Upload
dangkhanh
View
227
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Local Government Division
Department of Premier and Cabinet
12/6308
Local Government
Sustainability Objectives
and Indicators Report
2011-12
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
2/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5
PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 6
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................. 7
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................... 9
1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS ................................................................................. 9
Operating Surplus .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Summary of results ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Observations – operating surplus .......................................................................................................... 11
Operating surplus ratio ................................................................................................................................ 12
Observations ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Net Financial Liabilities ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Observations – net financial liabilities .................................................................................................. 15
Observations – net financial liabilities ratio ....................................................................................... 16
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
2. ASSET MANAGEMENT INDICATORS ........................................................................................... 19
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
3/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Asset Sustainability Ratio .................................................................................................................................. 20
Summary of results ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Observations – asset sustainability ratio ............................................................................................. 22
Analysis – asset sustainability ratio ......................................................................................................... 22
Road Asset Consumption Ratio................................................................................................................... 23
Summary of results ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Observations ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Asset Renewal Funding Ratio ........................................................................................................................ 25
Summary of results ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Observations – asset renewal funding ratio ..................................................................................... 26
Analysis – asset renewal funding ratio ................................................................................................. 26
3. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 28
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 34
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix A – Summary of objectives and indicators ........................................................................... 36
Appendix B – Council classifications ............................................................................................................... 41
Appendix C – Operating surplus by council over time ($) ................................................................ 42
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
4/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Appendix D – Operating surplus ratio by council over time ............................................................ 43
Appendix E – Net financial liabilities ............................................................................................................... 44
Appendix F – Net financial liabilities ratio .................................................................................................... 45
Appendix G – Asset sustainability ratio ......................................................................................................... 46
Appendix H – Road asset consumption ratio............................................................................................ 47
Appendix I – Asset renewal funding ratio .................................................................................................... 48
Appendix J – Development applications ...................................................................................................... 49
Appendix K – Permitted applications ............................................................................................................. 50
Appendix L – Discretionary applications ...................................................................................................... 51
Appendix M – Building applications ................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix N - Appeals ............................................................................................................................................ 53
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
5/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Introduction
Welcome to the Local Government Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Report
2011-12.
This Report provides a summary of the performance of Tasmania’s councils against
10 indicators in financial management, asset management, and planning and development.
For the financial and asset management indicators, data is provided for the past five years to
give an indication of improvements in performance over time. For these indicators, data
was only available for 27 of the 29 councils.
For planning and development indicators, data is available over two years.
Data is analysed at a sectoral level to provide an overview of performance and allow
councils to compare their individual performance with the performance of the sector.
Councils are encouraged to review their performance against their performance in previous
years and, where appropriate, against the performance of similar councils. This provides
councils with information on where there is scope to improve the way they do business,
seek advice from councils who are performing well, and acknowledge areas where they are
performing well.
Any comments regarding the report should be directed to the Department of Premier and
Cabinet’s Local Government Division by email at [email protected] or by telephone on
6232 7022.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
6/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Project overview The aim of the Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Project is to enhance local
government sustainability through continuous performance improvement.
Annual sustainability objectives and indicators reports will present data and analyse
performance trends to assist councils to identify opportunities for performance
improvement.
Local government sustainability objectives and indicators were established by the Premier’s
Local Government Council (PLGC) in December 2011 following extensive consultation
with the local government sector and stakeholders.
The indicators measure performance in four key local government areas:
1. financial management;
2. asset management;
3. planning and development; and
4. community satisfaction.
There are 17 indicators across the four areas of performance which are designed to provide
meaningful insight into the performance of councils. Five of the indicators have associated
benchmarks against which council performance can be assessed. For the remaining
12 indicators, targets or benchmarks may be set in future, or performance will be assessed
in terms of trends. A summary of the objectives and indicators is at Appendix A.
No data or analysis is provided this year against community satisfaction as community
satisfaction surveys are carried out every second year with the last one being in 2011.
It is envisaged that indicators will evolve over time, both in terms of the indicators used to
consider topics discussed in this report and the scope of the issues considered. Any
changes to sustainability objectives or indicators will be considered and approved by the
Premier’s Local Government Council.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
7/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Summary of key findings Financial management
Councils’ performance at an aggregated level in terms of operating surplus ratio was
negative 1.2 per cent in 2011-12 which is slightly below the benchmark of zero. This is the
fifth consecutive year that councils, on average, have not met the benchmark. The 2011-12
result was marginally worse than the 2010-11 result of negative 0.97 per cent. However,
councils’ performance over the last five years against this benchmark is improving.
At an aggregated level, councils continued to move further from the benchmark for net
financial liabilities ratio, and only four councils met the benchmark in 2011-12 (two
councils less than last year and the least over five years). This result is due to councils
maintaining a strong net asset (as opposed to debt) position. This suggests that councils
may be holding cash and investments beyond their day-to-day needs. At 30 June 2012,
councils’ cash and investments totalled $400.237 million – up from $330 million in 2010-11.
Asset management
At 92.59 per cent, the average result for asset sustainability ratio was down slightly from
the 2010-11 average, and the result is below the benchmark of greater than 100 per cent.
Continual under-investment in existing assets will lead to a backlog of assets in need of
renewal over time.
Councils are generally performing well in terms of the road asset consumption ratio.
Councils, on average, have met the benchmark in each of the past four years. The trend in
the number of councils meeting the benchmark increased from 11 to 18 between 2007-08
and 2010-11 and stayed steady at 18 in 2011-12. This result suggests that councils have
sufficient service capacity remaining in their road infrastructure assets.
Of the 18 councils with long-term financial and strategic asset management plans in place,
10 councils met the asset renewal funding ratio benchmark of at least 90 per cent. This
suggests that for these councils planned expenditure on asset management is funded.
The implementation of long-term financial and strategic asset management planning across
all councils will improve the ability of councils to plan for, and manage finances and assets
more effectively, including meeting the financial and asset management benchmarks.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
8/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Planning and development
At 28, the average number of days to process planning applications was well below the
statutory requirement which is a positive result. This overall result can be broken down:
22 days for permitted applications (an improvement on 25 days in 2010-11) and 33 days
for discretionary applications (an improvement on 36 days in 2010-11).
While both of these results represent an improvement on the 2010-11 performance, it
should be noted that the number of planning applications in 2011-12 was down markedly
compared to 2010-11. Overall there were 6 604 development applications submitted in
2011-12 compared to 7 827 in 2010-11. This reduction comprises of 906 fewer permitted
applications and 317 fewer discretionary applications. No analysis has been undertaken to
determine why there were fewer development applications in 2011-12 than in 2010-11.
Fewer than two per cent of council decisions were referred to the Resource
Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal in 2010-11 – that is 124 appeals from
6 604 development applications received by councils statewide.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
9/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Analysis and findings
1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INDICATORS
There are four financial management indicators:
1. operating surplus;
2. operating surplus ratio;
3. net financial liabilities; and
4. net financial liabilities ratio.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE
To achieve and/or improve financial sustainability through meeting the requirements of
sound fiscal management.
Operating Surplus
Table 1: Description of operating surplus indicators
Description Indicator results
Operating
surplus
The difference between day-to-day
income and expenses for the period.
