Question from 12 October 2020

C587/19-2020
11.11 Sale of Land at Alonnah
Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
Does Council need to readvertise it’s intention to sell in a newspaper? What is the process?

Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:
We’ve advertised our intent in a newspaper. The process now is for Council to assess the submissions received, consider the merits of those submissions received and make a decision as to whether it wishes to proceed with the sale or otherwise. Any person having made a submission is then entitled to a right of appeal through the provisions of the Local Government Act.
 

Cr Cordover:
What kind of time frame are we looking at?
 

Executive Manager Governance & Community Services:
It’s our intention to provide a report to the next Council meeting on this matter. However, that will be subject to being able to meet the deadline of the agenda which is closing this week.
 

Cr Cordover:
The current zoning is residential. Was there ever a different zoning or change of zoning for that particular piece of land.
 

Executive Manager Governance & Community Services:
My understanding is that it has always been zoned residential. I haven’t been able to find any information to the contrary.

Cr Cordover:
It says it was considered for sale in 2002, however Council received considerable negative resident feedback and so the sale did not proceed. Does anybody recall the details of that situation in 2002?
 

Mayor:
In response to Cr Grace’s request, Mrs Morton has provided the minutes of that meeting and would be happy to forward that to you as well. They are public minutes and I would also suggest offline you could talk to Cr Grace or Cr Fox who were both in the room at the time.

​

C578/19-2020
11.2 Single Use Plastics
Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
Has Council taken any steps towards helping local businesses to prepare for the potential phase out and ban of the 10 most problematic single use plastics found in marine life and in the ocean, in line with steps taken in the EU to end the use of harmful single use plastic?
 

Executive Manager Engineering Services responds:
There is a lot happening in this space at the moment. You will be aware of the work at a State Government level with the draft Waste Action Management Plan which is starting to get some traction. There will be some actions that will come out of that process that will look at single use plastics in particular and how Councils and other organisations might be involved in actually assisting in that space. It’s a bit of a wait and see at this stage but it is something that we know we will have an active role to play going forward.
 

Cr Cordover:
What are some examples that we might do to help facilitate businesses to make that change?
 

Executive Manager Engineering Services:
Through our own Waste Management Strategy you will note that there are a number of things that look at education at a lot of different levels, so it’s not just about schools and the general community but it’s also about businesses as well. I would suspect that we will take the lead from the State Government in terms of how we would be involved as a Council and then we would use the processes we have at the moment to then go through a similar type of educational support process with businesses, particularly some of the smaller businesses that may not be necessarily in the position to enact some of these things themselves, so that’s where Council can take more of a lead role for those particular businesses.

​

Questions from 28 September 2020:

​

C543/18-2020
11.3 Job Guarantee Proposal
Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
On Wednesday 23 September the Parliament of Tasmanian past a motion calling on the government to investigate a job guarantee and the idea of the job guarantee is that local councils would be the conduit to provide some of the work for people who are willing to work and volunteer for a program. Has Kingborough Council considered what work it might provide if a job guarantee were to pass and is there a plan to do more work on a job guarantee to employ Kingborough’s not in education, employment and training young people?
 

Mayor responds:
Unless the General Manager corrects me, the answer is no.

​

C549/18-2020
(commences at ± 14 minutes of audio recording)
12.1 Environmental Fund
 

At the Council meeting on 14 September 2020, Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
The Environmental Fund has been receiving financial offsets for the removal of vegetation since 2004 and there is now over $800,000 to invest in projects. Could you please give me an update as to whether those funds have been expended or where they might be expended?

Officer’s Response:
Expenditure from the Kingborough Environmental Fund (KEF) is governed by the project implementation plan. This plan was completed in 2018. In September 2018 the fund was holding approximately $800,000 in offset contributions. To achieve a strategic conservation gain, the resources in the fund needed to grow to a level that enabled a more efficient application of the funds. For example, the ability to pool contributions for a particular threatened vegetation type has allowed Council to protect larger, more strategic conservation reserves to protect those values. Expenditure commenced in the 2017-2018 financial year following the employment of the project officer. The program is on track to meet all of the target outcomes set out in the implementation plan by June 2022. Financial biodiversity offsets continue to accumulate in the Fund. The Fund does not have an ‘end date’ per se.

Expenditure of the Kingborough Environmental Fund:
2018/19     $99,357

2019/20     $118,840

​

Questions from 14 September 2020:

​

C503/17-2020
(commences at ± 4 minutes of Part A of audio recording)
11.1 Environmental Fund
 

Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
The Environmental Fund has been receiving financial offsets for the removal of vegetation since 2004 and there is now over $800,000 to invest in projects. Could you please give me an update as to whether those funds have been expended or where they might be expended?

General Manager responds:
What I can say is that expenditure has actually commenced this financial year, in accordance with the implementation plan that was endorsed by Council. As to the amount of expenditure and the projects spent on, I’ll take that part of the question on notice.
 

Cr Cordover:
Was this year the first year since 2004 when expenditure was made?
 

General Manager:
Yes.

​

C516/17-2020
12.3 COVID-19 Outbreak Preparations
At the Council meeting on 24 August 2020, Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

Cr Cordover:
Recently, lots of conservationists have been reporting that there is now a glut of discarded single use plastic face masks and gloves washing up on shorelines and littering the seabed. This is a particular problem in Victoria obviously but my question is, were there to be an outbreak again in Southern Tasmania, have Council staff noticed this problem of single use plastics, either gloves or masks, in our municipality and what can be done to mitigate the use of single use pollution more generally?
Officer’s Response:
Council staff have not noticed any incidence of either masks or gloves washing up on shorelines or being an issue in terms of general littering. Were it to become a problem, Council’s response would involve a combination of advocacy, enforcement and education. We are already active in all three of these areas, leading by example through our Waste Wise Policy, involvement in clean up days, use of Reconophalt on roads and issuing infringement notices for littering where possible. The Kingborough Waste Management Strategy provides direction as to where Council can best have a direct positive environmental effect and it is expected that issues with single use plastic pollution would be countered with a strong message through our communication channels.
Daniel Smee, Executive Manager Governance & Community Services

​

Questions from 24 August 2020:

​

C480/16-2020
(commences at ± 21 minutes of audio recording)
12.1 Sustainable Hobart Action Plan
At the Council meeting on 10 August 2020, Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
1 Hobart City Council is to create it’s own pumped hydro power while purchasing solar energy from households under it’s draft Sustainable Hobart Action Plan released yesterday for public comment. What is our Council’s response to this announcement?

2 Inside this action plan, goal 2 under Mobility includes “installing infrastructure to fast charge electric vehicles in Hobart” and that is listed as having a short time frame. Will Hobart’s public push for a much large fast charge electric vehicle network disincentivise economic investment in Kingborough from fast charging networks and if so, what are we going to do to rectify this?
Officer’s Response:
1 This proposal will be watched with interest by Kingborough staff who work closely with colleagues from Hobart City Council via the Regional Climate Change Initiative (RCCI). The scale of corporate energy use and resourcing available for specialist project staff at Hobart City Council means it is ideally placed to pilot energy projects and share the learnings with other partner councils in the RCCI.
 

2 The installation of vehicle fast charge station(s) in Kingborough was discussed extensively as part of the recent budget estimates process. It was decided that Kingborough will not finance such infrastructure until the business case for utilisation and return on investment is a lot better identified. Given the proximity of the high population areas of Kingborough to Hobart it is not considered likely, for the near future, that there will be any economic disincentivisation.
Jon Doole, Manager Environmental Services

​

C477/16-2020
(commences at ± 17 minutes of audio recording)
11.7 COVID-19 Outbreak Preparations
Cr Cordover asked the following questions without notice:
“Is Council able to purchase a stock pile of facemasks that we would be able to give to residents for free if we were to experience an outbreak here?”
Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:
Council has purchased a quantity of masks but they are for emergency use and primarily intended for staff. Purchasing a stockpile for the community is not something we have given consideration to and I would imagine, given the expense, that it would be something that we would need to bring to Council for a budget allocation and consideration.
Cr Cordover:
Recently, lots of conservationists have been reporting that there is now a glut of discarded single use plastic face masks and gloves washing up on shorelines and littering the seabed. This is a particular problem in Victoria obviously but my question is, were there to be an outbreak again in Southern Tasmania, have Council staff noticed this problem of single use plastics, either gloves or masks, in our municipality and what can be done to mitigate the use of single use pollution more generally?
Executive Manager Governance & Community Services:
We have certainly had no reports to date of that being an issue in our local area, but as to strategies that we could employ if that was to be an issue, I would need to give consideration to that and that’s a broader issue involved in waste management and public education as a whole, so I’ll take the second half of that question on notice.

