strategic planning & development policy committee€¦ · committee held on 24 september 2013,...

STRATEGIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE

NOTICE OF MEETING To: Mayor Bill Spragg

Councillors Ward Councillor Ron Nelson Councillor Jan-Claire Wisdom

Manoah

Councillor Ian Bailey Councillor Jan Loveday

Marble Hill

Councillor Kate Hosking Councillor John Kemp Councillor Simon Jones

Mt Lofty

Councillor Bill Gale Councillor Lynton Vonow Councillor Andrew Stratford

Onkaparinga Valley

Councillor Linda Green Councillor Malcolm Herrmann

Torrens Valley

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the provisions under Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1999 that the next meeting of the Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee will be held on:

Tuesday 22 October 2013 6.30pm

36 Nairne Road, Woodside A copy of the Agenda for this meeting is supplied under Section 87 of the Act. Meetings of the Council and Committees are open to the public and members of the community are welcome to attend.

Andrew Aitken Chief Executive Officer

STRATEGIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE

AGENDA FOR MEETING Tuesday 22 October 2013

6.30pm 36 Nairne Road, Woodside

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Council Vision Nurturing our unique place and people Council Mission Delivering activities and services which build a resilient community, sustain our built and

natural environment and promote a vibrant economy

1. COMMENCEMENT

2. APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

2.1. Apology

2.2. Leave of Absence

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

3.1. Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee – 24 September 2013

Recommendation That the minutes of the Strategic Planning & Development Policy

Committee held on 24 September 2013, as supplied, be confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting.

4. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Decisions of this Committee were determined under delegated authority as adopted by Council on 12 March 2013, 9 April 2013 and 9 July 2013.

5. DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE

Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee Meeting AGENDA 22 October 2013

6. REPORTS

6.1. Presiding Member Reports

6.2. Councillor Reports

6.3. Information Circulars

7. MATTERS DEFERRED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION/LYING ON THE TABLE

7.1. Matters Deferred 7.1.1. Review of Terms of Reference for Advisory Groups (deferred from 27

August 2013 SPDPC to no later than 10 December 2013)

7.2. Lying on the Table – Nil

8. MOTIONS ON NOTICE

8.1. Nil

9. QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

9.1. Nil

10. PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PUBLIC FORUM

10.1. Petitions 10.1.1. Nil

10.2. Deputations 10.2.1. Nil

10.3. Public Forum

11. PRESENTATIONS

11.1. Nil

12. OFFICER REPORTS

12.1. Wright Road Dog Park - Opening & Closing Hours for Carpark 1. That this report be noted. 2. That, given the cost of initial and ongoing physical barriers and other

methods, the SPDPC Committee supports the establishment of an alternative dog park site/s in the Council district.

Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee Meeting AGENDA 22 October 2013

12.2. Smoke Free Outdoor Eating & Drinking Areas submission That the Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee approves the draft submission forming Appendix 2 of this report for submission to the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia regarding establishment of smoke-free outdoor dining and drinking areas.

12.3. Tree Management Policy notes the outcome of the consultation process carried out in relation to the

Draft Tree Management Policy. 1. adopts the Tree Management Policy, with the recommended

amendments, as contained in Appendix 1.

12.4. Freedom of Entry 16th Air Land Regiment 1. The Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee approves

granting the 16th Air Land Regiment of the Australian Army Freedom of Entry to the Towns of Woodside and Lobethal.

2. the Mayor & Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and seal the Freedom of Entry scrolls.

13. MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

14. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

15. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Nil

16. NEXT MEETING

Tuesday 26 November 2013 6.30pm, 63 Mt Barker Road, Stirling

17. CLOSE STRATEGIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICY MEETING

Council Meeting/Workshop Venues 2013

DATE TYPE LOCATION MINUTE TAKER

November

5 November 2013 CDAP TBA Karen Savage

6 November 2013 Workshop Stirling N/A

12 November 2013 Council Woodside Pam Williams

19 November 2013 Elected Member Training Stirling N/A

26 November 2013 SPDPC Stirling Kylie Hopkins

December

3 December 2013 CDAP TBA Karen Savage

4 December 2013 Workshop Woodside N/A

10 December 2013 Council Stirling Pam Williams

Meetings are subject to change, please check agendas for times and venues. All meetings (except Workshops & Elected Member Training) are open to the public.

Community Forums 2013

DATE TYPE WARD LOCATION

29 October 2013 Community Forum Onkaparinga Valley Senior Citizens Hall

Lobethal

17 December 2013 Community Forum (PROPOSED) Manoah

18 February 2014 Community Forum(PROPOSED) Marble Hill

ADELAIDE HILLS COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING & POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday 22 October 2013 AGENDA BUSINESS ITEM

Item: 12.1 Originating Officer: Chris Button - Manager Waste, Health & Regulatory

Services Responsible Director: Marc Salver - Director Strategy & Development Subject: Opening & Closing Hours for Car Park adjacent Wright

Road Dog Park File No: 10.20.10 SMP Goal: Goal Area 4: Well Managed & Maintained Community

Infrastructure SMP Key Issue: 4.1: Infrastructure Planning & Maintenance

1. SUMMARY

At its meeting of 8 October 2013 after considering the consultation report on the issue of opening hours at the Wright Road Dog Park, Council resolved that: 1. “Signs be installed at the Wright Road Dog Park restricting hours of use from

7.00am to sunset on weekdays and 9.00am to sunset on weekends and public holidays.

2. A further report be provided to Council no later than 28 February 2014 outlining potential sites for the establishment of further dog exercise parks in the Council area.

3. A review of the opening hours and resourcing of enforcement be undertaken in 4 months’ time and that a report of the findings of the review be presented to Council for consideration”.

When considering a matter arising from the above resolution, Council resolved: “That the Chief Executive Officer investigates the possibility of installing physical barriers or other methods to enforce closure of the park during closed hours and report to SPDPC in October 2013.” This report presents the findings of the investigations referred to in the above resolution regarding the feasibility of closing the car park adjacent to the Wright Road Dog Park, following concerns of disturbance and suspicious activity being raised by surrounding residents. The current opening hours of the car park are not restricted.

SPDPC 22 October 2013 Opening & Closing Hours for Carpark adjacent Wright Road Dog Park

This report explores two options and the associated cost implications to assist the Council in making a decision in this regard. Staff are recommending: • That this report be noted. • That, given the cost of initial and ongoing physical barriers and other methods,

the SPDPC Committee supports the establishment of an alternative dog park site/s in the Council district.

2. GOVERNANCE � Strategic Management Plan Strategy 1.5 b) seeks to “Encourage active lifestyles by providing a range of open space, recreation facilities, and community safety improvements.” Achieving an appropriate balance for dog access on Council land will contribute to that strategy. � Legislation Dog access is governed by the Dog & Cat Management Act 1995 and Council’s By-law 5 – Dogs. Access to Community Land is governed by Council’s By-law 3 – Local Government Land � Sustainability Economic

Social Environmental

Governance � Budget With either option there would be a cost of up to $1,000 for signage. There may be further costs if damage to the signs were to occur. Costs for the option of installing physical barriers would be approximately $15,000 in the first year being an installation cost of $3,000 with an ongoing annual costs of $12,000 to open and close the barrier at the designated times. Costs for the second option of installing surveillance cameras in the car park would involve total costs of up to $63,000 dependent upon the data storage method employed. None of the above amounts have been included in the current budget and would require additional allocations as part of the budget review process if any of these initiatives were to proceed in the current financial year.

� Consultation

Council staff have been meeting with residents of Wright Road for some months. One outcome from these meetings was a public consultation process regarding the closure of the dog park at night.


