Submission Template and Resources 

Save Rosny Parks (SRP) team has prepared the key areas of concern for you to select and prepare a submission. Alternatively, you may wish to use our basic template to simply object to the proposed housing development Charles Hand Memorial Park.

We have included the necessary email addresses, so you can easily provide your feedback to Council before Sunday 2 February 2025.

It is important that you send in a submission in addition or instead of the survey. The survey is designed for you to state your priorities with little chance to give feedback on the detail. 

The pages/diagrams referenced can be viewed on City Heart Diagrams page

We have created a City Heart Plan Timeline to understand the previous consultations, summaries of what the community have said to date, and links to the key reports produced and which have informed this final draft plan.

Feedback Submission - Basic Template

Subject:  Final Draft City Heart Plan Consultation

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed housing development in our Charles Hand Memorial Park.

In each of the consultation rounds on the City Heart Plan, the most common theme was the need to keep public, green open spaces for the enjoyment of the community, now and in the future.

I do not support Charles Hand Memorial Park being used for housing. The park should remain as an open green space for passive recreation.

Kind regards,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

Send your submission by email to:

TO: 

cityplanning@ccc.tas.gov.au

CC:

clarence@ccc.tas.gov.au

Other items you may wish to raise

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the development of our central Clarence parklands and the lack of recognition and promotion of Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage.

THE COMMUNITY'S PRIORITY IS TO RETAIN THEIR GREEN OPEN SPACES

Clarence City Council has repeatedly consulted with the community and retaining green open spaces has been at the forefront of the community's mind:

"The most common theme throughout all stages of community consultation was the need to retain public, green open spaces for the enjoyment of the community, now and in the future", Timmins Ray Consultancy, November 2020

"The key elements are reconfirmed as priorities by the community in line with what we heard in 2020", 89% valuing Open spaces and the environment, Clarence City Council, December 2022

And in May 2023 the Summary of the Stage 3 Consultations on the Concept Report again showed the Parklands as the highest priority "For yourself" as well as "For strongest community benefit".


RELATING TO CHARLES HAND MEMORIAL PARK (CHP)

I do not support Charles Hand Memorial Park being used for residential dwellings when there is significant existing land available within the City Heart. With 115 properties owned by Homes Tasmania, the precincts of Inner and Outer Warrane will play a key role in providing social and affordable housing (Analysis and Key Directions Report p 24-25)

I urge council to respect the intended use of CHP. The Park is zoned Open Space and residential use is prohibited. I am concerned that Clarence City Council (CCC) has not taken note of the significant number of residents who spoke against development in the Park (High-Performance Centre).

I urge council to align with the vision of the Greater Hobart Plan 2022 - “The public open spaces within and surround the city are well-protected and are less likely to be impacted if future urban growth is primarily consolidated within existing built-up areas. Infrastructure improvements will be required within those areas (shared pathways, playgrounds, streetscapes, pocket parks, playing fields etc) to support increased future use and demand”.

I would like to understand what engagement there is between CCC and Homes Tasmania regarding affordable housing opportunities in Warrane (Draft Plan, Page 79, Item 2 – proposal to aggregate Homes Tasmania sites).

I support CHP continuing to be a public open space, intended for passive recreation and natural or landscape amenity including for off-lead dog exercising and has been the community's priority in every consultation relating to the City Heart Project. 

I am concerned that no mention has been made of the existing dog exercising areas, particularly the off-lead area in CHP. I believe there is opportunity for dog friendly additions to CHP (and for younger kids) by adding a barrier fence along the highway. At Rosny Parkland, a fenced area at the Warrane end of the park is currently feasible with ample space. A few more walking tracks would spread users and encourage people to use more of the park. Maybe dog drinking fountains at each end of Rosny Parkland?

I am against the representation of these Open Spaces on page 21 as being a part of the Arts, Culture & Leisure Precinct. The only Arts and Culture space in this area, is Item 1 (which is now being called “Art and Play” Park.

• I am also opposed to the proposal that the passive areas of this open space area at SheOak Point and CHP, should become an Active Park, shown on page 21 as (2). This area already has significant parts zoned recreational and used for active sports. Rosny Parkland is zoned recreational and there is opportunity for more active use at the far end closest to Warrane which, with its proposed increased housing density, will have need of additional recreational spaces.