​

Questions asked 10 August 2020

​

C442/15-2020
(commences at ± 5 minutes of audio recording)
11.1 Sustainable Hobart Action Plan
Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
Hobart City Council is to create it’s own pumped hydro power while purchasing solar energy from households under it’s draft Sustainable Hobart Action Plan released yesterday for public comment. What is our Council’s response to this announcement?
Mayor responds:
We will take that on notice.
Cr Cordover:
Inside this action plan, goal 2 under Mobility includes “installing infrastructure to fast charge electric vehicles in Hobart” and that is listed as having a short time frame. Will Hobart’s public push for a much large fast charge electric vehicle network disincentivise economic investment in Kingborough from fast charging networks and if so, what are we going to do to rectify this?
Mayor:
We will take that on notice.
C443/15-2020
11.2 Quarterly Summary Action Report
Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
On page 154 of this agenda, the Kingborough Community Resilience Working Group is not currently operating. Is there any detail that we would like to share on that and when is it planned to reinstate that group’s operations?
Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:
The working group was working up until December of last year but due to poor attendance it was agreed to close down that group for the time being. There has been a school of thought that it is best to deal direclty with communities in terms of their local resilience rather than try and have an over arching municipal working group, but that’s something that our Emergency Management Coordinator is still working through. I’m not sure if we will be reinstating that group.
Cr Cordover:
Thank you. On page 156 in the section where it says “prepare a local historic heritage code to protect historial cultural heritage” there is no comment in that section. Could you please explain that?
General Manager responds:
That is directly answered by the fact that it is a resourcing issue. For example, last month we received a record number of development approval applications, just under 80 for the month, so it’s a resourcing issue.
Cr Cordover:
Regarding the “Kingborough Climate Change Action Plan”, my understanding is that that is also under resourced, I believe it might be to the tune of $300,000. My question is, to what extent is it under resourced and what is the plan to get that back on track?
General Manager:
That has previously been the subject of a report to Council. As Council would be aware, the funding in this financial year was not available in the budget that Council adopted to address all of the actions identified and in relation to anything specific I would have to take that on notice.
Cr Cordover:
Thank you. My final question is concerning the Coningham public toilets. What is the time frame for the Coningham public toilets.
Executive Manager Governance & Community Services responds:
The hold up is due to the fact that it is a mainland contractor involved but we remain hopeful that the project will be completed in time for the forthcoming summer.

​

Questions asked 27 July 2020

12.2 Weed Control
At the Council meeting on 13 July 2020, Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:
1 Has Kingborough gained additional learnings from other municipalities such as Hobart City Council with alternative method trials, such as non-chemical interventions?
2 Will Council be considering a phase out of the use of Glysophate or minimising the use of it like in Byron Shire Council?
Officer’s Response:
1 Kingborough council staff are networking with other council both in Tasmania and interstate as well as other agencies regarding alternatives to weed management across the municipality. The knowledge sharing has given us some good information to base our best practises solutions on.
2 A comprehensive scientific assessment by expert scientists at the APVMA recently concluded that glyphosate products are safe to use, provided they are used in accordance with the label instructions. Whilst the product remains safe to use in Tasmania and is still considered to be the most cost effective and safest way to control weeds, council will not be phasing out the use of Glysophate. Kingborough Council staff are always looking at trying to minimise the use of herbicides. Council's specialist weeds officers most frequently use a selective herbicide (rather than a glyphosate product) to spot spray particular weeds (for example boneseed or gorse). These selective herbicides will be site specific (mostly used in bushland reserves) and registered for use on the target weed.
Darren Johnson, Manager Works

