In regard to council’s fundament requirement of accountability and it’s obligation to be accountable to its constituents for decisions made on their behalf:
1. Why did council management proceed with only the most superficial commitment to notifying constituents of management’s intention to remove three trees from a cultural landscape? Indeed, in accord with responsible, participatory and inclusive governance why weren’t the constituents in the immediately adjoining jurisdiction – and who would suffer a loss of amenity along with Launcestonians – given an opportunity to present their objections to council in the same way as Launceston Council constituents?
2. Given that Bald Hill Road exists at the very edge of the municipality, at the edge of a designated tourist route, within a scenic protection area and within a cultural landscape, why hasn’t much more careful planning consideration been given to landscape protection in the carrying out of this project given the intended and absolutely anticipatable outcomes?
3. Given the anticipatable community concerns, and the reported budget of $160,000 for the project, why wasn’t the project and it’s budget referred to the aldermen for their consideration and/or endorsement given the intended outcomes and anticipatable community concerns?
4. Given the reported significance of the project, and the range of sensitivities it confronts, why hasn’t management placed a Development Application before the people who use and traverse the landscape in order to have the project considered at an open council meeting?
5. Given that trees that exist within urban landscapes – cultural landscapes – are routinely given a monitory value, what value/s has/have been attributed to these three trees? If in fact no dollar value has been attributed to these trees, why not? Furthermore, what was the total cost of removing these trees from this landscape and what percentage of the project budget does it represent?
6. Given the expectation that council needs to be representative of, and sensitive to, the needs of the entire community why hasn’t a more diligent effort been made to fulfill this expectation in order to be consistent with council’s planning provisions and policies in regard to the sensitive management of this cultural landscape; this area of implied scenic protection; and this significant urban precinct?
7. Can council demonstrate in any way that its actions relative to this project, and the decision making that has led to it, represents effective and efficient management, indeed best practice, in regard to appropriate 21st Century urban stormwater management given the current state of the Tamar estuary?
8. Upon what expert advice did council rely in the planning of this project and upon what evidence did council management, in concert with the aldermen, rely upon to ensure that the stormwater management proposal was the most effective; the most cost effective; and the most appropriate within council’s budget constraints?
9. Given that the stormwater being managed originates almost entirely in the adjoining jurisdiction of West Tamar Council, why didn’t the project managers engage with that council towards finding a shared and equitable solution; a cooperative/collaborative strategy; and more environmentally sensitive outcome in regard to this project?
10. Given council management’s overt commitment to engage with its constituency and the wider community via ‘social media’, why hasn’t council employed this relatively inexpensive and cost effective communication technique in regard to this project given the benefits social media has to offer in regard to engaging with the community – and especially so in regard to this project – towards seeking an inclusive win-win outcome?
11. What does this project represent in regard to appropriate town planning, administrative transparency and accountable governance towards engendering consensus in both the project’s immediate area and the wider community more generally?
THE ANSWERS PROVIDED
AUTHOR: Anthea Rooney (Committee Clerk)
DIRECTOR: Shane Eberhardt (Acting Director Infrastructure Services)
DECISION STATEMENT:
The following questions were submitted to Council on1 July 2016 by Mr Raymond Norman
and have been answered by Mr Shane Eberhardt (Acting Director Infrastructure Services).
Background:
(Officer Comment - Mr Shane Eberhardt)
Repair work was required to the 300mm concrete stormwater main in Bald Hill Road. Due
to high intensity rainfall early in 2016 and tree root intrusion, the stormwater main has
been over capacity and not able to cope with the amount of water flow it experienced.
This has resulted in the joints of each section of stormwater main blowing out, creating
large voids around the pipe and damaging the footpath, kerb, manholes and road surface,
leaving a number of sink holes
To repair the damage to the stormwater infrastructure, three gum trees located over the
stormwater pipe have been removed. Removal of the current damaged pipe will be
required to allow for the installation of a larger stormwater pipe (375mm diameter) and new
manholes to elevate the capacity issues and damage caused by this. Alternative options
of directional drilling or lining the existing pipe have been considered but due to the voids
around the pipe, it needs to be removed.
There is a significant safety issue with works required immediately to rectify the damage.
If delay to the repair work were to occur, there is a high risk of major failure of the
stormwater infrastructure, resulting in possible landslips and closure of this section of Bald
Hill Road for months in order to undertake the repair. Bald Hill Road is in close proximity
to the Trevallyn Primary School and is also a school bus route.
Answers to the specific questions raised by Mr Raymond Norman are shown below.