It could be argued that any objection to the closure of the car park would be associated with the closure of the dog park and that a further consultation process is not required.

3. BACKGROUND At its meeting of 8 October 2013 after considering the consultation report on the issue of opening hours at the Wright Road Dog Park, Council resolved that: 1. “Signs be installed at the Wright Road Dog Park restricting hours of use from

7.00am to sunset on weekdays and 9.00am to sunset on weekends and public holidays.

2. A further report be provided to Council no later than 28 February 2014 outlining potential sites for the establishment of further dog exercise parks in the Council area.

3. A review of the opening hours and resourcing of enforcement be undertaken in 4 months’ time and that a report of the findings of the review be presented to Council for consideration”.

When considering a matter arising from the above resolution, Council resolved: “That the Chief Executive Officer investigates the possibility of installing physical barriers or other methods to enforce closure of the park during closed hours and report to SPDPC in October 2013.” This report explores some options as requested and makes a recommendation with regard to a preferred option.

4. DISCUSSION

It is noted that following concerns of disturbance and suspicious activity being raised by surrounding residents, Council has resolved to explore ways of controlling access to the Dog Park after hours. Closure of portions of community land can be difficult, particularly if there is a lack of voluntary compliance from the community. The aim in this instance is to exclude cars from the car park at night in order to address the concerns of nearby residents. It should be noted that in undertaking this initiative there may be further problems that arise such as: • People parking their vehicles on the road adjacent the entrances to Halliday

Reserve to access the dog park and/or other parts of the reserve thus causing congestion or obstruction of the road.

• Ongoing damage to the infrastructure installed to prevent and control access. Whatever option is recommended to Council the first step in the process will be a partial closure of the land in question in accordance with section 7.1 of By-law 3 – Local Government Land, which states:

The Council may… close, or regulate or restrict access to, any part of Local Government land to the public for specified times and days………..

As SPDPC does not have delegation to make By-law provisions, it is proposed that a recommendation be made to Council seeking a partial closure for the dog park and the car park in line with the hours adopted by Council for the dog park.


Two options were considered in order to control access to the Park in accordance with the 8 October resolution of Council, namely the installation of a physical barrier and the installation of video surveillance. These are discussed in more detail below. Physical Barrier Option The installation of a physical barrier is proposed to take the form of a chain across the gateway to the car park. This chain would carry warning signs to alert motorists and be situated some 10 metres inside the current gateposts to allow vehicles to see the barrier and safely stop. The gate would be locked and unlocked using a security contractor. The costs for a physical barrier would be: Initial costs $3,000 Security services $12,000 pa TOTAL $15,000 Ongoing costs would be around $12,000 per year plus any maintenance associated with the physical barrier. Video Surveillance Option There are some issues with installing a CCTV system for ongoing monitoring at this site. The first being availability of power and the second being data storage. The cost to get power to this site is estimated at $10,000. Being a government body Council has significant legislative data storage responsibilities. Data storage for the amount of data that would be generated at this site could cost up to $40,000 per annum. This cost can be reduced if Council were to contract out the data storage and monitoring. Such an arrangement would cost approximately $10,000 per annum but could be higher if there are large levels of non-compliance as this costing is based on the amount of activity at the site. The first year costs for video surveillance would be: Cameras and associated hardware $10,000 Camera poles etc. and installation $3,000 Supply electricity $10,000 $23,000 Ongoing cost (in house data storage) $40,000 or Outsourced data storage & management $10,000 Either of these arrangements have some issues but the proposal for the installation of a physical barrier has the lower installation costs and more certainty in regard to ongoing costs. Options Another option to take pressure off the Wright Road Dog Park would be to explore the provision of additional dog park site(s) in the district and it is noted that Council has already resolved that this be explored and reported on by no later than February 2014.


Conclusion In order to address the concerns raised by residents, the opening hours are to be restricted in accordance with Council’s resolution of 8 October 2013. However, the implementation and ongoing costs of installing a physical barrier and monitoring are considerable, and therefore it is recommended that 1. That this report be noted. 2. That, given the cost of initial and ongoing physical barriers and other methods,

the SPDPC Committee supports the establishment of an alternative dog park site/s in the Council district.

5. RECOMMENDATION 1. That this report be noted. 2. That, given the cost of initial and ongoing physical barriers and other

methods, the SPDPC Committee supports the establishment of an alternative dog park site/s in the Council district.

ADELAIDE HILLS COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING & POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, 22 October, 2013 AGENDA BUSINESS ITEM

Item: 12.2 Originating Officer: Marc Salver, Director Strategy & Development Responsible Director: Marc Salver, Director Strategy & Development Subject: Submission regarding the Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating

& Drinking Areas Discussion Paper File No: 10.85.3 SMP Goal: 1. A Healthy, Safe, Engaged& Connected Community

5. Open, Effective & Efficient Governance SMP Key Issue: 1.5 Quality of Life 5.1 Leadership

1. SUMMARY

SA Health has released a Discussion Paper on “Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating and Drinking Areas” in August this year (refer to Appendix 1 for a copy). The Paper outlines the State Government’s rationale for the proposed banning of smoking in outdoor drinking and dining areas, with a view to having these new rules in place from 2016. The proposals will still allow business owners to cater for smokers by creating designated outdoor dining and drinking areas which are separated from the other areas.

Staff advertised this proposal and Discussion Paper on Council’s website. Further letters and emails were sent out to 88 restaurant, hotel and café owners throughout the district, as well as the Aldgate, Stirling and Woodside business associations and the Kersbrook, Morialta and Stirling resident associations about the proposed changes. Comments were requested by 4 October 2013, however, by 15 October, no responses were received.

In short, staff consider that the proposals to make outdoor dining and drinking areas smoke-free have merit and are recommending that the Committee endorse the draft submission contained in Appendix 2 of this report for onward submission to Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia in this regard.

2. GOVERNANCE

� Strategic Management Plan (SMP) Goal 1: A Healthy, Safe, Engaged& Connected Community SMP Key Issue: 1.5: Quality of Life SMP Goal 5: Open, Effective & Efficient Governance

Adelaide Hills Council SPDPC Meeting 22 October, 2013 Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating & Drinking Areas Discussion Paper

Page 2

SMP Key Issue: 5.1: Leadership

� Legislation

Tobacco Products Regulations Act 1997

� Sustainability

Economic Social Environmental

Governance

� Budget

Not applicable

� Consultation

The Government is undertaking public consultation with regard to this Discussion Paper. However, Council contacted Residents Associations and affected business owners in the district in order to bring this matter to their attention.

3. BACKGROUND

SA Health put out a Discussion Paper (hereafter referred to as the “Paper”) on “Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating and Drinking Areas” in August this year (refer to Appendix 1 for a copy). The Paper outlines the State Government’s rationale for the proposed banning of smoking in outdoor drinking and dining areas, with a view to having these new rules in place from 2016.

The Paper outlines the harms caused by tobacco smoking and highlights that around 1,140 people die annually in South Australia of smoking-related causes. It also highlights that about 90% of deaths caused by second-hand smoke in adults in 2004-05 were due to heart disease.

In summary, the Paper states that research reflects that outdoor smoking is a potential hazard, particularly around larger numbers of active smokers and under certain wind conditions. Currently hospitality workers and patrons are exposed to potentially harmful second-hand smoke in outdoor dining and drinking areas, particularly when there is a concentration of smokers in these areas. The Paper states that the aim and objectives of the proposals are to:

• Reduce the exposure of non-smokers and the hospitality workers to potentially harmful levels of tobacco smoke

• Contribute to de-normalising smoking • Disassociate smoking activity from drinking activity in public areas • Reduce opportunities for uptake and relapse of smoking, and • Improve the amenity of hospitality venues and precincts.