An operating surplus (or deficit)
arises when operating income
(excluding capital income) exceeds (or is less than) operating expenses
over the year.
Operating
surplus ratio
The percentage by which the major
controllable income source plus
operating grants varies from day to
day expenses.
A positive result indicates a surplus,
the larger the surplus the stronger the
result and therefore the stronger the
assessment of sustainability.
However, too strong a result could
disadvantage ratepayers. A negative result indicates a deficit which cannot
be sustained in the long term.
The operating surplus-related indicators focus on the relationship between revenue and
expenditure. A positive surplus suggests that sufficient revenue was raised in that year to
cover operating expenses, including expenses attributed to the depreciation of assets.
It is not necessary that councils have a positive operating surplus every year. Income and
expenses can fluctuate from year-to-year leading to periods when expenses are greater than revenue for short periods. Further attention should be given to issues associated with
a negative operating surplus (an operating deficit) if they continue for more than two to
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
10/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
three years or if the operating surplus ratio (comparison of the size of the deficit to the
level of income) becomes substantial.
The Auditor-General has recommended that councils continue to work towards
maintaining, on average, a positive operating surplus.
Summary of results
Table 2: Operating surplus over time ($)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Average -508 206 -313 689 -658 965 -194 655 -473 000 -425 988
Maximum 2 143 000 2 708 000 3 716 000 2 050 000 1 418 000 1 752 600
Minimum -6 036 000 -7 592 000 -5 981 000 -3 376 000 -3 286 000 -4 812 200
No.
councils
in surplus
11 14 14 15 13 13
Table 3: Operating surplus ratio indicator results 2011-12
Indicator Benchmark Number
meeting
benchmark
Percentage of
councils
meeting
benchmark
Average
result
Result
furthest from
benchmark
Operating
surplus ratio
Greater than 0 13 52% -1.20% -25.48%
Figure 1: Aggregated operating surplus over time
-10,000,000.00
-8,000,000.00
-6,000,000.00
-4,000,000.00
-2,000,000.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Operating surplus over time
Average
Maximum
Minimum
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
11/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Observations – operating surplus
The average operating surplus has been negative over the last five years.
Operating surplus is trending steadily but still below breakeven.
Seven councils remained in deficit for five years.
Five councils remained in surplus for five years.
Table 4: Average operating surplus ratio over time (benchmark = greater than 0)
Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Average result -1.66% -2.19% -4.83% -0.97% -1.2% -2.17% (last
year’s
average = -
2.62%)
Number of councils
meeting the
benchmark
12 14 13 14 13 13 (same
average as
last year)
Figure 2: Average operating surplus ratio over time
-6.00%
-5.00%
-4.00%
-3.00%
-2.00%
-1.00%
0.00%
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Average operating surplus ratio
(benchmark = greater than 0)
Average result
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
12/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Figure 3: Number of councils meeting the operating surplus ratio over time
Operating surplus ratio
Observations
The average result for operating surplus ratio in 2011-12 was -1.2 per cent which falls
below the benchmark of greater than zero, and is below the 2010-11 result of -0.97 per
cent.
Thirteen councils met the benchmark for operating surplus ratio in 2011-12. This is one
less council than in the previous financial year, although overall the number of councils
meeting the benchmark is trending slightly up.
The percentage of responding councils meeting the benchmark in 2011-12 was 48 per cent.
The result furthest from the benchmark was negative 25.48 per cent.
Over the past five years, the average result for operating surplus ratio is negative 2.17 per
cent which is a slight improvement from an average over the preceding four years of
negative 2.62 per cent.
Over the past five years there has been an average of 13 councils meeting the benchmark.
Five councils have met the benchmark for operating surplus ratio every year for the past
five years.
Six councils have not met the benchmark for operating surplus ratio once over the past
five years.
0
5
10
15
20
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Number of councils meeting the operating surplus
ratio benchmark
Number of councilsmeeting the benchmark
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
13/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Analysis
Councils’ performance at an aggregated level in terms of the operating surplus ratio
indicator was slightly below the benchmark in 2011-12. This is the fifth year in a row that
councils, on average, have not met the benchmark. At negative 1.2 per cent, the result was
marginally worse than the 2010-11 result of negative 0.97 per cent. However, councils’
performance over the last five years against this benchmark is improving.
The operating surplus ratio is an indicator where it is expected that there would be some
level of fluctuation, but ideally councils should achieve an average of zero or greater,
indicating an average breakeven result.
There was no pattern in the category of the five councils that have or the six councils that
have not met the benchmark over the past five years. No conclusions can be drawn
therefore regarding the likelihood of a particular category of council to perform or not for
this indicator.
As noted previously, it is not expected that councils would maintain a positive operating
surplus every year. Indeed, focusing only on positive outcomes and not planning over the
medium to long term may lead councils to raise revenue levels beyond those required for
meeting long-term asset plans and for day-to-day operations.
In this context, the current performance of council in terms of operating surplus ratio is not
of concern for the majority of councils. Those councils that have not met the operating
surplus ratio benchmark over the past five years should give attention to their forward
revenue and expenditure plans.
Refer to Appendices C and D for further detail.
Net Financial Liabilities
Table 4: Description of net financial liabilities indicators
Description Indicator results
Net financial
liabilities
Money held, invested or owed to the
entity less what is owed to others.
Net financial liabilities equals total
liabilities less financial assets.
Net financial
liabilities ratio
What is owed to others less money held, invested or owed to the entity.
Where the value is falling over time, the council’s capacity to meet its
financial obligations from operating
income is strengthening.
Net financial liabilities is an indicator of the level of debt being managed by a council. If the net financial liabilities ratio is positive, the council has no ‘net debt’, if it is negative then the
council will be managing some level of debt.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
14/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Managing debt and/or reserves is critical for the financial ‘health’ of councils. If debt levels
become too high, interest obligations will limit the capacity of the council to invest in assets
and services. Councils should also be cautious about high levels of cash or investment
reserves, particularly where asset condition, asset maintenance expenditure or capital
investment is below the levels required to meet current community expectations.
Councils should avoid becoming reliant on interest received from investments to support
recurrent expenditure. Relying on interest to support recurrent expenditure means that communities are not being rated at an appropriate level. It also deprives the community of
potential infrastructure as the invested money could be used for infrastructure development
that could generate a return.
Levels of debt and/or reserves are highly relevant to maintaining ‘intergenerational equity’.
Debt that is too high may lead to future generations paying for benefits received today.
Conversely, reserves that are too high may mean that current generations are paying for benefits that will accrue to future generations.
The Auditor-General recommends that councils should maintain a net financial liability ratio of between 0 and negative 50, suggesting that councils should plan to manage modest levels
of debt in order to build and maintain assets and deliver services.
Summary of Results
Table 6: Net financial liabilities
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Average 1 662 448 1 662 655 4 222 310 3 248413 5 833 703 3 269 160
Maximum 20 570 000 25 920 000 40 660 000 42 145 000 43 807 000 34 620 400
Minimum -18 297 000 -22 507 000 -5 403 000 -15 484 000 -18 419 000 -16 022 000
Figure 5: Net financial liabilities over time
-30,000,000
-20,000,000
-10,000,000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Net financial liabilities over time
Average
Maximum
Minimum
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
15/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Observations – net financial liabilities
On average, councils have had positive net financial liabilities over the last five years.