I support the re-orientation of the college towards CHP with new spaces for the school which can be used by the community outside of school hour as proposed on page 78 – Item 1.

I do not support any other additional developments shown in CHP – such as active recreation spaces and enterprise opportunities in CHP or housing as shown on page 78 – items 2, 3, 4 and 6.

RELATING TO ROSNY PARKLAND

I have a concern around the conflicting information in the Draft Plan about the large Pavilion closest to Council Chambers. On page 66/67 of the Draft Plan, it is described as a cultural space to celebrate Tasmanian Aboriginal Culture. On page 50, it is called a hub for access to government services and jobs, community facilities and resources.

I am against the main Pavilion being used for government services as stated on page 50 of the Draft Plan.

I do not support the expansion of the current Community Purpose Area including Council Chambers into the Parklands as stated on page 50 of the Draft Plan, however I do support the expansion within and greater connections between the Civic, Community & Employment Precinct and the Rosny Parklands.

I am against the renaming of “Central Park” as shown in the Concept Report (and which includes the main Pavilion) to “Civic” Park as the meaning of CIVIC is official and/or administrative and not in keeping with the parkland.

I oppose the large (>150 car) at ground car park being proposed in the Rosny Parkland Art and Play Park area (Page 47, Item 2). CCC should initiate a Public-Private Partnership with Eastlands to explore parking opportunities on existing ground used for parking (such as in front of BWS). More people coming into the parks will mean more visitors to Eastlands.

RELATING TO OUTCOME 1 – A living City Heart

• I am concerned that outcome 1 on page 24, which is to recognise and promote Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage has not been adequately addressed in the plan.

• I support the main Pavillion being used as originally proposed and stated on page 66/67 of the Draft Plan – A space to “celebrate and understand the cultural elements of Country, to recognise the history of the area and provide a culturally safe environment for Tasmanian Aboriginal people to gather and engage in the general community.”

• I am concerned that the suggestion of civic use for a Pavilion implies a closed building. I do not support any buildings on the parklands unless they are purely to provide shelter, shade and a place for gatherings. A pavilion is typically open on one or several sides.

• I recommend Outcome 1 “A living City Heart”, a rather ambiguous phrase, to be renamed to reflect the intent of the outcome: Outcome 1 - “A recognition and celebration of Country”.

• I would support the renaming of “Central/Civic” Park to “Reconciliation” Park or a name which our Aboriginal community chooses in respect to all First Peoples, including the Mumirimina (mu mee ree mee nah) of the Oyster Bay Nation.

OTHER

• I have concerns about the exclusion of known, approved developments such as the 80-apartment residential development on Bellerive Boulevard, item 7 on Page 39 of the Draft Plan which includes the sale of significant public land. Please include all proposed and approved developments within the City Heart boundaries in order to understand the future residential opportunities and needs.

In closing, as it has been 18 months since the community has seen the concept plan, I urge council to extend their consultation period. Please be transparent by publicising the stakeholder list, accessible displays in public areas (Libraries, Council Chambers, etc) and providing forums to hear the community’s feedback.

Yours sincerely
[Your name]

1. Adjust the content as you wish

2. create your email, paste your content and hit send.

Send your submission by email to:

TO: 

cityplanning@ccc.tas.gov.au

CC:

clarence@ccc.tas.gov.au

We hope you find these resources helpful. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these items further, please contact us or join the conversation on Facebook.

Download as Word Document

The items raised in the sample submission template focuses on the protection of both Charles Hand and Rosny Parkland, from development not in keeping with the intended use of the land or deviating from what the majority of the community envisages for our parklands.

Submission Template (Word doc)

City Heart Plan Timeline 

The key consultation summaries and outcomes can be accessed from the City Heart Plan Timeline page

City Heart Plan Timeline

Survey

Should you also wish to do the Survey - the 35-question survey has one comment box at Q31.

Link to current consultation survey

Read More on the CCC Website

The Have Your Say website includes previous versions of the plan, supporting documents and previous engagement results (be warned it's hard to work out what's what), so try our timeline which links to key documents.

Have Your Say - City Heart Project