The 2011 South Australian Health Monitor survey showed that 91% of the community supported smoke-free outdoor dining areas of which 56% supported a total ban and another 35% supported smoke-free areas. Further, smoke-free beer garden areas and outdoor seating areas at pubs is supported by 76% of the community (32% support a total ban and another 44% support smoke-free areas).


Page 3

One of the proposals being considered is to make outdoor areas used for consuming food and drink associated with hotels, restaurants, cafés, pubs, clubs, and potentially festivals and sporting events, smoke-free from 2016 by Regulation, under Section 52 of the Tobacco Product Regulation Act 1997.

Smoking areas could be accommodated by separating them from the smoke-free areas by either installing a solid divider or wall at least 2 metres in height, or having these beyond the boundary of a liquor licensed area or property, whichever is the greater. It is also proposed that outdoor smoking be permitted at venues in areas that are not provided or used for eating and drinking. Venue owners will therefore be able to determine the location and size of the smoking only areas based on their individual business needs, subject to conditions as outlined in the Paper.

In terms of impacts of the proposal, the Paper states that this will only impact on businesses that provide outdoor areas where food and drink is obtained on-site. The costs to such businesses could include staff training and management costs, on-going monitoring by staff, construction costs for barriers between smoking and non-smoking areas, and costs associated with signage. The estimated net cost of a full ban to businesses over five years is approximately $10.6 million, or an average of $1,305 per venue.

4. DISCUSSION

On 10 September 2013, staff sent out letters and emails to 88 restaurant, hotel and café owners throughout the district, as well as the Aldgate, Stirling and Woodside business associations and the Kersbrook, Morialta and Stirling resident associations about the proposed changes. The proposals and Discussion Paper was also placed on Council’s website. Comments were requested by 4 October 2013, however, by 15 October, no responses had been received. It is pointed out that these groups can submit comments directly to Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia and they have until 1 November 2013 to do so.

It is noted that currently smoking patrons of restaurants, clubs and pubs go outside to smoke, and in some instances smoke within outdoor dining and drinking areas. The rationale behind the proposal to create smoke-free outdoor dining and drinking areas is primarily based on the desire to reduce the potential negative health impacts on hospitality employees and other patrons of such venues, and should be supported by Council.

It is noted that the proposals will still allow affected business owners to determine if dedicated outdoor smoking areas should be created for their patrons, and such a pragmatic approach is also supported as this will be a win-win for both smokers and non-smokers alike.

The estimated costs to venue owners to implement the proposals as outlined in the Discussion Paper reflect that the average cost will be around $1,305 per venue over a five year period. However, it is noted that these costs will vary from venue to venue, as those businesses wishing to permit dedicated smoking areas will need to construct the appropriate 2m high barriers, install the required signage, and have staff trained to monitor compliance with the new requirements.

Those venue owners who opt not to provide dedicated outdoor dining areas will only have to install signage and undertake staff training and manage compliance with the new requirements. Staff’s comments in this regard are that any requirements for


Page 4

compliance with the new proposals should not impose excessive costs on the owners of such premises.

It is noted that there are over 8,000 affected venues within the State and ensuring compliance with the new proposals will be a challenge for all concerned. Currently, SA Health’s Tobacco Control Officers are authorised to enforce the requirements of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, and monitoring all these venues will be an onerous task.

It is also noted that the Paper indicates emphasis will be placed on educating the public about the law to ensure a high level of self-compliance, rather than relying on direct enforcement. However, it is considered that in the event compliance with the new requirements becomes an issue, then the State Government should commit to providing the required resources to ensure effective monitoring and enforcement of the new regulations. Under no circumstances should such enforcement responsibilities be imposed or passed on to local government in relation to the implementation of such proposals.

In short, staff consider that the proposals to make outdoor dining and drinking areas smoke-free have merit and are recommending that the Committee endorse the draft submission contained in Appendix 2 of this report for onward submission to Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia.

5. RECOMMENDATION That the Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee approves the draft submission forming Appendix 2 of this report for submission to the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia regarding establishment of smoke-free outdoor dining and drinking areas.

6. APPENDICES

(1) Smoke-free Outdoor Eating & Drinking Areas Discussion Paper

(2) Draft submission to Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia

Appendix 1 Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating & Drinking Areas

Discussion Paper

- 1 -

Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating and

Drinking Areas

Discussion Paper

August 2013

- 2 -

Smoke-Free Outdoor Eating and Drinking Areas

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

2. What is being considered? ............................................................................................................ 3

2.1. Aims of the proposals .......................................................................................................... 3

2.2. Potential Regulation ............................................................................................................ 3

2.3. Impacts of the proposal ....................................................................................................... 4

2.4. Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 5

3. Background and Discussion ................................................................................................ 5

3.1. Harms caused by tobacco smoking..................................................................................... 5

3.2. Current Legislation .............................................................................................................. 5

3.3. Community demand for smoke-free areas .......................................................................... 5

3.4. Impact of tobacco smoke in outdoor areas ......................................................................... 6

3.5. Smoking at outdoor eating and drinking areas.................................................................... 6

3.6. Similar legislation across Australia ...................................................................................... 6

4. Options........................................................................................................................................... 6

5. Comments sought.......................................................................................................................... 7

5.1. Confidentiality of submissions ............................................................................................. 7

5.2. Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................ 7

- 3 -

1. Introduction

The South Australian Government is considering the introduction of smoke-free outdoor eating and

drinking areas from 2016. Research shows that outdoor smoking is a potential hazard, particularly

around larger numbers of active smokers and under certain wind conditions. Currently, hospitality

workers and patrons are exposed to potentially harmful second-hand smoke in outdoor dining and

drinking areas, particularly when there is a concentration of smokers in these areas.

Outdoor areas of restaurants, cafes, bars and clubs, are the last major locations where the community

are regularly exposed to potentially harmful concentrations of tobacco smoke. Smoke-free areas are

designed to protect the health of the community. They also increase the comfort and enjoyment for

non-smokers using public spaces, especially spaces that may be crowded or where people

congregate.

2. What is being considered?

2.1. Aims of the proposals

The aim is to reduce exposure of non-smokers and hospitality workers to potentially harmful levels of

tobacco smoke. Other objectives are to:

Contribute to de-normalising smoking

Disassociate smoking activity from drinking activity in public areas

Reduce opportunities for uptake and relapse of smoking

Improve the amenity of hospitality venues and precincts.

The creation of smoke-free outdoor eating and drinking areas is an action of the South Australian

Tobacco Control Strategy 2011-2016 and a potential strategy to achieve South Australia’s Strategic

Plan Target: 80 Smoking: Reduce the smoking rate to 10% of the population and halve the smoking

rate of Aboriginal South Australians by 2018.

2.2. Potential Regulation

One proposal is to make outdoor areas used for consuming food and drink available onsite smoke-

free from 2016 by Regulation, under Section 52 of the Tobacco Product Regulations Act 1997.

An area is used for consuming food or drink available on site, if it is provided for or used for this

purpose. An area used for consuming food or drink should include food or drink served in the area

and brought to the area by the customer. Areas captured may include, but not be limited to, outdoor

areas of restaurants, cafes, bars, clubs, and potentially festivals and sporting events.

Areas provided for consuming food or drink are not necessarily limited to areas with tables and chairs

or table service, although these may be indicators. An area could be defined by the activities

occurring or intended to occur in the area by the commercial entity.

It is proposed that, if part of an area is provided for consuming food and drink, then the whole area

could be smoke-free. A smoke-free area could then potentially be separated from an adjoining

smoking allowed area by either: a solid divider or wall at least 2 metres high; or the boundary of a

liquor licensed area or property, whichever is greater.