Eleven councils have had positive net financial liabilities over the past five years.
Three councils have had negative net financial liabilities over the past five years.
Table 7: Net financial liabilities ratio indicator results 2011-12
Indicator Benchmark Number
meeting
benchmark
Percentage of
councils
meeting
benchmark
Average
result
Result
furthest from
benchmark
Net financial
liabilities ratio
Between 0
and -50%
4 14.8% 40.69% 156.1% (there
were no
results below
the minimum of -50%)
Table 8: Average net financial liabilities ratio over time
(benchmark = between 0 and -50%)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Average result 13.89% 21.62% 31.22% 28.52% 40.69% 27.00%
Number of
councils
meeting the
benchmark
12 13 5 6 4 8
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
16/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Figure 6: Average net financial liabilities ratio over time
Figure 7: Average number of councils meeting the benchmark over time
Observations – net financial liabilities ratio
Net financial liabilities ratio
Four (or 14.8 per cent of) councils met the benchmark for net financial liabilities ratio in
2011-12.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Average net financial liabilites ratio over time (benchmark = 0 to -50 per cent)
Average result
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Number of councils meeting the net financial
liabilities ratio benchmark over time
Number of councilsmeeting the benchmark
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
17/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
The remaining 23 councils were above the benchmark range of zero to negative
50 per cent (i.e. greater than zero).
The average result for net financial liabilities ratio was 40.69 per cent which is well above
the benchmark range of zero to negative 50 per cent.
The average result for net financial liabilities ratio has been above the top of the benchmark
range (zero) and trending upwards over the last five years.
The number of councils meeting the benchmark has reduced from 13 in 2008-09 to four in
2011-12.
The result furthest from the benchmark in 2011-12 was 156.1 per cent.
Analysis
At an aggregate level, councils continued to move further from the net financial liabilities
ratio benchmark, and only four councils met the benchmark in 2011-12 (two councils fewer
than last year and the least over five years). This result is due to councils maintaining a
strong net asset (as opposed to debt) position. This suggests that councils may be holding
cash and investments beyond their day-to-day needs. At 30 June 2012, councils’ cash and
investments totalled $400.237 million – up from $330 million in 2010-11.
Large reserves are not always a cause for concern and should be considered against the
expected future obligations of councils. Councils may be building up reserves for a target
capital investment or planning in advance of a significant ‘hump’ in capital
maintenance/replacement obligations. Either of these may justify a short-term increase in
the net financial position.
It would not be ideal for councils to increase net financial ratios significantly without
considering whether the community is better served through increased asset maintenance
or decreased revenue raising. Councils should not rely on investment returns to subsidise
recurrent funding obligations.
The results from this indicator require ongoing discussion with councils. Councils are now
in a strong position to be assessing their cash and investments positions having adopted
long-term financial plans.
There may be the opportunity for councils to increase investment in infrastructure that will
benefit their communities and deliver financial returns to councils.
There may also be the opportunity for councils to make better use of debt to smooth out
the ‘humps’ in asset maintenance/replacement obligations.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
18/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Councils may also benefit from considering whether there are blockages in capital programs
that limit their capacity to maintain asset programs that are at least consistent with
estimated levels of depreciation.
There are no councils with net financial liabilities ratios that are below the benchmark range.
This indicates that there are no councils with unmanageable debt levels.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
19/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
2. ASSET MANAGEMENT INDICATORS
There are three asset management indicators:
1. asset sustainability ratio;
2. Road asset consumption ratio; and
3. asset renewal funding ratio.
ASSET MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE
To manage assets in a way that maximises asset service delivery, manages related risks and accounts for whole-of-life costs.
Table 9: Summary of asset management indicators
Asset sustainability ratio
Road asset consumption
ratio
Asset renewal funding
ratio
Description
The ratio of asset
replacement expenditure relative to depreciation
for a period. It measures
whether assets are being replaced at the rate they
are wearing out.
The average proportion
of ‘as new’ condition left in assets.
The ratio of net present
value of asset renewal funding accommodated
over a ten year period in
a long-term financial plan relative to the net
present value of the
projected capital renewal
expenditures identified in
an asset management
plan for the same period.
Indicator
description
Ratios higher than 100
per cent indicate that spending on existing
assets is greater than the
depreciation rate. This is a long-term indicator as
capital expenditure can
be deferred in the short
term if there are
insufficient funds available
from operations and
borrowing is not an option.
This indicator shows the
average proportion of new condition left in
assets.
This indicator measures
the capacity of councils to fund asset
replacement
requirements. An inability to fund future
requirements will result
in revenue, expense or
debt consequences, or a
reduction of service
levels.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
20/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Under Australian accounting standards, all assets must be assigned an expected ‘life’. The
‘life’ of an asset will depend on the conditions that it is subjected to (for example, level of
traffic) and the level of maintenance of the asset throughout its ‘life’.
Depreciation is the replacement cost of the asset spread over its life. Increased
maintenance of an asset will lower annualised depreciation costs as it will allow councils to assume that the asset will have a longer life.
The indicators for asset management focus on three factors:
is a council currently spending enough on capital renewal to cover the estimated
depreciation of its assets (asset sustainability ratio)?;
what is the current state of the assets within the municipality (road asset
consumption ratio)?; and
is the council planning to spend enough in asset renewal funding over the next
ten years to accommodate project capital replacement obligations (asset
renewal funding ratio)?
While single point-in-time analyses of asset management practices can be useful, any analysis
of the management of assets by a council must look beyond single year results. It should
have regard to trends over time and, if available, the degree to which councils are adhering
to sustainable long-term asset management plans.
All councils set their own assumptions regarding asset depreciation and revaluation in
accordance with Australian accounting standards. There is some flexibility in the standards
to accommodate local conditions and policies regarding asset maintenance. Some care, therefore, needs to be taken when comparing results across councils. Differences in the
data may arise from differences in the approach to depreciation and revaluation and may
not reflect true differences in the condition of assets or asset management practices.
Asset Sustainability Ratio
Summary of results
Table 10: Asset sustainability ratio indicator results 2011-12
(benchmark = greater than 100%)
Indicator Benchmark Number
meeting
benchmark
Percentage of
councils
meeting
benchmark
Average
result
Result furthest
from
benchmark
Asset
sustainability ratio
At least
100%
9 33.33% 92.59% 52%
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
21/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Table 11: Asset sustainability ratio over time
(benchmark = at least 100%)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Average result 79.68% 96.5% 96.19% 96.41% 92.59% 92.27% (last year’s
average =
93.13%)
Number of councils
meeting the
benchmark
7 11 12 11 9 9 (last year’s
average =
8)
Figure 8: Number of councils meeting the asset sustainability ratio benchmark over time
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Number of councils meeting the asset
sustainability ratio benchmark
Number of councilsmeeting the benchmark
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
22/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Figure 9: Average asset sustainability ratio over time
Observations – asset sustainability ratio
Nine (or 33 per cent of) councils met the benchmark for asset sustainability ratio in
2011-12.
The number of councils meeting the benchmark for asset sustainability ratio is two fewer
than last year but there remains slight trend up over the past five years in the number of
councils meeting the benchmark.