Questions (typed as received)
As a consequence of council management’s action in order to facilitate the installation of a
stormwater drain and in regard to the removal of three healthy trees that were 50 plus
years old, all of which had local significance, a number of questions arise. In regard to council’s fundament requirement of accountability and it’s obligation to be
accountable to its constituents for decisions made on their behalf:
1. Why did council management proceed with only the most superficial commitment to
notifying constituents of management’s intention to remove three trees from a cultural
landscape? Indeed, in accord with responsible, participatory and inclusive
governance why weren’t the constituents in the immediately adjoining jurisdiction –
and who would suffer a loss of amenity along with Launcestonians – given an
opportunity to present their objections to council in the same way as Launceston
Council constituents?
Response:
The works were considered urgent due to risk to public safety and advertised in the
Examiner which is consistent with all Council works. Neighbours have been
consulted as part of construction planning.
2. Given that Bald Hill Road exists at the very edge of the municipality, at the edge of a
designated tourist route, within a scenic protection area and within a cultural
landscape, why hasn’t much more careful planning consideration been given to
landscape protection in the carrying out of this project given the intended and
absolutely anticipatable outcomes?
Response:
The area where the construction work is required to repair the stormwater pipe is not
in the scenic protection area and landscaping has been considered as part of the
project. Once the new pipe has been installed and the voids underground filled, the
bank will be re-vegetated with more suitable plants/trees.
3. Given the anticipatable community concerns, and the reported budget of $160,000
for the project, why wasn’t the project and its budget referred to the aldermen for their
consideration and/or endorsement given the intended outcomes and anticipatable
community concerns?
Response:
The project was prioritised over other projects within the stormwater program
because the road and stormwater pipe had failed and if not repaired in a timely
manner could have the potential to be catastrophic on surrounding infrastructure,
private property and pedestrians. This area is in close proximity of the Trevallyn
Primary School and Bald Hill Road is a school bus route. Aldermen were advised of
the works.
4. Given the reported significance of the project, and the range of sensitivities it
confronts, why hasn’t management placed a Development Application before the
people who use and traverse the landscape in order to have the project considered
at an open council meeting?
Response:
A Development Application was not required.
5. Given that trees that exist within urban landscapes – cultural landscapes – are
routinely given a monitory value, what value/s has/have been attributed to these
three trees? If in fact no dollar value has been attributed to these trees, why not?
Furthermore, what was the total cost of removing these trees from this landscape
and what percentage of the project budget does it represent?
Response:The trees required removal as they sit above the stormwater pipe. The trees will be
replaced with a more suitable variety as part of the bank re-establishment once the
repair work has been completed
6. Given the expectation that council needs to be representative of, and sensitive to, the
needs of the entire community why hasn’t a more diligent effort been made to fulfil
this expectation in order to be consistent with council’s planning provisions and
policies in regard to the sensitive management of this cultural landscape; this area of
implied scenic protection; and this significant urban precinct?
Response:.The works are not in the scenic protection area and are permitted under the
Launceston Planning Scheme.
7. Can council demonstrate in any way that its actions relative to this project, and the decision making that has led to it, represents effective and efficient management, indeed best practice, in regard to appropriate 21st Century urban stormwater management given the current state of the Tamar estuary?
Response:
The works are to repair a stormwater pipe that has failed and if left without Council
intervention would result in significant failure of Bald Hill Road and flooding of
properties.
8. Upon what expert advice did council rely in the planning of this project and upon what
evidence did council management, in concert with the aldermen, rely upon to ensure
that the stormwater management proposal was the most effective; the most cost
effective; and the most appropriate within council’s budget constraints?
Response:
The Council has appropriate stormwater and infrastructure management knowledge.
9. Given that the stormwater being managed originates almost entirely in the adjoining
jurisdiction of West Tamar Council, why didn’t the project managers engage with that
council towards finding a shared and equitable solution; a cooperative/collaborative
strategy; and more environmentally sensitive outcome in regard to this project?
Response:
The stormwater pipe that has failed is a City of Launceston asset, therefore is the
responsibility of the City of Launceston to repair along with all other affected assets
including the road surface, kerb and channel and the footpath.
10. Given council management’s overt commitment to engage with its constituency and
the wider community via ‘social media’, why hasn’t council employed this relatively
inexpensive and cost effective communication technique in regard to this project
given the benefits social media has to offer in regard to engaging with the community
– and especially so in regard to this project – towards seeking an inclusive win-win
outcome?
Response:
The Council has communicated this project consistent with other capital works and
the work is not being undertaken for the sake of improving the aesthetic amenity of
Bald Hill Road but to carry out emergency repair work to the underground
infrastructure that has failed.
11. What does this project represent in regard to appropriate town planning,
administrative transparency and accountable governance towards engendering
consensus in both the project’s immediate area and the wider community more
generally?.
Response:
The project is permitted under the Launceston Planning Scheme and was not a long
term planned project. The work that is needed to be carried out is emergency repair
work and if not undertaken exposes the community to significant risks.
No comments:
Post a Comment