It is proposed that outdoor smoking be permitted at venues in areas that are not provided for or used

for eating or drinking. Venues will be able to determine the location and size of smoking only areas,

- 4 -

based on their business needs. It is proposed that, if a venue sells food or drink, then smoking could

only be allowed in an area that:

Is in a discreet location (that is, not prominently on display or promoted)

Is not used for any purpose other than smoking

Has no food or drink served or brought in by customers

Does not permit children.

For this purpose, food and drink could include:

Hot and cold food and drink

Meals and snacks (including nuts and crisps)

Alcoholic and non-alcoholic drink

Food or drink intended to be consumed while sitting or while standing.

2.3. Impacts of the proposal

Smoke-free outdoor eating and drinking areas will largely eliminate the general community’s exposure

to harmful levels of second-hand tobacco smoke. Making outdoor areas used for consuming food and

drink available from on site smoke-free by Regulation, could remove the potential harms caused by

smoking in these areas. It could reduce exposure to potentially harmful concentrations of tobacco

smoke, and may also reduce smoking prevalence by removing high-risk opportunities for uptake and

making smoking less practical and enjoyable.

Impacts on the community and society could include improved health, improved productivity,

improved amenity, reduced uptake of smoking and reduced relapse of smoking.

Only businesses that provide outdoor areas for consuming food and drink obtained on site will be

impacted by any proposal. Costs to venues could include staff training and management costs, on-

going monitoring by staff, construction costs for venues and signage. Benefits for venues could

include improved productivity due to reduced employee exposure to smoke and improved amenity.

The estimated net cost of a full ban to businesses over five years is approximately $10.7 million or an

average of $1,305 per venue.

Some businesses may be concerned that the proposal will lead to a reduction in business. There is a

large body of evidence demonstrating that this is highly unlikely. Evaluation of the introduction of

smoke-free enclosed areas of pubs and clubs in South Australia showed that business revenue did

not reduce.

Venues may choose to create an area designated only for smoking. This may include designating an

existing area for smoking, or installing a wall or divider to create a new area. It is expected that some

venues will choose to become completely smoke-free and many will designate an existing appropriate

area. The only potential major cost to businesses is expected to occur when a venue chooses to

create a new area. These costs would vary depending on the circumstances. Any costs are expected

to be significantly lower than the construction work initiated after the introduction of smoke-free

enclosed areas in November 2007.

- 5 -

2.4. Enforcement

SA Health’s Tobacco Control Officers are authorised to enforce the Tobacco Products Regulation Act

1997. These officers will monitor and enforce the Regulation in the same way that they currently

enforce smoking in enclosed areas at venues.

Emphasis will be placed on educating the public about the law and changing community attitudes.

The aim is to initiate a cultural shift to ensure a high level of compliance, just as with existing smoke-

free areas legislation, rather than relying on direct enforcement.

3. Background and Discussion

3.1. Harms caused by tobacco smoking

Tobacco smoking is the single most preventable cause of illness and death in Australia, and each

year around 1,140 South Australians die of smoking-related causes.

Research shows that breathing other people’s tobacco smoke (second-hand smoke or passive

smoking) is harmful to non-smokers and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular

disease.1

About 90% of the deaths caused by second-hand smoke in adults in 2004-05 were due to

heart disease.2

Tobacco smoke can produce symptoms of ill health and can aggravate many health

conditions, such as asthma, chronic obstructive airways diseases and cystic fibrosis.

The number of South Australians who smoke is reducing. The smoking rate in 2012 for people aged

15 years and older was 16.2%, down from 20.5% in 2010. Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics

population figures, this is a reduction of approximately 58,000 smokers in two years.

3.2. Current Legislation

Smoking in enclosed areas of restaurants was banned in January 1999. Pubs and clubs became

completely smoke-free in enclosed areas in November 2007. Smoke-free enclosed areas of pubs,

clubs and restaurants have been very well received by the community and hospitality workers. The

concerns of the hospitality industry raised before the introduction of the legislation did not eventuate.

Evaluation of the introduction of smoke-free enclosed areas of pubs and clubs showed that revenue

did not decrease.

Section 52 of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, which came into effect on 31 May, 2012,

allows for smoking to be banned ‘in the public areas specified in the regulations’.

3.3. Community demand for smoke-free areas

Research commissioned by the Cancer Council SA purports that community demand for smoke-free

public areas is high. This research indicates that nearly three quarters of South Australians (71%)

were concerned about being exposed to someone else’s cigarette smoke in 20103. The 2011 South

Australian Health Monitor survey showed that smoke-free outdoor dining areas are supported by 91%

of the community (56% support a total ban and another 35% support smoke-free areas). Smoke-free

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3303.0 Causes of death 2009. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011.2 Scollo M and Winstanley M [Editors]. Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. Third edition, Available from: http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2008.�

TCRE, Key smoking statistics for SA – 2010. Adelaide, Australia. Tobacco Control Research and Evaluation, Cancer Council

SA, July 2011.

- 6 -

beer garden areas and outdoor seating areas at pubs is supported by 76% of the community (32%

support a total ban and another 44% support smoke-free areas).

3.4. Impact of tobacco smoke in outdoor areas

Second-hand smoke can accumulate in outdoor locations at levels that can pose risks to health. As

the amount of smoke in outdoor locations increases, particularly in areas where there are numerous

active smokers and under certain wind conditions, so does the exposure and consequently the

potential effects of second-hand smoke, particularly for people with pre-existing medical conditions.4

3.5. Smoking at outdoor eating and drinking areas

Outdoor areas of restaurants, cafes, bars and clubs are locations where the general community could

be exposed to potentially harmful concentrations of tobacco smoke. The introduction of smoke-free

enclosed areas of hospitality venues in 2007 significantly reduced the exposure of tobacco smoke in

the general community. However, it has also had the consequence of increasing concentrations of

tobacco smoke in outdoor areas. SA Health has received complaints from the community about

smoke drifting from these areas into smoke-free areas.

There are strong behavioural links between smoking and drinking.5

The availability of tobacco at

licensed venues (from sales and other smokers) is associated with both uptake and relapse of

smoking.6 7

Smoke-free areas, particularly in entertainment venues, have the potential to de-

normalise smoking, discourage uptake and encourage smokers to quit.

3.6. Similar legislation across Australia

South Australia and Victoria are the only Australian jurisdictions currently without smoke-free outdoor

eating or drinking areas created by an Act of Parliament. However, in Victoria local councils can ban

smoking in outdoor areas. New South Wales has passed legislation banning smoking in outdoor

eating areas from 2015. Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital

Territory have all banned smoking in eating areas and 50% of drinking areas. Tasmania has banned

smoking only in eating areas.

4. Options

Other than banning smoking completely in all outdoor areas used for consuming food or drink

available from on site , there are a variety of alternative policies that could be proposed for smoke-

free outdoor drinking and eating areas. These include, but are not limited to:

4.1. 50% smoke-free areas

4.2. smoke-free for all outdoor dining areas

4.3. at least one smoke-free area.

4 Stafford J, Daube M, Franklin P. Second hand smoke in alfresco areas. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2010;21(2):99-105.5 Room, Robin. ‘Smoking and drinking as complementary behaviours’. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 58 (2004) 111–115.6 McKee, S. A., Krishnan-Sarin, S., Shi, J., Mase, T., & O’Malley, S. S. (2006). Modeling the effect of alcohol on smoking lapse behavior. Psychopharmacology, 189(2), 201-210.7 Shiffman, S. (1986). A cluster-analytic classification of smoking relapse episodes. Addictive Behaviors, 11(3), 295-307�

- 7 -

5. Comments sought

The Government recognises the importance of widespread community consultation in the

development of any proposal. This discussion paper has been produced to encourage industry,

businesses and members of the public as well as other relevant government and non-government

agencies to provide comments on this issue and the options presented.

Comments will be accepted until 1 November 2013.

Comments can be addressed to:

Simone Cormack

State Director

Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia

161 Greenhill Road

PARKSIDE SA 5063

Email: [email protected]

If you have any questions about the submission process, please contact Matthew Craig, A/Manager,

Tobacco Control Unit on (08) 8274 3450.

5.1. Confidentiality of submissions

Submissions may be quoted or published and available online for the purposes of evaluating the

proposal. If you do not wish your submission to be quoted or published, please make this clear in your

submission. However, please note that confidentiality of submissions cannot be guaranteed. This is

because submissions may be accessed by the public under the Freedom of Information Act 1991.

Submitters may wish to disclose information in anonymous form, for example by removing reference

to specific individuals, companies or situations.

5.2. Disclaimer

This discussion paper has been prepared for the purposes of informing decision-making for legislative

change. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this

discussion paper, no responsibility is taken for reliance on any aspect of it and it should not be used

as a substitute for legal or other professional advice. Any action taken in anticipation of the outcomes

of this discussion paper is solely at the risk of persons taking such action.

http://teams.ahc.sa.gov.au/ea/SPDPC Agenda Reports/Agenda Reports/131022 - 22 October 2013 (Agenda Reports due 8 October)/131022 Dev ms Smoke Free Outdoor Dining submission.docx

Appendix 2 Draft submission to Drug & Alcohol Services SA .

1

Direct line: 8408 0522 File Ref: IC13/11801 10.85.3 OC13/

22 October 2013 Ms Simone Cormack State Director Drug & Alcohol Services South Australia 161 Greenhill Road ADELAIDE SA 5063 Dear Ms Cormack, Adelaide Hills Council submission regarding the Smoke-Free Outdoor Dining & Drinking Areas Discussion Paper

Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposals as outlined in the abovementioned Discussion Paper.

Due to the potential impacts, Council consulted with local businesses and residents by sending out letters and emails to 88 restaurant, hotel and café owners throughout the district, as well as business and residents associations about the proposed changes. However, no responses were received by the stipulated closing date, and Council provides the following general comments in this regard:

1. Medical research has identified the negative impacts of tobacco smoking on people’s general health and wellbeing, including those exposed to second hand smoke. Many bans are currently in place with regard to smoking in the workplace, public buildings and business premises. It is noted that currently many smoking patrons of restaurants, clubs and pubs go outside to smoke, and in some instances smoke within outdoor dining and drinking areas. The proposals contained in the Discussion Paper seek to make such areas smoke-free from 2016 by Regulation. It is noted that the rationale behind the proposal to create smoke-free outdoor dining and drinking areas is primarily based on the desire to reduce the potential negative health impacts on hospitality employees and non-smoking patrons of such venues. This rationale is supported by Council.

2. It is noted that the proposals will still allow affected business owners to determine if dedicated outdoor smoking areas should be created for their patrons, and such a pragmatic approach is also supported as this will be a win-win for both smokers and non-smokers alike.

3. The estimated costs to venue owners to implement the proposals as outlined in the Discussion Paper reflect that the average cost will be around $1,305 per venue over a five year period. However, it is noted that these costs will vary from venue to venue, as those businesses wishing to permit dedicated smoking areas will need to construct the appropriate 2m high barriers, install the required signage, and have

PO Box 44

Woodside SA 5244

T: (08) 8408 0400

F: (08) 8389 7440

E: [email protected]

W: www.ahc.sa.gov.au

http://teams.ahc.sa.gov.au/ea/SPDPC Agenda Reports/Agenda Reports/131022 - 22 October 2013 (Agenda Reports due 8 October)/131022 Dev ms Smoke Free Outdoor Dining submission.docx

staff trained to monitor compliance with the new requirements. Those venue owners who opt not to provide dedicated outdoor dining areas will only have to install signage and undertake staff training and manage compliance with the new requirements. Council’s comments in this regard are that any requirements for compliance with the new proposals should not impose excessive costs on the owners of such premises.

4. It is noted that there are over 8,000 affected venues within the State and ensuring compliance with the new proposals will be a challenge for all concerned. Currently, SA Health’s Tobacco Control Officers are authorised to enforce the requirements of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, and monitoring all these venues will be an onerous task. It is noted that the Paper indicates emphasis will be placed on educating the public about the law to ensure a high level of self-compliance, rather than relying on direct enforcement. However, it is considered that in the event compliance with the new requirements becomes an issue, then the State Government should commit to providing the required resources to ensure effective monitoring and enforcement of the new regulations. Under no circumstances should such enforcement responsibilities be imposed or passed on to local government in relation to the implementation of such proposals.

In summary, Adelaide Hills Council supports the aim and objectives of the proposals as outlined in the Discussion Paper which will benefit not only the non-smoking patrons and employees of such venues, but also improve the outdoor dining and drinking experience for all those who patronise such venues. Yours sincerely Marc Salver Director Strategy and Development

ADELAIDE HILLS COUNCIL MEETING STRATEGIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICY

COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday 22 October 2013 AGENDA BUSINESS ITEM

Item: 12.3 Originating Officer: David Waters, Manager Engineering & Assets Responsible Director: Tim Hancock, Director Engineering Subject: Tree Management Policy File No: 09.63.04 SMP Goal: Goal 5: Open, Effective & Efficient Governance

SMP Key Issue: Key Issue 5.3: Risk Management

1. SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide the Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee with the outcome of consultation relating to the Draft Tree Management Policy and to seek adoption of the Policy.

2. GOVERNANCE � Strategic Management Plan Key Issue 5.3 Risk Management has as its objective, “Infrastructure and service delivery will be managed to minimise risk while maximising results.” The adoption of a Tree Management Policy is very much part of the Council’s risk management approach to tree management. Risk management in local government is focussed on mitigating risks as far as is reasonably practicable within the limits of the resources available to the Council. In respect to trees, it requires balanced consideration of the exposure to risk and retention value. It is important that the Tree Management Policy adequately balances these considerations. � Legislation Several pieces of legislation affect the management of trees on public land and the powers and functions of the Council in relation to trees. These are indicated in the Draft Policy and discussed in the Discussion section of the report. � Sustainability

Economic

Social

Environmental

Governance

SPDPC Meeting 22 October 2013 Tree Management Policy

Page 2

� Budget The adoption of a Tree Management Policy will not in itself have any direct financial consequences for the Council, however, existing resources may need to be reallocated toward proactive tree inspections and remedial work. A robust risk management approach toward tree management will hold the Council in good stead when the LGA Mutual Liability Scheme conducts its annual risk reviews. Good risk management practices and outcomes can lead to rebates being granted by the Scheme. � Consultation The Draft Policy was made available on the Council’s website between 3 June 2013 28 June 2013. Background information was also provided as well as an invitation for anyone to make a submission on the policy. An advertisement was placed in the Public Notices section of The Courier on 5 June 2013 and The Advertiser on 7 June 2013, drawing attention to the Draft Policy and inviting submissions. No public submissions were received, however in recent times staff have received various representations from residents’ groups, businesses and individuals concerning tree matters. The views of those people and the general themes of common representations were taken into account in developing the Draft Policy. It is apparent that, when it comes to matters affecting trees that form a notable feature in the landscape, people expect to be consulted and informed.