The average result against asset sustainability ratio for 2011-12 was 92.59 per cent. This is
below the benchmark of at least 100 per cent and below the 2010-11 average of 96.4 per
cent.
The average result for 2011-12 is the lowest in three years.
Analysis – asset sustainability ratio
At 92.59 per cent, the average result for asset sustainability ratio was down slightly from the
2010-11 result and below the benchmark of greater than 100 per cent. The average result
over five years was 92.27 per cent.
During 2011-12 councils had depreciation expenses of $150 021 000. With an average
asset sustainability ratio of 92.59 per cent, this means that the sector spent approximately
$138 904 000 on asset replacement. To meet the benchmark, the sector needed to spend
an additional $11 117 000 on asset replacement/renewal.
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Average asset sustainability ratio over time (benchmark = greater than 100%)
Average result
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
23/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Councils that are not meeting the asset sustainability ratio over the long term are under-
investing in their existing assets. Under-investment will lead to a backlog of assets in need
of renewal over time. Sixteen councils had an average asset sustainability ratio over the five
years of greater than 90 per cent suggesting that asset replacement expenditure was within
the margins of reasonable levels of investment.
Of some concern was that four councils had an average asset sustainability ratio over the
last five years of 60 per cent or less. This suggests that either depreciation and revaluation
processes do not reflect the true loss of value of assets or the councils are currently
underinvesting in asset replacement. Further consideration of these issues, including
assessment against long-term asset management plans is considered appropriate.
It is important to note that this indicator is unlikely to be met by councils every year, as
capital expenditure can be deferred in the short term if there are insufficient funds available
from operations and borrowing is not an option.
Some councils are in a situation where they have a positive net financial liabilities ratio,
indicating reserves, but appear to be underinvesting in asset maintenance. These councils
should ensure that, over time, available financial assets are used to adequately maintain their
capital assets.
Road Asset Consumption Ratio
Summary of results
Table 12: Road asset consumption ratio 2011-12
Indicator Benchmark Number
meeting
benchmark
Percentage of
councils
meeting
benchmark
Average
result
Result furthest
from
benchmark
Road asset
consumption
ratio
Greater than 60%
18 67% 65.57% 43.2%
Table 13: Road asset consumption ratio over time
(benchmark = greater than 60%)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Average result 59.98% 60.07% 60.74% 62.27% 65.57% 61.73%
No of councils
meeting the
benchmark
11 12 13 18 18 14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
24/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Figure 10: average result for road asset consumption ratio over time
Figure 11: Number of councils meeting the road asset consumption ratio over time
Observations
At 65.57 per cent, the average result for road asset consumption ratio met the benchmark
in 2011-12. The result also represents the highest result over the last five years.
Eighteen (or 67 per cent of) councils met the benchmark for road asset consumption ratio
in 2011-12.
56.00%
57.00%
58.00%
59.00%
60.00%
61.00%
62.00%
63.00%
64.00%
65.00%
66.00%
67.00%
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Average road asset consumption ratio over time
Average result
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
No of councils meeting the road asset
consumption ratio benchmark over time
No of councils meetingthe benchmark
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
25/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
The number of councils meeting the benchmark for road asset consumption ratio remained
the same in 2011-12 as it was in 2010-11 but over the five years is trending up.
The average result for road asset consumption ratio has met the benchmark in the last four
years to 2011-12.
Nine councils have met the benchmark in each of the last five years.
Eight councils have not met the benchmark in any of the last five years.
Analysis
Councils are generally performing well in terms of road asset consumption levels. Councils,
on average, have met the benchmark in each of the past four years. The trend in the
number of councils meeting the benchmark increased from 11 to 18 between 2007-08 and
2010-11 and stayed steady at 18 in 2011-12.
The results of this indicator suggest that councils have sufficient service capacity remaining in
their road infrastructure assets. There is no general concern regarding councils’
performance in terms of this indicator.
As noted in the analysis of the net financial liabilities ratio and the asset sustainability ratio, there are examples of councils that appear to have cash reserves beyond the levels
recommended by the Auditor-General but also have road asset consumption ratios well
below the benchmark. These councils should ensure that, over time, available financial assets are used to adequately maintain their capital assets.
Asset Renewal Funding Ratio
Summary of results
Table 14: Asset renewal funding ratio 2011-12
Indicator Benchmark Number
meeting
benchmark
Percentage of
councils
meeting
benchmark
Average
result
Result furthest
from benchmark
Asset renewal
funding ratio
At least 90% 10 37% 97.33% 56% (result
furthest below
range) 166% (result
highest above
range)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
26/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Table 15: Asset renewal funding over time
Benchmark = 90-100%
Indicator 2010-11 2011-12 Average
result
Average result 95.07% 97.33% 96.20%
No. of councils
meeting the
benchmark
11 10 10.5
No. of councils
with plans in place
13 18
Observations – asset renewal funding ratio
Eighteen councils had long-term financial and strategic asset management plans in place at
30 June 2012 which is five more than at 30 June 2011.
Of the councils with plans in place, the average result met the benchmark in both years
with a slightly higher result in 2011-12 (97.33 per cent) than in 2010-11 (95.07 per cent).
Where 11 councils met the benchmark for asset renewal funding in 2010-11 only 10 (or 37
per cent of councils) met the benchmark in 2011-12.
Analysis – asset renewal funding ratio
For those councils with long-term financial and strategic asset management plans in place,
planned expenditure on asset management was, on average, funded. Where planned asset
requirements are not fully funded, there will be revenue, expense, debt and/or service level
consequences.
Results for this indicator were collected for the first time in 2010-11. Future reports will
provide a more comprehensive summary of results against this indicator as all councils now
have in place long-term financial and strategic asset management plans, and it will be
possible to compare results over time which will give greater depth to the analysis applied
to the indicator.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
27/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Depreciation and asset revaluation
A meaningful assessment of the condition of assets and adequacy of asset replacement
expenditure relies on consistent and reasonable assumptions regarding depreciation and
asset revaluation.
There is some concern that a lack of consistency among the methods employed by councils
to depreciate and revalue their assets undermines confidence in some of the comparisons
drawn in this report.
The Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Local Government Division is currently working
with the Office of the Auditor-General and local government to improve the consistency
and transparency of asset depreciation and revaluation practices of councils. A Steering
Committee has been established to guide this project and is due to report by 30 June 2013.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
28/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
3. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVE
To develop, implement and improve planning and development practices that improve access to facilities and services, utilisation of resources, appropriate infrastructure provision
and sustainable environmental practices.
INDICATORS
Table 16: planning and development indicators
Indicator Description
Percentage of Development
Applications (DAs) completed within
statutory timeframes*
What percentage of DAs was completed within the
statutory timeframe of 42 days?
Average days to process
development applications (statutory
time as per legislation, excluding days
where clock is stopped)*
What are the:
Average number of calendar days to process
applications:
o Planning: permitted
o Planning: discretionary
o Building
Total number of all planning applications lodged
Total number of all building applications lodged
*Note that the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) is developing performance indicators for local government
performance in terms of planning and development. When these indicators have been finalised and tested consideration
will be given to aligning the indicators used in this report with the indicators developed by the TPC. It is noted that there
is some discrepancy between the data used in this report and data held by the TPC. Future data sharing will reduce the
risk of this occurring.