​

C424/14-2020
11.15 Fish Farming
Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
On the weekend I was having a chat to community members and the issue of fish farming in the channel came up on a couple of occasions. Has there been an influx of concern being raised with Council particularly since the new whale boat has arrived?
General Manager responds:
I’m not aware of any heightened activity in that area. I will follow up with Mr Doole to see whether there is something that I’m not aware of that certainly hasn’t passed my desk.
Response from the Manager Development Services to Cr Cordover’s question at item 11.3:
The retrospective approval at the Sandfly Road address suggests that it was re-advertised as the applicant wanted to include an unauthorised outbuilding that had been constructed. What happens occasionally is when officers visit sites to do site inspections find other buildings or other works that are unauthorised and I would say that it what has happened in this instance. I would say that the Cemetery Road one is also similar that it was identified by officers that it was a building without approval. So they can then add it in to their planning application.
Cr Cordover:
Is there the feeling that there is need for more education maybe on rates notices or something like that so that this doesn’t happen or if it’s not a big issue then it’s not a big issue.
Manager Development Services:
It’s our intentions through our enforcement to proactively promote compliance and we can do that by illustrating some examples of non-compliance. Resourcing limits our opportunity to do those extra things and we also have details on planning permits that are issued saying that you cannot make changes to your plans and if you want to make changes then you have to come back for an amendment. We can also include things on our website but again resourcing limitations makes it hard to get to all those other projects that we would like to do and promote but I think probably the rates notice isn’t the right place. It would just be a general media release.

​

Question asked 13 July 2020

11.2 Weed Control

C380/13-2020

Cr Cordover:

Members of the community have been raising Council’s use of broad-spectrum herbicide Glysophate in Council’s weeding operations. Hobart City Council has embarked on trials of non-chemical interventions for weed control such as steam treatment and there are alternative weed control methods available such as heat foam available on the market. Is Kingborough planning on running an alternative weed control trial program?
General Manager:
We have previously trialled alternative methods including steam treatment but, to the best of my knowledge, we have not trialled any alternative methods in the last 12 months.
Cr Cordover:
Has Kingborough gained additional learnings from other municipalities such as Hobart City Council with alternative method trials?
General Manager:
I’ll take that question on notice.
Cr Cordover:
Will Council be considering a phase out of the use of Glysophate or minimising the use of it like in Byron Shire Council?
General Manager:
I will take that question on notice.
Question asked 13 July 2020

11.1 Delegated Authority Report

C379/13-2020

Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:
There are two retrospective development applications in this report, one is in Kingston Beach and the other in Allens Rivulet. Can you please explain why they are retrospective and provide some detail about each of those cases?

Manager Development Services:

The Kingston Beach development was a garage that had approval and then they took it upon themselves to fit it out with a kitchen and rooms and converted that use, so they were required to make retrospective application for that. The Allens Rivulet one related to use of a garage. There is no reason in the report as to how this came to our attention, whether it was a dob in or otherwise or whether it was an outstanding building permit that then needed to be rectified as planning.
Cr Cordover:
Can you please remind us what disincentives exist, what mechanisms of enforcement exist to mitigate the risk of that happening in future, particularly with the change of use to visitor accommodation?
Manager Development Services:
It depends on the nature of the offence. We have the ability to do enforcement under LUPAA which can include enforcement orders, it can go as far as proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court and does include an infringement. It appears that these two didn’t get infringements. Their penalty when they do their application is a double fee, which is in our fees and schedules as well and in some instances we may do a infringement penalty which would be 50 penalty units as well as the double fees.

​

Question asked 11 May 2020

C268/8-2020

11.5 Increase for Cycling Lanes in Kingborough

Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice:

Will Kingborough be looking to increase its level of advocacy for public transport or cycling lanes in the Kingborough Municipality?

​

Mayor responds:

A good initiative is not only our membership of organisations like Cycling South and having a bicycle committee but using the City Deal for this type of investment would have been a good idea but appears to be an even better idea now. We have included in our discussions with the Department of State Growth and the Minister a request that we receive some funding to do a bicycle study or a strategy around cycling and that is as a result of Cr Midgley, Cr Fox and the cycling committee talking about this and I think that this sort of study will be a good start. Our discussions are still ongoing but I’m confident that as a starting point we can come up with a strategy to assist us as we drive cycling infrastructure going forward.

 

Question asked 28 January, answer received 11 February 2020, available on page 5 of 11/02/20 council agenda.

​

Cr Cordover submitted the following question on notice:
12.7 Kingborough Youth NEET

What is the estimated number of young people (aged 15-24) living in Kingborough who are not currently in education, employment or training?

​

Officer’s Response:
Current data specific to Kingborough pertaining to the number of young people not in education, employment or training is not available (this has been confirmed by the Youth Network of Tasmania).

The most recent ABS data for Australia from 2018 indicates that 9.4% of females and 8.6% of males aged 15–24 were NEET. The rate of NEET youth increases with age—in 2018, 5.5% of people aged 15–19 were NEET, compared with 12% of those aged 20–24 (ABS 2019). Youth NEET rates also differ by remoteness, with higher rates observed in more remote areas. Reasons for these regional differences include the concentration of education or employment opportunities and higher mobility in major cities (OECD 2016).