3. BACKGROUND A Draft Tree Management Policy was prepared and presented to the Committee at its meeting held on 28 May 2013. The background to the matter and the need for the Policy was detailed in that report and for the sake of brevity, is not repeated here. Following consideration of the matter, the Committee resolved as follows: That the: 1. Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee adopts the Draft Tree

Management Policy for consultation purposes. 2. Outcome of the consultation process be reported back to Council or the

Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee for consideration as part of adopting the final Policy.

4. DISCUSSION

As indicated in the Consultation section of this report, consultation on the Draft Policy has since occurred and no public submissions were received. Staff from across the organisation were involved in developing relevant aspects of the Draft Policy and the principles contained within it. These have been applied to real situations on a ‘pilot’ basis in order to ‘ground test’ the Policy since it was adopted for consultation purposes. This exercise generally resulted in staff being


Page 3

able to deal with tree related matters (especially requests) in a much more efficient manner than had been the case in the past and with greater consistency. However, this exercise did highlight the need to reinforce the Council’s position on allowing the removal of trees on Council managed land where requested solely to facilitate private development. For instance, there have been examples of the Country Fire Service (CFS) imposing a condition on private development applications that a specified area around the proposed development (usually a habitable building or structure) be cleared of vegetation. In some cases, that specified area extends onto Council land (either road or community land). In its capacity as ‘land owner’ the Council then needs to determine whether it will allow its vegetation to be removed to enable the private development to proceed and comply with the CFS imposed condition. The section of the Draft Policy related to removal of Council trees by others indicates that approval for tree removal will not be granted for a person to remove trees on land under the care and control of the Council for amenity reasons or for increasing the value or enjoyment potential of a property. While this could be readily applied to the scenario outlined above, it is proposed to reinforce, for the sake of clarity, the fact that the Council generally will not allow its trees to be removed solely to allow for private development. In other words, a developer should plan their development to avoid the need to remove trees on Council managed land. This would not preclude a developer negotiating a proposal to revegetate an area or provide some other greater community benefit in exchange for being able to remove Council trees. Nor does it affect the way the Council manages bushfire risk relating to existing dwellings adjacent Council land. As a result of the community and stakeholder consultation process, no significant changes to the Draft Policy are proposed. The only changes are those outlined above, which clarify the Council’s position in respect to requests relating to private development, and a minor addition to clarify that consultation around the removal of avenue or notable plantations of trees will involve strategies for replacing those trees. It is recommended that the amendments be made and the Policy be formally adopted. A copy of the Draft Policy, with amendments recommended by staff underlined, is contained in Appendix 1.

4A OPTIONS The Committee may resolve whether or not to adopt the Policy, with or without amendments. A policy serves as a readily accessible public statement of the Council’s position on a given matter and can be easily referred to by staff and Elected Members when discussing relevant matters with the community. A Tree Management Policy will achieve consistency in decision making as well as alignment of operational practices with strategic directions. Importantly, it will also assist in managing the Council’s risk exposure with respect to trees. Should the Committee determine not to adopt a Tree Management Policy, staff will continue to consider each situation in an ad hoc manner, which gives rise to the potential for inconsistency and perceived unfairness in the manner in which each situation is treated. It also means that the Council’s position in relation to some tree


Page 4

issues will remain ambiguous and the Council will be at odds with recommendations arising from the 2010 Independent Inquiry into Management of Trees on Public Land. The recommended amendments made by staff in response to the consultation process and piloting the Policy, reflect reasonable changes that still ensure the intent and principles of the original Draft Policy remain in-tact. It is therefore recommended that the Committee adopts the Policy as amended.

5. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee: 1. notes the outcome of the consultation process carried out in relation to

the Draft Tree Management Policy. 2. adopts the Tree Management Policy, with the recommended

amendments, as contained in Appendix 1.

6. APPENDIX (1) Draft Tree Management Policy, with recommended amendments

Appendix 1 Draft Tree Management Policy, with amendments

DRAFT COUNCIL POLICY

TREE MANAGEMENT

Policy Number: SER-44

Responsible Department(s): Engineering & Assets

Relevant Delegations: Not applicable

Other Relevant Policies: Public Consultation Policy Public Notification Policy Risk Management Policy

Relevant Procedure(s): Tree Management Procedures (various) Roadside Vegetation Management Plan

Relevant Legislation:

Local Government Act 1999 Development Act 1993 Native Vegetation Act 1991 Highways Act 1926 Road Traffic Act 1961 Heritage Places Act 1997 Electricity Act 1996 Natural Resources Management Act 2004 Water Industry Act 2012 (and associated Regulations)

Policies and Procedures Superseded by this policy on its Adoption:

Not applicable

Adoption Authority: Strategic Planning and Development Policy Committee (under delegation from the Council)

Date of Adoption: Adopted as Draft for Consultation Purposes on 28 May 2013

Minute Reference for Adoption:

Next Review:

Tree Management Page 2

TREE MANAGEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION This policy provides principles and guidelines for the management of trees under the Council’s care and control. The policy will assist to address the following:

• Requests to remove trees under the care and control of the Council

• Responses to concerns raised regarding the potential effect of trees on private property

• The selection of appropriate species for planting on land under the care and control of the Council

• The need for community engagement in respect to removing and planting trees This policy is to be read in conjunction with other relevant Council policies, including the Public Consultation Policy, the Public Notification Policy and the Risk Management Policy. The policy is formulated under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 and outlines the Council’s position in respect to the functions of the Council relating to tree management as described in that Act. Government legislation impacts tree management in many circumstances and legislative requirements will be observed at all times. Where there is a conflict between legislation and this policy, legislation will take precedence to the extent of the conflict. The Council has different roles in relation to trees. Under the Development Act 1993, the Council can be a development authority, particularly in relation to approving tree damaging activity for Regulated Trees. As a body responsible for the care and control of community land and roads, the Council acts as ‘owner’ of trees. In some instances the Council will have both roles in relation to a single matter. In those cases, the Council will as far as reasonably practicable, separate the two functions as required by Subsection 36(3) of the Local Government Act 1999. This policy does not apply or have any effect in relation to the management of trees on private property beyond the extent of functions available to the Council under the Local Government Act 1999. It does not apply or have any effect in relation to the Council’s role as a development authority. 2. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are to:

• Demonstrate the Council’s commitment to the retention of trees while at the same time appropriately managing risks associated with trees

• Establish a responsible framework for including ‘retention value’ in considerations about tree removal

• Demonstrate a commitment to community engagement in relation to tree management

• Enable consistent decision making in relation to the various functions, duties and powers available to the Council in respect to tree management contained in the Local Government Act 1999.


3. DEFINITIONS “Avenues” or “notable plantations” means rows or stands of trees or individual trees, that have been planted in a distinct place (or on a roadside) and can be clearly distinguished as being a ‘feature’ of the landscape in their own right. They may have been planted as a memorial, in commemoration of an event or as part of a community initiative. In any case, they generally hold significance to a measurable portion of the community for either historic, cultural, commercial or amenity reasons. “Declared plants” are as defined in the Natural Resource Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. “Regulated trees” and “significant trees” are as defined the Development Act 1993 and associated Regulations. “Retention value” is a concept which accounts for the social, economic, environmental and/or cultural benefits of retaining a tree. Retention value is often difficult to quantify, but the benefits can be identified and understood. It is also important to understand the extent of the benefit (e.g. whether the benefit applies broadly or to a limited number of individuals; critical habitat benefit to an endangered fauna species or general environmental benefit; etc). “Street trees” specifically refers to trees planted in a road. It does not include naturally occurring or self-sown trees growing in a road. “Tree owner” is the person (or an entity) that owns land on which the subject tree grows. “Trees” means trees under the care and control of the Council, which are generally those growing in land designated as public roads and community land (i.e. most public parks, reserves, etc). Trees growing on land held by the Council, but not classified as community land, will generally be managed in accordance with this policy unless that is at odds with the purpose for which the Council holds the land. 4. POLICY STATEMENT The following principles will be applied to the management of trees under the Council’s care and control:

• Trees are an important and valuable part of the Adelaide Hills landscape. They provide amenity and environmental benefits and they play an important role in maintaining a ‘sense of place’ for Hills townships and the countryside.