The indicators associated with the assessment of development applications seek to provide
information on the capacity of councils to deal with the development applications within the
timeframes required under the Land Use Planning and Approval Act 1993. The second
indicator relating to the average days to process planning applications has been included to
provide greater context to the results – for example, have timeframes been impacted by an
increase or decrease in the number of applications lodged.
Councils may wish to give further consideration to processes associated with development
applications if a significant percentage of applications were not considered within the
statutory timeframes. Councils may also wish to compare their performance against other
similar councils in terms of the average days taken to process planning and development
applications.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
29/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Table 17: Appeals to the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal
Indicator Description
Percentage of decision by Resource
Management and Planning Appeals
Tribunal (RMPAT) in favour of the
council.
How many council planning decisions were appealed
to RMPAT? How many decisions were in favour of the council?
This indicator seeks to provide some guidance on the quality of council decisions when considering discretionary applications. A significant increase in the number of successful
appeals to RMPAT may suggest that councils review their development application
assessment system and procedures.
Summary of results
Indicator Description Result
2010-11
Result
2011-12
Percentage of Development
Applications (DAs) completed
within statutory timeframes*
Percentage of DAs were completed within
the statutory timeframe NA 87%*
Average number of calendar
days to process development
applications (statutory time as
per legislation, excluding days
where clock is stopped)*
Planning - permitted
25 22
Planning - discretionary 36 33
Building NA 7**
Total number of all planning applications
lodged
7 827 6 604
Total number of all building applications
lodged
NA 7 624
Percentage of decisions by
Resource Management and
Planning Appeals Tribunal
(RMPAT) in favour of the
council.
How many council planning decisions were appealed to RMPAT?
146 124
How many decisions were in favour of the council?
18 17
Percentage of appeals in favour of
councils
12% 14%
*This result does not necessarily accurately reflect on councils’ performance. In a number of
cases there were applications that were lodged late in the financial year but not processed
within the financial year. These applications are counted as being completed outside the
statutory timeframe just because they were not completed within the financial year. This is
a quirk of the way the questions were framed in the data gathering process. The questions
have been revised to ensure more accurate results in subsequent years.
**Average for 26 councils as three councils do not collect this data.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
30/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Observations
Total development applications
The total number of planning applications received by councils in 2011-12 was 6 604
(2010-11 = 7 827).
The average number of development applications received by each council in the 2011-12
financial year was 228.
The average percentage of applications processed within the statutory timeframe was 87%.
The average number of days to process development applications was 28.
The largest number of development applications received by a single council was 739 and
the smallest was 19.
The greatest percentage of applications processed in the statutory timeframe was 100 per
cent and the lowest was 46 per cent.
Permitted planning applications
The total number of permitted applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 2001
(2010-11 = 2 907).
The average number of permitted applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 69
(2010-11 = 100).
The average number of days to process permitted applications in 2011-12 was 22
(2010-11 = 25).
The greatest number of permitted applications received by one council in 2011-12 was 194
(2010-11 = 323).
The smallest number of permitted applications received by one council in 2011-12 was 2
(2010-11 = 0).
The greatest average number of days to process permitted applications in 2011-12 was 34
(2010-11 = 43).
The smallest average number of days to process permitted application in 2011-12 was five
(2010-11 = 8).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
31/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Discretionary planning applications
The total number of discretionary applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 4603
(2010-11 = 4 920)
The average number of discretionary applications lodged to councils in 2011-12 was 159
(2010-11 = 170).
The average number of days to process discretionary applications in 2011-12 was 33
(2010-11 = 36).
The greatest number of discretionary applications received by one council in 2011-12 was
644 (2010-11 = 658).
The smallest number of discretionary applications received by one council in 2011-12 was
17 (2010-11 = 0).
The greatest average number of days to process discretionary applications in 2011-12 was
49 (2010-11 = 97).
The smallest average number of days to process discretionary application in 2011-12 was
11 (2010-11 = 15).
Appeals to RMPAT
There were 22 (five per cent) fewer appeals lodged to RMPAT in 2011-12 than in 2010-11.
Fourteen per cent of appeals were found in favour of councils’ decisions in 2011-12
compared with 12 per cent in 2010-11.
Building applications
The total number of building application received in 2011-12 was 7 346 meaning that on
average councils received 262 building applications.
The greatest number of building applications received by a council was 819 and the smallest
was 20.
The average number of days to process building applications was 7. The greatest number
of days was 20 and the smallest number of days was 1.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
32/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Analysis
No benchmarks or targets have been established for the planning and development
indicators so individual council performance can only be compared with average
performance and, where applicable, performance in the previous year. Note, however, that
councils are required to process planning and development applications within 42 days –
this requirement is considered a quasi-indicator.
In analysing the planning and development indicators, it becomes clear that the planning and
development indicators do not indicate whether councils are achieving the stated objective.
The indicators relate more to the efficiency of internal planning practices than the capacity
of councils’ to ‘improve access to facilities and services, utilisation or resources, appropriate
infrastructure provision and sustainable environmental practices’. Either the indicators or the
objective (or both) may need revising in the future.
Planning applications and assessments
At 28, the average number of days to process planning applications was well below the
statutory requirement which is a positive result. This overall result can be broken down:
22 days for permitted applications (an improvement on 25 days in 2010-11) and 33 days
for discretionary applications (an improvement on 36 days in 2010-11).
While both of these results represent an improvement on the 2010-11 performance, it
should be noted that the number of planning applications in 2011-12 was down markedly
compared to 2010-11. Overall there were 6 604 development applications submitted in
2011-12 compared to 7827 in 2010-11. This reduction comprises of 906 fewer permitted
applications and 317 fewer discretionary applications.
The reduction in the number of applications received would be partially attributable to the
introduction of Planning Directive No. 3 on 10 August 2011. Planning Directive No. 3
removed the need for a planning permit for a single dwelling in residential zones in seven
planning schemes. While there were notable reductions in the number of permitted
applications received by the seven relevant councils, there were notable reductions at other
councils as well so there were other factors also impacting the number of permitted
applications lodged in 2011-12.
While the average number of development applications received by councils is 226, there is
huge variation in the number of applications received by individual councils. The largest
number of applications received by a single council was 739 and the smallest 19.
2 569 applications were received by the five urban medium councils which represents
40 per cent of the applications received by all councils. 482 applications were received by
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
33/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
the rural agricultural small councils representing eight per cent of the applications received
by all councils.
On average, councils assessed 87 per cent of applications in the statutory timeframe. There
were 13 councils that processed 95 per cent of applications within the statutory timeframe,
and nine councils that processed under 80 per cent of applications within the statutory
timeframe.
It should be noted that this figure may not be an accurate assessment of councils’
performance due to a quirk of data collection and accounting methods. The 87 per cent
reflects applications received and approved in the financial year, and also includes
applications that may have been received in the previous financial year but approved within
the statutory timeframe in this financial year. Similarly it does not account for applications
received in the 2011-12 financial year that may not have been processed until the 2012-13
financial year even if they were processed in the statutory timeframe. The questions asked
to gather this data have been amended to resolve this issue in future reports.