 

In 2018:

• 7.8% of youth in Major cities were NEET
• 11.6% of youth in Inner regional areas were NEET
• 14.3% of youth in Outer regional areas were NEET
• 9% of youth in Remote and very remote areas were NEET (ABS 2018).

Extrapolating from the above figures suggests that there could be around 500 young people in Kingborough who are currently not in education, employment or training but this is a very rough estimate.
Daniel Smee, Executive Manager Governance & Community Services

​

Questions asked on 28 January 2020:

​

​

____________________________

Question asked 13 January 2020, answer received 28 January 2020, available on page 8 of the 28/01/20 council agenda:

Cr Cordover submitted the following question on notice:

12.12 Single Use Plastics 

How many outlets in Kingborough (such as takeaway restaurants, cafes, franchises and small businesses) will be affected by the planned industry phase-out of single-use plastics as announced in the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation's Australia's 2025 National Packaging Targets? If a phase-out were to happen more rapidly than 2025, how many outlets in Kingborough would be impacted?

Officer’s Response:
Council currently has 201 food premises registered as well as 67 mobile food businesses. It is anticipated that a significant percentage of these would be impacted to varying degrees.
 

There are probably a number of small businesses that are not registered with council that may be impacted by the phase-out as well.

​

If the phase-out was brought forward the numbers of premises impacted would be similar to those indicated.

Jon Doole, Manager Environmental Services

____________________________
 

Question asked 9 December 2019, answer received 13 January 2020, available on page 4-5 of the 13/01/20 council agenda.

​

Cr Cordover submitted the following question on notice:
12.2 Single Use Plastics
To date, what investigation and consultation has the Council conducted towards implementing a phase out of single use plastics in Kingborough? What initiatives should we be organising now to help minimise the impact on our local business community of the transition to phase out all single use plastic as soon as possible?

Officer’s Response:
Council has adopted a Waste Wise Events Policy which prohibits the sale and/or distribution of single-use plastic products and single use sachets, polystyrene, plastic bags, plastic straws, bottles and/or balloons at public events and functions held on Council owned or managed property. In conjunction with the policy, Council has produced a Waste Wise Events guidelines brochure to support event holders’ responsibly managing waste.

The State Government’s Draft Waste Management Action plan has an action/ target to work at the national level, and with local government and businesses in Tasmania to phase out problematic and unnecessary plastics such as single use plastics by 2030. It is likely that, if this is adopted, they will partner with local government to assist in implementing this across the State, including measures to help businesses transition.
David Reeve - Executive Manager Engineering Services
 

____________________________

​

Question asked 25 November 2019, answer received 9 December 2019 , available on page 7-8 of the 09/12/19 council agenda.

​

9.2 Environmental Offset Fund
At the Council meeting on 25 November 2019, Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

Our Biodiversity Offset policy says that financial offsets are calculated at a rate of up to $500 per tree of very high conservation value up to $250 for high conservation value trees. Why were these rates set to only $500 and have we considered adopting the City of Melbourne tree valuation tool or the itree valuation tool or the carbon accounting model tool which significantly increased the value of each of these high conservation value trees?

In terms of the time scale that we are talking about with planting trees from environmental offset value, has consideration been put into the fact that some of these very high conservation value trees that are being destroyed are well over 100 years old sometimes maybe 200 years old and does the time scale for this Environmental Offset Policy taken into account that we are denying many future generations trees because they are being destroyed?

Officer’s Response:
Biodiversity offsets are used by Council to compensate for the loss of trees of high conservation value when options to avoid these impacts have been exhausted and it is still considered desirable for other economic or social reasons for the trees to be removed. The Biodiversity Offset Policy is not used as a means of justifying biodiversity loss, rather as a means to generate a positive gain from an inevitable loss. Indirect offsets (financial contributions) are acceptable where the losses are small and it can be demonstrated that there will be a more significant and strategic conservation outcome by pooling the funds, as has been done through the Kingborough Environmental Fund.

The offset rates were reviewed in 2016 as part of a general review of the Biodiversity Offset Policy. No changes were proposed for the per tree offset rate of up to $500/tree of high conservation value. The rate was historically set on an estimate of the cost of replacing the tree, based on the theory of a 5:1 ratio. That is, where five seedlings are planted and maintained, it is likely that at least one of these will make it to maturity.

