Police, ambulance, and a fire engine attended. Tasnetworks worked through the night to finally restore power by sunrise.

This crash reminded me of the many other occasions when we have heard or seen vehicles speeding up or down the road, and how every time it happened we wondered what could be done to stop it happening (or at least make it less frequent).

I’d noticed speed humps in Katoomba Crescent in Rosetta. Another flat top road hump in Nathan St, Berriedale. I’d noticed broader flat speed humps at Cornelian Bay near the waterfront.

Request to Council

So I emailed council asking that they consider modifying Marys Hope Road with some sort of traffic calming like speed humps (narrow or broad and flat) to make it very difficult or uncomfortable for drivers to speed.

The response very politely explained why that was never going to happen, primarily because Marys Hope Road is a collector road, and secondly because Council relies absolutely on external funding to construct traffic calming.

It also mentioned that Council was within the month going to put out proposals for speed limit reductions for public consultation – including one for Marys Hope Road. But its effect would be to reduce the speed limit and change some speed limit signs. No mention of road calming.

Which brings me to Council’s current Traffic Calming Devices policy. The emails from Council hadn’t mentioned this policy, and when I read it, I could see why.

The first version of this policy was adopted in 2016. We are now on version three. There was no public consultation for any version of this policy. According to the agenda item for its first review in 2019 the reason is that the “policy itself provides for a four-week period of community consultation wherever it is proposed to install traffic calming devices in a street.”

Yes – public consultation for a speed hump.

Council undertakes most roadworks with no public consultation. Council determines which locations it will propose for Black Spot grants. The public has no say. Council spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on a 300 metre footpath from the cycleway to the Granada opposite MONA (almost a thousand dollars per metre) without public consultation.

Why is traffic calming treated differently? So differently that the policy dictates that the decision to construct traffic calming must be decided by the councillors around the table (if it gets over all the other hurdles placed in its way by the policy). Yes, a proposal for a speed hump must come to an Open Council meeting.

Council makes difficult decisions, financial and otherwise. It can apparently disband an entire economic development team but cannot decide to build a speed hump without asking the public.

It is disappointing in this case to see Council apparently granting more importance to the occasional complaint from the public experiencing some minor inconvenience through being unable to travel at their desired speed – than to public safety.

In fact, the primary purpose of Council’s Traffic Calming Devices policy appears to be to make it more difficult to implement traffic calming. The policy in a section “Background” is completely negative about traffic calming. The entire document seems to obsess over “hooning”.

It claims to provide “a policy position and to develop a consistent and practical approach in the management of road humps and other traffic calming devices”. What it actually does is discourage residents from bothering Council with requests for traffic calming (and encourage them to take their hooning complaints elsewhere).

Council needs to decide whether the proposed changes to speed limits are simply to remove an anomaly on the speed limit map OR to actually reduce traffic speed and improve safety.

If council is serious about safety on the roads, it must scrap the current Traffic Calming policy and begin to produce a new policy that focuses on public safety and involves public consultation.

A policy that makes clear the actual likelihood of action.

A policy which does not give the reader false hope.

Sources

Version 3 of Council’s policy on “Traffic Calming Devices” (downloaded on 22/3/24 from https://www.gcc.tas.gov.au/traffic-calming-devices-policy-2021-final/ ).

Open council meeting agenda item for 2019 review of policy (downloaded on 22/3/24 from http://glenorchy.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/04/OC_29042019_AGN.PDF – pages 49-50) and report for agenda item (downloaded on 22/3/24 from http://glenorchy.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/04/OC_29042019_ATT.PDF – pages 69-72 )

Council’s historical collection starts to see daylight

Leave a reply

If you walk into the council chambers through the front door, you will see directly ahead two small display cabinets containing interesting historical artefacts from council’s historical collection. Those coming in the back door won’t see them.

Manual press ‘seal’ machine for the Glenorchy City Council (late 19th early 20th century). Council collection.

The collection has accumulated since the 1800s. Over the years, members of the public have asked questions about council’s historical collection but received little information – not the size of the collection, not a spreadsheet listing the contents, and certainly not photographs of the contents on a website.

A question asked of council last year revealed that an inventory does exist but that council was reluctant to publish because of fears that the heritage officer would be swamped by questions from the public.

Very few objects have been revealed to the public. Some are in poor condition or very fragile. The collection is currently stored in one location off-site with various bits and pieces scattered around council chambers.

Council has not been able to find a suitable space where the collection can be displayed ‒ safe, secure, climate-controlled, and easily accessible to the public – a museum.

But even if it found a location, the three-days-a-week heritage officer, the only council staff member with duties relating specifically to the collection, simply does not have the time to manage a museum (in addition to their statutory duties).

But even if they had the time, museum management requires a skill set quite different to that of a heritage officer.

But even if they had the skills, a museum would generate little income and simply be a financial overhead. Most of the public would see it as a drain on council funds.

Every now and then, council’s one and only heritage officer (part-time) will stock the cabinets with a new set of objects. That is probably the best display method we can hope for.

Council can do more. It should find a way to place the collection catalogue online, and attach photos of each item to the catalogue. They will not be swamped with requests for help or information. Even if they are, there may well be volunteers in the community who could assist in dealing with the requests (and possibly implementing the online catalog and gallery). Volunteers who could help with its design.

Next time you go to council, go in the front door and learn a little history.

NOTE: the image for this post shows the photo of a banner was created by artist Chantale Delrue for ‘The Gathering’ Centenary of Federation event, Launceston, Sunday 2 December 2001. Currently located in Council Chambers.