Data was not collected in 2010-11 regarding the percentage of assessments that were
completed within the statutory timeframe so the results cannot be compared across years
at this stage.
Appeals to RMPAT
Fewer than two per cent of council decisions were referred to RMPAT in 2010-11 – that is
124 appeals from 6604 development applications received by councils statewide. This is
equivalent to last year’s result and suggests that planning and development applicants
generally accepted councils’ decisions regarding planning.
Of the decision referred to RMPAT, 17 (14 per cent) were found in favour of councils’
original decisions.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the majority of RMPAT decisions fall in a ‘grey’ area
where neither the council nor the appellant is an outright winner. These decisions, while
councils have not necessarily lost the appeal, are counted against councils in this report
because the permit may have been modified by RMPAT. This indicator may need revisiting
in the future, and/or other indicators may be more useful.
The data does not provide the basis for any level of concern regarding councils’
performance in terms of planning and development. More detailed analysis will be possible
in future years when trends over time are available.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
34/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Conclusions The 2011-12 Sustainability Objectives and Indicators Report has found that at an aggregated
level there is scope for councils to improve performance in terms of financial management
and asset management.
The major concern highlighted by the report is the level of cash and investments held by
councils. There is no breakdown of councils’ cash and investment levels and their allocated
use – all cash and investments may be justified. However, without that detailed knowledge
it could be concluded that there may be opportunity for councils to invest some cash and
investments in existing assets to improve performance against the asset sustainability ratio.
Debt levels among Tasmanian councils are low relative to the level of cash and investments
held. This reflects a tendency among Tasmanian councils to avoid debt which can at times
be a useful financial management tool. The Australian Centre of Excellence for Local
Government is expected to release a local government sector focussed report on when
and how best to use debt. It is anticipated that this report could prove to be highly valuable
to Tasmanian councils.
All councils now have in place long-term financial and strategic asset management plans. It is
anticipated that as councils implement and up-date their plans there will be visible
improvements in performance against the financial and asset management indicators
contained within this report.
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding councils’ performance in terms of planning
and development. It can be concluded that at 28 days, councils’ performance in terms of
average number of days to process planning applications is well below the statutory
requirement of 42 days. This is a positive result. It was surprising to see that councils, on
average, were only processing 87 per cent of development applications within the statutory
timeframe. These results appear to contradict each other but may be attributable to some
extent to data collections questions. The questions have now been revised in an effort to
gather more accurate data in future years. It will be useful to look at the results over time –
this will help to draw more meaningful conclusions.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
35/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Appendices
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
36/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS
Areas of
measurement
Objective Draft indicator Indicator questions / descriptions Data source
1. Financial
management
To achieve
and/or improve
financial
sustainability
through meeting
the
requirements of
sound fiscal
management.
Operating
surplus Description: The difference
between day-to-day income and
expenses for the period.
Comment: An operating surplus (or
deficit) arises when operating
income (excluding capital income)
exceeds (or is less than) operating
expenses for a period (usually a
year).
Calculation: Operating income
(excluding amounts received
specifically for new or upgraded
assets and physical resources
received free of charge) less
operating expenses for the reporting
period.
Consolidated Data
Collection (CDC). The
new financial
management indicators
will be added to the
2012 CDC.
Operating
surplus ratio Description: The percentage by
which the major controllable income
source plus operating grants varies
from day to day expenses.
Comment: The operating surplus
ratio is the operating surplus (or
deficit) expressed as a percentage of
general and other rates and
operating grants.
Calculation: Operating surplus (or
deficit) divided by general and other
rate income and operating grants.
CDC – see above.
Net financial
liabilities Description: What is owed to
others less money held, invested or
owed to the entity.
Comment: Net financial liabilities
equals total liabilities less financial
assets.
Calculation: Total liabilities less
financial assets (cash and cash
equivalents plus trade and other
receivables plus other financial
assets).
See above.
Net financial
liabilities ratio
Description: The significance of net
amount owed compared with the
period’s income.
Comment: Indicates the extent to
See above.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
37/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Areas of
measurement
Objective Draft indicator Indicator questions / descriptions Data source
which net financial liabilities could be
met by operating income.
Calculation: Net financial liabilities
divided by operating income.
2. Asset
management
To manage
assets in a way
that maximises
asset service
delivery,
manages related
risks and
accounts for
whole-of-life
costs.
Asset
sustainability
ratio
Description: The ratio of asset
replacement expenditure relative to
depreciation for a period. It
measures whether assets are being
replaced at the rate they are
wearing out.
Comment: Indicates whether the
entity is replacing or renewing non-
financial assets at the same rate that
its overall stock of assets is wearing
out for the period.
Calculation: Capital expenditure on
replacement / renewal of existing
plant and equipment and
infrastructure assets divided by their
annual depreciation expense.
CDC. As with the
financial management
indicators, the new
asset management
indicators will be added
to the 2012 CDC.
Asset
consumption
ratio
Description: The average
proportion of ‘as new’ condition left
in assets.
Comment: Shows the depreciated
replacement cost of an entity’s
depreciable assets relative to their
‘as new’ (replacement) value
Calculation: The depreciated
replacement cost of plant,
equipment and infrastructure assets
divided by the current replacement
cost of depreciable assets.
See above.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
38/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Areas of
measurement
Objective Draft indicator Indicator questions / descriptions Data source
Asset renewal
funding ratio
Description: The ratio of net
present value of asset renewal
funding accommodated over a ten
year period in a long-term financial
plan relative to the net present value
of the projected capital renewal
expenditures identified in an asset
management plan for the same
period.
Comment: Indicates whether the
entity has the financial capacity to
fund asset renewal as required and
therefore continue to provide
existing levels of asset-based services
in the future without additional
operating income or reductions in
operating expenses, or an increase
in net financial liabilities above that
currently projected.
Calculation: The net present value
of projected ten-year capital renewal
funding outlays in a long-term
financial plan divided by the net
present value of projected ten-year
capital renewal expenditures in an
asset management plan in current
values.
See above.
3. Planning and
development
To develop,
implement and improve
planning and
development
strategies that improve the
quality of life
for
communities
through
supplying
access to
facilities and
services,
appropriate
Percentage of
Development Applications
(DAs)
completed
within statutory
timeframe.
What percentage of DAs was
completed within the statutory
timeframe of 42 days?
CDC - Land Use and
Planning Section of
CDC SOI sheet -
Planning and
Development Data
Average days
to process
planning and
development
applications
(statutory time
as per
legislation,
exclude days
where clock
What are the:
Average number of
calendar days to
process applications:
- planning: permitted
use
- planning:
discretionary use
- building
CDC SOI sheet
(collection commences
from 1 July 2012). See
KPI section - Planning
and Development
Data.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
39/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Areas of
measurement
Objective Draft indicator Indicator questions / descriptions Data source
infrastructure
provision and
sustainable environmental
practices.
stopped). Total number of all
planning applications
lodged
Total number of all
building applications
lodged
Number of
appeals
determined in
favour of
council by the
Resource
Management
and Planning
Appeals
Tribunal
(RMPAT)
What were the number of appeals
not upheld by the Resource
Management and Planning Appeals
Tribunal?