The City of Melbourne tree valuation model is based on placing a financial value on the many benefits of a tree, some of which are irreplaceable in our lifetime. Council’s current approach is much more simplistic in the way that a single rate is applied to most high conservation trees despite differences in species, size, location, age, health and so on. So whilst a single rate does not reflect a valid economic value of the tree, or factor in the time it would take for the offset plantings to mature and fulfil the same function as the trees removed, it does provide a reasonable, practical and consistent approach for the community. It simply reflects the cost of replacing and maintaining a similar tree to maturity.

There may be merit in reviewing these rates and investigating alternative tree valuation tools, particularly where the trees are performing multiple functions, including carbon sequestration, contribution to vegetation corridors and visual landscapes and amenity such as shade and wind protection. However, this review would need to factor in the different contributions of trees in different landscapes.

In summary, tree valuation tools are incredibly useful as they identify and place a financial value on the many social, economic and environmental values that trees generate. This allows trees to be considered on a more even footing with other assets in cost benefit analyses. The application of these methods to determine the offset rate for each high conservation tree removed on private land would however add to the financial impact of the scheme on the community.
Jon Doole – Manager Environmental Services

​

____________________________
 

Question asked 25 November 2019, answer received 9 December 2019 , available on page 7-8 of the 09/12/19 council agenda.

​

9.3 Water Supply Stickers

At the Council meeting on 25 November 2019, Cr Cordover asked the following question without notice to the General Manager, with a response that the question would be taken on notice:

A firefighter explained how helpful it was for residents to display a Tasmanian fire service water supply sign on their water tank. These signs are big white signs with a ‘W’ on them with a red background and they identify for firefighters the water points so that when firefighters arrive on a property they can quickly connect to a water source and appropriate coupling. Since 90% of homes in Kingborough are at bushfire risk, is it possible to send these water supply signs out to residents for free with their rates notices?

Officer’s Response:
The Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) has an approved standard sign which is intended to be used to indicate the location of a static water supply on private property for firefighting purposes as shown. Static water supplies are supplies that are independent from the mains water supply system such as swimming pools, tanks and dams. Static water supplies may be vital sources of water for firefighters, especially in areas where reticulated or ‘town water’ systems are not available.

The ‘W’ sign is also used to identify which tank on a property is specifically set aside for firefighting use as opposed to tanks which are used for drinking water. It is necessary to make this distinction because when firefighting hoses are connected to drinking water tanks there is a high chance the tank will become contaminated with firefighting foam residue which will render that water unsafe for drinking.

Recent changes to the building in bushfire prone areas legislation require that firefighting water supplies are identified in new buildings with the ‘W’ sign. There is no requirement for existing houses to retrofit this ‘W’ sign.

 

The standard ‘W’ signs are not intended to be used as a general sign on the front of properties to indicate the presence of a static water supply to passing brigades. Programs to identify properties with static water supply do exist in other states (for example the NSW Rural Fire Service has Static Water Supply program that supplies free Static Water Supply signs for display on property boundaries so that they can be seen from the road by fire crews in an emergency). Whilst the placement of such signs on front fences does assist brigades in triaging properties during bushfire emergencies, the TFS does not currently have a program to identify and mark existing houses with water supply signs installed on property frontages. Apart from the issue of funding such a program it is not as simple as allowing interested property owners to erect the signs. The signs should only be used where the location of the water supply meets the TFS Guidelines for Firefighting Water Supplies. The guidelines are necessary to ensure that water supplies are adequate, accessible and reliable. (For example, the guidelines stipulate a minimum amount of water that must be available (10000L) and take into account requirements for fire truck clearances, turning bay widths and maximum hose length distance). To avoid the installation of ‘W’ signs in locations which may not suitable, the distribution of ‘W’ signs would need as a minimum to be accompanied by a fact sheet that outlines the minimum requirements of TFS.

The cost associated with purchasing the ‘W’ signs is currently $33 per sign (if supplied by Tas Fire Equipment). The Bushfire Program is currently not funded to offer this service. In addition the specific criteria required by The Tasmania Fire Service Guidelines to correctly apply the signs means the Fire Service are best placed to administer any such program.

​

Jon Doole – Manager Environmental Services

____________________________