• Some areas in the district have developed a particular sense of cultural heritage around tree scapes (e.g. autumn leaves, tree avenues and feature trees) and it is important that this be nurtured.

• Trees of both indigenous and introduced varieties are considered valuable and should generally be retained unless there are mitigating circumstances requiring their removal or they are of a “declared plant” species according to the Natural Resources Management Act 2004.

• Dead or dying trees should be retained if they have habitat value for indigenous fauna and the risk of retention is acceptable.

• Where the removal of a tree is being contemplated in order to address an identified risk, alternatives should be considered first. Tree removal should only occur where other options are considered to be cost prohibitive or ineffective and the risk of retaining the tree is considered unacceptable when weighed against its retention value.


• In many cases, community stakeholders have an interest in tree matters. Community engagement should occur with identified stakeholders where the removal of trees in established avenues or notable plantations is contemplated or where new tree plantings are proposed.

• Although trees can sometimes cause a nuisance to individuals, in general trees are considered to be part of the natural environment and people should endeavour to live with them.

• Private property owners should take responsibility for trees growing on their property.

5. POSITION STATEMENT The following reflects the Council’s position in respect to applying the above principles in the circumstances indicated: Street tree planting and replacement The Council does not plant street trees as a matter of course. Rather, streetscape planting is considered on a case by case basis and is generally done for amenity or memorial reasons in a planned manner. Before planting or authorising the planting of vegetation in a road, Section 232 of the Local Government Act 1999 requires the Council to undertake consultation where the vegetation “may have a significant impact on residents, the proprietors of nearby businesses or advertisers in the area.” Where it is contemplated to plant a series of street trees in a road, or undertake wholesale replacement of existing street trees, the adjoining property owners will be consulted on the proposal, including the details of proposed tree species. Where the road in question is within a commercial precinct or a township arterial road, other stakeholders such as businesses, residents associations and business associations, will also be identified and engaged. In respect to species selection, as a general principle, trees indigenous to the area will be considered for areas outside of townships, while in townships, introduced species may be considered where it is in line with an established look and feel for the township. Short lived or trees which could create problems for people using public spaces should not be planted. Private planting on roads Property owners or occupiers may plant trees on a road if authorised to do so by the Council under Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999. While the Act assigns liability for the vegetation to the person planting it, it is acknowledged that with the passage of time, the Council may ultimately become responsible for the vegetation. Allowing trees to be planted in a road carries risks including:

• inappropriate species selection

• poor planting and tree establishment technique

• inappropriate application of herbicides and pesticides

• planting in a position that may hinder safe lines of sight for pedestrians and road users

• potential nuisance to neighbours


To lessen the above risks, people will generally not be permitted to plant trees in a road themselves. However, if property owners or occupiers wish to plant trees and the proposal is not something already being contemplated by the Council, the Council may consider the matter and manage the process at the cost of the proponents, including the cost of any necessary consultation. Exceptions include planting that occurs as part of an approved revegetation program or an established partnership with a business/community group or similar, in which case planting will be permitted in line with the terms of the program or partnership. Public risk management It is unrealistic to maintain a register of all trees under the care and control of the Council and to inspect and assess the risks posed by them on a regular basis. Therefore, in line with the Council’s Risk Management Policy, a managed-risk approach will be taken to the inspection and maintenance of trees within the limits of the resources available to the Council. Operational procedures are used to identify trees or groups of trees that pose a heightened risk of causing injury or death through limb-drop or falling. Considerations may include proximity to roads and public walkways, tree species, health of the tree, etc. A register of those trees will be kept and they will be subject to a programmed inspection and maintenance regime, developed according to risk. The Council is committed to managing trees according to contemporary arboriculture practice. Tree pruning will be carried out in accordance with AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees, unless special circumstances require divergence from this approach. Potential damage to property Section 245 of the Local Government Act provides that if the Council is requested in writing to take reasonable action to avert the risk of potential property damage caused by a tree growing in a road, and does not do so, the Council may be liable for future damages to property caused by the tree. The Council is committed to act reasonably in addressing written advice of this kind. When written advice is received, the Council will use reasonable endeavours to assess the applicable risk. Consideration will be given to the assessed risk and available resources when determining what, if any, action should be taken to mitigate the risk of future property damage. The Council will seek to apply measures other than removing trees, unless the alternatives are cost prohibitive or unlikely to be effective. Overhanging trees from private property Section 254 of the Local Government Act 1999 allows the Council to make orders to require an owner or occupier of land “to remove overgrown vegetation, cut back overhanging branches, or to remove a tree” if “the vegetation, branches or tree create, or are likely to create, danger or difficulty to persons using a public place.” The Council is committed to applying this power in a responsible and practical manner. Vegetation growing on private property can contribute to the overall streetscape and help create ‘avenues’ to public places and this will be taken into account when determining whether to pursue the matter.


It is impractical for the Council to be aware of, and act on, every situation where overgrowing vegetation occurs across the district. It is therefore necessary to prioritise situations which arise, depending on the particular risks of the case and whether the present or potential danger or difficulty can be reasonably known and avoided by the person using the public space. Trees fallen from private property Trees from private property can and do fall onto public roads and land under the Council’s care and control. The Council considers public safety to be paramount in these situations. Without removing any responsibility or liability that rests with the owner of the tree, the Council may act in the interests of public safety to clear fallen trees from roads and land under the Council’s care and control. The Council will clear fallen trees only to the extent required to avert immediate risks to public safety. The tree owner is still considered to be responsible for the tree and will be expected to clear the remainder of the tree. The Council will generally not seek compensation for costs incurred in clearing fallen trees in these situations, however, the Chief Executive Officer, having given consideration to the circumstances of the case, may seek compensation from the tree owner. Reasons for pursuing compensation may include, but are not limited to, negligence or deliberate action by the tree owner or repeated indifference to the risks posed by the owner’s trees. Disputes involving trees between neighbours Section 299 of the Local Government Act 1999 provides the Council with the power to order a property owner to remove or cut back vegetation which is encroaching on the land of an adjoining property, if requested to do so by the adversely affected property owner. The Council’s position in respect to this matter is that it will generally not act. Rather, property owners will be encouraged to resolve disputes between themselves. Tree removal generally Removal of trees under the care and control of the Council will only be carried out in accordance with the principles contained in this Policy and in line with the requirements of any relevant legislation. Trees can only be removed in line with operational procedures which confer an appropriate officer(s) with the role of approving the removal. The procedures will require the approving officer to be satisfied that the principles of this Policy and the applicable steps of associated procedures have been followed, as well as that the tree can be lawfully removed. Circumstances that may justify the removal of a tree include, but are not limited to:

• the tree is irreversibly diseased or close to death

• the tree poses an environmental threat

• the tree creates, or is likely to create, a hazard resulting in injury, death, or property damage

• the tree poses a severe safety hazard that cannot be mitigated with other practicable tree management options

• the tree is stunted in its growth and replacement is necessary to achieve the intended effect of a tree scape

• the tree is interfering with other trees to such an extent that neither tree can develop to its full potential


• the tree is being replaced as part of a strategic redevelopment of a street scape, avenue or notable plantation (but only after the applicable engagement process has occurred)

• the tree does, or is likely to, interfere with public infrastructure and other alternatives to removing the tree have been explored and found to be cost prohibitive or ineffective

• removal is being contemplated as part of an approved bushfire mitigation plan or program

In all cases, consideration shall be given to the retention value of the tree and a decision made on balance. In cases of emergency removal, where staff consider that there is a real and imminent risk to life or property, approval may be sought retrospectively. Removal of Council trees by others Property owners sometimes desire a tree under the care and control of the Council to be removed for their own reasons. As a general principle, trees are considered to be part of the natural environment and members of the community should endeavour to live with them. Approval for removal will not be granted unless circumstances exist which may expose the Council to an unacceptable risk of liability if the tree is to remain. Approval may be granted where the tree is of a species listed as Weeds of National Significance or Declared Plants under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. For the sake of clarity:

• property owners and occupiers do not automatically have the permission of the Council to remove trees on land under the care and control of the Council, even if done with the intent of mitigating bushfire risk. (e.g. even if the tree is within 20m of a dwelling)

• approval will not be granted for a person to remove trees on land under the care and control of the Council for amenity reasons or for increasing the value or enjoyment potential of a property

• approval will not generally be granted for a person to remove trees on land under the care and control of the Council if it is required solely for the purposes of allowing private development to occur on adjacent private land, unless a broader community benefit can be demonstrated and suitable offset plantings are incorporated in the proposal

• approval will not be granted solely because the property owner or occupier considers the tree to be a nuisance (e.g. because leaves fall into roof gutters, etc).

In situations where it is considered reasonable for the proponent to remove the tree, the proponent is responsible for obtaining any necessary statutory approvals and meeting the cost of tree removal, reinstatement and/or environmental offset as required. For example, if the tree is Regulated or Significant, the proponent is responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the development assessment process. If the tree is a native species, the proponent is responsible for establishing and fulfilling the requirements of the Native Vegetation Act and Regulations.


Separate processes apply to the Council’s role as the Development Authority in respect to assessing applications to remove Regulated and Significant Trees. Avenues and notable plantations Where the removal of trees from avenues or notable plantations is contemplated, engagement with stakeholders and stakeholder groups, including surrounding property occupiers, business operators, residents and business associations (as applicable) will occur prior to any trees being removed (unless the urgency of the situation prevents this). This will include strategies to replace the tree to be removed.

Examples: In the case of a war memorial planting, the Returned and Services League and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs may be identified as specific stakeholders. In the case of an avenue of trees in a township, the applicable residents association and business association may be identified as specific stakeholder groups. In the case of a stand of trees in a park planted by a service club, that club may be identified as a specific stakeholder. In the case of a tree planted as a memorial to a deceased individual, the family of the individual may be identified as a stakeholder group.

Elected Members of the applicable Ward should also be informed of proposals in the interests of enhancing information flow and communication with the community. Power line clearance The Council acknowledges the statutory obligation of power transmission entities to carry out power line clearance in accordance with the Electricity Act and associated Regulations. The Council does, however, assert the need to prune trees in a manner which maintains proper shape and form and does not negatively affect the health of trees where possible. To that end, the Council will consider permitting the pruning of trees outside of the regulated “buffer zone” for achieving proper tree pruning practice. Power transmission entities will be expected to fulfil their statutory obligation to advise the Council in advance of pruning trees on roads. The Council is committed to a co-operative approach and will work with those entities to achieve the best possible outcomes. The Council is committed to its legislative obligations regarding the planting and nurturing of vegetation near power lines. The Council will consider, on a case by case basis, opportunities to replace inappropriate tree species planted under power lines where ongoing and repetitive power line clearance work has negatively affected the shape, form or health of the trees. 6. IMPLEMENTATION The Chief Executive Officer or delegate is responsible for developing procedures required to implement this Policy.

ADELAIDE HILLS COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT POLICY

COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday 22 October 2013 AGENDA BUSINESS ITEM

Item: 12.4 Originating Officer: Pam Williams Responsible Director: David Waters, Director Community & Customer

Service Subject: Freedom of Entry for 16th Air Land Regiment to Towns

of Woodside & Lobethal File No: 02.36.1-02 SMP Goal: Goal 1: Healthy, Safe, Engaged & Connected

Community SMP Key Issue: 1.3: Community Participation Partnership & Support

1. SUMMARY

The 16th Air Defence Regiment has changed its name to the 16th Air Land Regiment and would like their current Freedom of Entry scrolls for Woodside and Lobethal updated to reflect this change. As the earlier scrolls were provided prior to amalgamation, it is necessary to create new scrolls and seek Council’s approval to grant Freedom of Entry to the 16th Air Land Regiment to the Towns of Woodside and Lobethal.

2. GOVERNANCE � Strategic Management Plan

Goal 1: Healthy, Safe, Engaged & Connected Community 1.3: Community Participation Partnership & Support Policy: Keys to the City & Freedom of Entry � Legislation

Not applicable � Sustainability

Economic

Social

Environmental

Adelaide Hills Council SPDPC Meeting 22 October 2013 Freedom of Entry 16th Air Land Regiment

Page 2

Governance � Budget The Australian Army has offered to pay any costs associated with the replacement scrolls and frames. � Consultation Not applicable

3. BACKGROUND Freedom of Entry was granted to the 16th Air Defence Regiment:

• for the Town of Lobethal by the Lobethal Community Council on 7 October 1975.

• for the Town of Woodside by the District Council of Onkaparinga on 1 June 1996

The 16th Air Defence Regiment changed its title to 16th Air Land Regiment on 16

January 2012, and request that the Freedom of Entry scrolls be replaced to reflect the current unit title.

The new scrolls would be signed and sealed by the Mayor and Chief Executive

Officer, and no ceremony is required. The last Freedom of Entry Parade was held in Woodside on 6 June 2009. 4. DISCUSSION

On 5 May 2009, Adelaide Hills Council adopted a Policy for Keys to the City and Freedom of Entry. That Policy states:

Freedom of Entry Freedom of Entry to the Adelaide Hills Council is a ceremonial honour, which became popular during the nineteenth century and draws some inspiration from medieval history. A military or civilian unit accorded this privilege is granted the right of entry to the city "with bayonets fixed, colours flying and drums beating". This award is restricted to Australian military and civilian units that have, through their command, a significant attachment to the Adelaide Hills Council. It is conferred in recognition of their achievement while on active service or overseas duty or as a mark of respect and gratitude for their efforts in the defence of Australia. Freedom of Entry to the Adelaide Hills Council is celebrated with a parade of the unit through the streets.

Granting of Keys to the City or Freedom of Entry is by resolution of Council.

No Freedom of Entry Parade is proposed on this occasion as this is an administrative matter to reflect the Regiment’s change of name.

The 16th Air Land Regiment is based at Woodside and has a long attachment to the

area. It is Australia’s only ground-based air defence unit and is regularly deployed with other Australian and allied units on operations and defence exercises.

Adelaide Hills Council SPDPC Meeting 22 October 2013 Freedom of Entry 16th Air Land Regiment

Page 3

5. RECOMMENDATION

That 1. The Strategic Planning & Development Policy Committee approves

granting the 16th Air Land Regiment of the Australian Army Freedom of Entry to the Towns of Woodside and Lobethal.

2. the Mayor & Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and seal the Freedom of Entry scrolls.

6. APPENDICES (1) Letter from Australian Army, 16th Air Land Regiment (2) Copy of old scrolls

Appendix 1 Letter from Australian Army

Appendix 2 Copy of previous Scrolls

strategic planning & development policy committee€¦ · committee held on 24 september 2013,...

Documents