CDC SOI sheet. See
Land Use and Planning
tab - Planning and
Development Data
4. Community
satisfaction To ensure
communities
are satisfied
with councils’
provision of
services in the
areas of: a) Planning and
development
b) Community
involvement
c) Infrastructure
d) Environment
al
management
/ waste
e) Recreation /
culture
f) Community
health and
safety
g) Overall
satisfaction
LGAT survey
a) Planning and
development
Satisfaction
with councils’
performance in
planning and
development.
On a scale of 1-5, how do
respondents rate their satisfaction
on their council’s performance in
consistent and appropriate planning
policies (see footnote 4 below)
LGAT survey, section
A1 – planning and
development, question
2.1
b) Community
involvement
Satisfaction
with councils’
performance in
community
involvement.
On a scale of 1-5, how do
respondents rate their satisfaction
on their council’s performance in
community involvement in relation
to:
informing residents about council
activities
involving residents in local decision
making
access to councillors / aldermen
LGAT survey, section
A1 – community
involvement
Question 1.1
Question 1.2
Question 1.3.
c) Infrastructure Safe and well
maintained
roads,
pedestrian
areas and local
On a scale of 1-5, how do
respondents rate their satisfaction
on their council’s performance in
providing:
safe and well maintained local
LGAT survey, section
A3 – roads, footpaths
and traffic
Question 3.1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
40/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Areas of
measurement
Objective Draft indicator Indicator questions / descriptions Data source
road networks. roads
safe and well maintained
pedestrian areas
an efficient road network
Question 3.2
Question 3.3
d) Environmental
management /
waste
Waste
management
On a scale of 1-5, how do
respondents rate their satisfaction
on their council’s performance in:
household garbage collection
recycling services – including
kerbside recycling and depots
operation of local tip and
transfer stations
maintaining a clean and tidy
city/town
providing household hazardous
waste collection services
LGAT survey, section
A4 – waste
management
Question 4.1
Question 4.2
Question 4.3
Question 4.4
Question 4.5
e) Recreation,
cultural
facilities and
programs
Provision and
management
of recreational
and cultural
facilities and
programs.
On a scale of 1-5, how do
respondents rate their satisfaction
on their council’s performance in:
sports grounds and recreation
facilities
parks and playgrounds
community centres and halls
arts and entertainment facilities
including museums and art
galleries
arts and entertainment
activities and special events
LGAT survey, section
A8 – recreation,
cultural facilities and
programs
Question 8.1
Question 8.2
Question 8.3
Question 8.4
Question 8.5
f) Community
health and
safety
Hygiene
standards of
food outlets,
restaurants and
public facilities,
council
immunisation
programs and
animal control.
On a scale of 1-5, how do
respondents rate their satisfaction
on their council’s performance in:
hygiene standards of food
outlets, restaurants and public
facilities
council immunisation programs
animal control
LGAT survey, section
A6 – community health
and safety.
Question 6.1
Question 6.2
Question 6.3
g) Overall
satisfaction
Satisfaction
with overall
performance of
council.
On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are
you with your council’s performance
overall?
LGAT survey, section
A9 – Question 9.1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
41/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX B – COUNCIL CLASSIFICATIONS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
42/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX C – OPERATING SURPLUS BY COUNCIL OVER TIME ($)
Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average No. of
consec
years in
deficit
from
2011-12
Number
of
years in
deficit
Break O'Day 1 185 000 -710 000 -1 659 000 -2 004 000 -3 224 000 -1 282 400 4 4
Brighton 1 834 000 2 599 000 1 275 000 1 419 000 789 000 1 583 200 0 0
Burnie City 123 000 487 000 -1 167 000 514 000 -1 007 000 -210 000 1 2
Central Coast -2 785 000 -901 000 -1 586 000 -513 000 568 000 -1 043 400 0 4
Central
Highlands
-1 039 000 -3 507 000 -3 668 000 -1 582 000 -1 534 000 -2 266 000 5 5
Circular Head 1 505 000 701 000 103 000 118 000 -453 000 394 800 1 1
Clarence City -737 000 2 708 000 -2 539 000 -549 000 -935 000 -410 400 3 4
Derwent Valley -200 000 -44 000 -750 000 66 000 176 000 -150 400 0 3
Devonport City -2 679 000 -166 000 3 716 000 560 000 -757 000 134 800 1 3
Dorset -340 000 1 541 000 133 000 911 000 80 000 465 000 0 1
Flinders -609 000 -767 000 -226 000 -607 000 -324 000 -506 600 5 5
George Town 1 373 000 341 000 -292 000 -651 000 386 000 231 400 0 2
Glamorgan -
Spring Bay
-718 000 774 000 574 000 384 000 433 000 289 400 0 1
Glenorchy City -5 902 000 -5 592 000 -5 981 000 -3 376 000 -3 210 000 -4 812 200 5 5
Hobart City -6 036 000 -7 592 000 -4 002 000 -2 257 000 -589 000 -4 095 200 5 5
Huon Valley 2 143 000 565 000 51 000 777 000 778 000 862 800 0 0
Kentish -993 000 127 000 44 000 -194 000 NA -254 000 2
King Island -85 000 -142 000 -306 000 -80 000 NA -153 250 4
Kingborough -1 548 000 -2 566 000 -5 079 000 -1 721 000 -3 286 000 -2 840 000 5 5
Latrobe 633 000 474 000 203 000 486 000 304 000 420 000 0 0
Launceston City 1 295 000 2 323 000 793 000 -623 000 -1 647 000 428 200 2 2
Meander Valley -235 000 -39 000 1 404 000 1 094 000 1 418 000 728 400 2 2
Northern
Midlands
-1 128 000 -945 000 -1 649 000 -755 000 -1 783 000 -1 252 000 5 5
Sorell -201 000 57 000 669 000 488 000 515 000 305 600 0 1
Southern
Midlands
-529 000 -872 000 -974 000 -909 000 -1 315 000 -919 800 5 5
Tasman 449 000 -187 000 866 000 718 000 482 000 465 600 0 1
Waratah -
Wynyard
-1 337 000 -523 000 -1 386 000 32 000 -432 000 -729 200 1 4
