GIDEON CORDOVER VOTING RECORD:

13 July 2020

C396/13-2020
(commences at ± 20 minutes of Part 2 of audio recording)
14.1 Poker Machines
Moved: Cr Gideon Cordover

Seconded: Cr Flora Fox
That Council staff will conduct an engagement to understand the Kingborough community’s stance on poker machines.

In Favour: Crs Gideon Cordover, Flora Fox, Amanda Midgley and Paula Wriedt
Against: Crs Dean Winter, Sue Bastone, David Grace, Christian Street and Steve Wass
LOST 4/5

13 July 2020

C397/13-2020
(commences at ± 1 hour, 1 minute of audio recording)
17.2 HOBART CITY DEAL AND IMPLEMENTING THE KINGSTON PLACE STRATEGY
Moved: Cr Christian Street
Seconded: Cr Gideon Cordover

That Council:
(a) approve the use of Hobart City Deal funds for the purpose of implementing the first stage of the Kingston Place Strategy;
(b) approve that the Grant Deed for $7,900,000 be signed by the General Manager on Council’s behalf; and
(c) that the proposed work plan, as required by the Grant Deed, be submitted to Council for further consideration prior to submitting it to the Department of State Growth.
CARRIED

 

 

MOTIONS IN MOTION 

  • No more pokies in Kingborough

  • Green waste voucher system  - report in progress

  • Cities Power Partnership - vote lost 13/01/19

  • Single-use plastic phase-out motion: coming soon

No more pokies in Kingborough: 13 July 2020

Poker machines are designed to addict and rigged to lose. Last financial year, Kingborough lost $2.3 million to the poker machines in our municipality. That's money that could be spent on local businesses. For every one person harmed by their own gambling on poker machines, on average, seven other people are negatively affected. This is why we need to put a stop to poker machines in pubs and clubs. The first step is for our council to take a strong stand and declare "no more pokies for Kingborough." 

Please, have a read of my motion and send your feedback to me at cr.gideoncordover@kingborough.tas.gov.au

The most powerful thing you can do to take action is to write to the Kingborough Councillors to let them know how you feel. You can email all councillors at once by sending an email address "Dear Councillors," to Councillorsonly@kingborough.tas.gov.au

During the 96 days from March to June 2020 that pokies were closed in Kingborough due to COVID-19, it is estimated that more than $600,000 was saved from residents just in the Kingborough region alone. 

nb on 13 July 2020 Gideon moved initiate a community consultation to find out what local residents think of poker machines in their neighbourhood. The motion was voted down. 

ICAN Cities Appeal 11 February 2020

 

On behalf of Kinborough Council, I was honoured to visit the Peace Boat when it was docked in Hobart. Those assembled witnessed a presentation from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. The representative from ICAN asked that Kingborough pass the ICAN Cities Appeal which reads:

"Our city/town is deeply concerned about the grave threat that nuclear weapons pose to communities throughout the world. We firmly believe that our residents have the right to live in a world free from this threat. Any use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental, would have catastrophic, far-reaching and long-lasting consequences for people and the environment.

Therefore, we warmly welcome the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by the United Nations in 2017, and we call on our national government to sign and ratify it without delay."

I moved the attached motion on 11 February 2020 but sadly, it was voted down. 

Cities Power Partnership Update: 13 January 2020

It was a disappointing result at the council meeting on 13 January 2020 that my motion to join the Cities Power Partnership was voted down by the majority of the councillors. It is a shame that the council has voted not to participate alongside the 120+ local governments around the country to pledge action on climate. 

Questions on notice

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

____________________________

Issues of importance:

  • Moved C285/8-2020 NORTH WEST BAY RIVER MULTI-USE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY on 11 May 2020, paving the way for a multi-use trail from Longley to Margate along the North West Bay River. 

  • Seconded C284/8-2020 Kerbside Green Waste Collection Service on 11 May 2020 which culminated in kerbside green waste service commencing in October 2020, despite delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.

  • Voted against C187/5-2020 17.2 Assessment Procedure and Decision Criteria For Tree Removal On Private Land on 10 March 2020. This motion was to reduce the automatical approval from 10m to 5m and resulted in the automatic approval of up to a thousand trees including trees over 100 years old and including trees of high and very high conservation value.

  • Seconded Community Grant Program and Policy Review C186/5-2020 14.1 on 10 March 2020

  • Seconded Communications and Engagement Policy Framework and Strategy C128/3-2020 17.4 on 11 February 2020

  • Moved ICAN Cities Appeal motion c124/3-2020 on 11 February 2020 - motion failed

  • Seconded Purchasing Policy 3.7 and Code for tenders and contracts policy 3.12 c86/2-2020 on 28 January 2020

  • Voted against Paid Parking in Central Kingston c31/1-20 on 13 January 2020

  • Moved to join Cities Power Partnership C27/1-20 on 13 January 2020 - motion failed

  • Moved motion for Free Green Waste Weekends, C26/1-20 14.1 on 13 January 2020

  • Voted against 10.2 DA-2019-112 on 11 November 2020 - Development Application that approved the destruction of 39 Eucalyptus globulus and E. ovata trees from Kingston Park, 19 of which were "high conservation value" and 2 "very high conservation value" trees. The total offset price paid to Council for the destruction of these trees was only $5250, despite the City of Melmbourne tree valuation method showing the total value of the trees was actually $418,440. In my mind, this represented an environmental and amenity loss to the community as well as a financial opportunity loss of $413,190.

  • Seconded 14.2 Recreational Water Quality - Blackmans Bay Beach South for ongoing monitoring on 14 October 2019

  • Seconded the Kingborough Food Truck Policy on 23 September 2019

CONTACT

GIDEON CORDOVER

 

cr.gideoncordover@kingborough.tas.gov.au

0438 509 091

 

Authorised by Gideon Cordover, Level 2, 162 Macquarie Street, Hobart

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon