Submissions sent
Due to Clarence Council's policy not to make submissions public, residents have asked for their submissions to be published here.
Rosny Residents
Exactly one year ago we were writing to defend Charles Hand Park against a football oval or two. Now here we are defending it against medium density housing. Read more.
Bellerive Residents
The City Heart Plan should prioritise green space preservation as central to our community’s health, resilience, and identity. Read more.
Clarence Dog Owners Group
CDOG is dismayed that dogs are not catered for within the proposed plan. In fact, inexplicably, the word ‘DOG’ is not mentioned at all within the report. Read more.
President of the Tasmanian Dog Walking Clubs
We support the submission by CDOG and share their concern that dogs are not mentioned in the City Heart Plan. Read more.
Deputations
Thank you Mayor and Councillors for hearing my deputation regarding Elector Polls. An Elector Poll in Clarence before last year was 67 years ago and the next one could be years away.
It's a difficult task for any community to organise 1000 let alone 9000 signatures to trigger an Elector Poll within 30 days of a Public Meeting (and especially when it gets hacked in the process).
The recent Elector Poll could have been avoided if Council had re-engaged after the Public Meeting when it was the first chance for Council to listen and consult but this didn't happen.
A second chance was provided before the Elector Poll but Council failed to consult again. Council simply got it wrong, should learn from it and moved on.
A low 35% vote supported using Charles Hand Park but Council continues to torment the community by recommending four storey housing within that same park through the City Heart Draft Plan.
Please listen to both the experts and the residents. Last year about half of this Council didn't listen to its own geotech experts, about half this Council believed they knew better and it seems about half this Council didn't talk to the other half, in this city we love to live in.
How could one Councillor say if there's a 100% ‘NO’ vote, he would still not budge then wave a ‘YES’ banner alongside the highway. This is a failure to be impartial.
A key commentator for community involvement in land use planning is our own Mayor who has said this about DAPS and I quote: 'the draft Development Assessment Panels Bill (DAPS) is exceedingly poor legislation, undermining the democratic processes that have underpinned planning decisions in Tasmania for decades.
It limits or removes community and stakeholder engagement on planning decisions in the absolute favour of developers who wish to ensure their projects are not subject to public scrutiny, accountability and from what we've recently seen, the appeals process.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to centralise power and bypass local councils which are closer to the communities they serve and are more attuned to their specific needs, expectations and concerns' end of quote.
These are exactly the same reasons and principles for community Public Meetings and Elector Polls. This city's own Community Engagement Policy refers to Council's statutory obligation to use the Public Meeting and Elector Poll process as required. The price tag is whatever it costs to uphold democracy. If Cr. Hulmes' motion is supported, it will restrict the community in the same way as DAPS and be a concern for local government democracy.