West Coast 267 000 1 079 000 93 000 559 000 549 000 509 400 0 0
West Tamar 1 556 000 1 680 000 2 230 000 2 050 000 1 247 000 1 752 600 0 0
Average -508 207 -313 690 -658 966 -194 655 -473 000 -425 988 1.8 2.3
Maximum 2 143 000 2 708 000 3 716 000 2 050 000 1 418 000 2 407 000 5 5
Minimum -6 036 000 -7 592 000 -5 079 000 -2 257 000 -3 286 000 -4 850 000 0 0
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
43/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX D – OPERATING SURPLUS RATIO BY COUNCIL OVER TIME
Benchmark = greater than 0
Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Break O'Day 9.90% -5.90% -16.80% -18.10% -23.50% -10.88%
Brighton 13.35% 16.28% 10.52% 12.00% 10.52% 12.53%
Burnie City 0.32% 1.24% -3.66% 1.47% -2.79% -0.68%
Central Coast -11.74% -3.33% -7.89% -2.52% 2.52% -4.59%
Central Highlands -18.03% -59.51% -65.95% -28.68% -25.48% -39.53%
Circular Head 10.61% 4.75% 0.87% 0.96% -3.53% 2.73%
Clarence City -1.27% 4.13% -5.32% -1.10% -1.82% -1.08%
Derwent Valley -3.47% -1.26% -9.64% 0.06% 1.43% -2.58%
Devonport City -7.24% -0.42% -8.71% 1.69% -2.24% -3.38%
Dorset -2.83% 11.59% 1.25% 11.59% 0.66% 4.45%
Flinders -16.85% -20.32% -5.92% -15.19% -6.79% -13.01%
George Town 12.90% 3.22% -3.46% -7.51% 4.16% 1.86%
Glamorgan - Spring Bay -7.05% 6.87% 6.53% 4.14% 4.21% 2.94%
Glenorchy City -9.41% -8.59% -12.57% -6.60% -6.01% -8.64%
Hobart City -6.23% -7.47% -4.42% -2.35% -0.59% -4.21%
Huon Valley 10.76% 2.65% 0.27% 3.85% 3.74% 4.25%
Kentish -13.33% 1.55% 0.59% -2.12% NA -3.33%
King Island -1.65% -2.60% -5.74% -1.40% NA -2.85%
Kingborough -4.42% -7.02% -18.42% -5.75% -10.65% -9.25%
Latrobe 5.63% 4.06% 2.20% 5.01% 3.09% 4.00%
Launceston City 1.39% 2.30% 1.02% -0.76% -1.92% 0.41%
Meander Valley -1.31% 0% 8.45% 6.39% 7.87% 4.24%
Northern Midlands -7.74% -6.02% -12.40% -5.35% -12.33% -8.77%
Sorell -1.44% 0.39% 4.96% 3.49% 3.46% 2.17%
Southern Midlands -6.62% -10.49% -13.61% -11.00% -14.79% -11.30%
Tasman 6.11% -3.08% 16.08% 13.72% 8.85% 8.34%
Waratah - Wynyard -8.74% -3.12% -10.81% 0.23% -2.88% -5.06%
West Coast 2.77% 9.23% 1.01% 5.39% 5.03% 4.69%
West Tamar 7.60% 7.53% 11.42% 10.35% 6.00% 8.58%
Average -1.66% -2.19% -4.83% -0.97% -1.20% -2.17%
Maximum 13.35% 16.28% 11.42% 13.72% 10.65% 12.53%
Minimum -18.03% -59.51% -65.95% -28.68% -25.48% -39.53%
No meeting benchmark 12 14 13 14 13 12
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
44/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX E – NET FINANCIAL LIABILITIES
Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Break O'Day -2 536 000 -2 895 000 -5 403 000 -4 975 000 -4 334 000 -4 028 600
Brighton -540 000 1 411 000 2 826 000 3 168 000 3 390 000 2 051 000
Burnie City -6 922 000 -9 476 000 -35 000 1 755 000 862 000 -2 763 200
Central Coast 2, 275 000 2 545 000 -1 471 000 -3 024 000 -1 964 000 -327 800
Central Highlands 4 621 000 5 632 000 6 142 000 6 589 000 7 526 000 6 102 000
Circular Head 2 711 000 4 373 000 5 826 000 5 675 000 8 671 000 5 451 200
Clarence 20 570 000 25 920 000 40 660 000 42 145 000 43 807 000 34 620 400
Derwent Valley -1 144 000 -74 000 -1 128 000 -1 080 000 -1 850 000 -1 055 200
Devonport City -4 722 000 -7 750 000 -2 620 000 -2 467 000 -558 000 -3 623 400
Dorset 8 875 000 12 429 000 11 969 000 12 924 000 14 356 000 12 110 600
Flinders 1 540 000 6 905 000 645 000 1 158 000 7 446 000 3 538 800
George Town -1 402 000 -298 000 33 000 359 000 2 036 000 145 600
Glamorgan-Spring Bay -2 474 000 -1 730 000 998 000 716 000 335 000 -431 000
Glenorchy City -18 297 000 -10 086 000 -157 000 -6 344 000 28 265 000 -1 323 800
Hobart City 2 828 000 -12 901 000 -2 063 000 -15 484 000 -18 419 000 -9 207 800
Huon Valley 3 392 000 8 884 000 4 482 000 4 706 000 4 443 000 5 181 400
Kentish -272 000 853 000 2 357 000 2 748 000 NA 1 421 500
King Island 1 330 000 2 378 000 1 824 000 2 539 000 NA 2 017 750
Kingborough 15 925 000 17 089 000 6 396 000 5 353 000 3 441 000 9 640 800
Latrobe -2 464 000 -1 486 000 990 000 2 466 000 3 719 000 645 000
Launceston City 1 228 000 -22 507 000 8 808 000 -623 000 6 090 000 -1 400 800
Meander Valley 7 916 000 12 727 000 12 920 000 13 918 000 12 992 000 12 094 600
Northern Midlands 4 656 000 2 305 000 1 462 000 341 000 7 672 000 3 287 200
Sorell -1 097 000 -20 000 3 743 000 4 374 000 5 222 000 2 444 400
Southern Midlands 4 351 000 5 052 000 6 490 000 6 418 000 6 084 000 5 679 000
Tasman -938 000 -909 000 184 000 1 055 000 2 662 000 410 800
Waratah Wynyard -22 000 -220 000 3 251 000 4 094 000 5 685 000 2 557 600
West Coast 144 000 -1 977 000 2 460 000 1 598 000 3 085 000 1 062 000
West Tamar 8 679 000 12 043 000 10 858 000 4 102 000 6 846 000 8 505 600
Average 1,662,448 1,662,655 4,222,310 3,248,413 5 833 703 3 269 160
Maximum 20 570 000 25 920 000 40 660 000 42 145 000 43 807 000 34 620 400
Minimum -18 297 000 -22 507 000 -2 620 000 -15 484 000 -18 419 000 -9 207 800
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
45/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX F – NET FINANCIAL LIABILITIES RATIO
Benchmark = 0 to -50 per cent
Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Break O'Day 21.30% 24.10% 54.70% 44.90% 31.60% 35.32%
Brighton -3.90% 8.80% 23.30% 26.80% 28.60% 16.72%
Burnie City -18.10% -24.20% -0.10% 5.00% 2.40% -7.00%
Central Coast 9.60% 9.40% -7.30% -14.90% -8.70% -2.38%
Central Highlands 80.20% 95.60% 110.40% 119.40% 123.70% 105.86%
Circular Head 19.10% 29.60% 49.40% 46.00% 67.60% 42.34%
Clarence 35.40% 39.60% 85.20% 84.70% 85.40% 66.06%
Derwent Valley -10.70% -0.70% -13.00% -11.00% -17.50% -10.58%
Devonport City -12.80% -19.70% 12.40% -7.50% -1.70% -5.86%
Dorset 73.90% 93.50% 112.50% 108.40% 117.60% 101.18%
Flinders 46.20% 183.00% 16.90% 29.00% 156.10% 86.24%
George Town -13.20% -2.80% 0.40% 4.10% 21.90% 2.08%
Glamorgan - Spring Bay -24.30% -15.40% 11.40% 7.70% 3.30% -3.46%
Glenorchy City -29.20% -15.50% -0.30% -12.40% 52.90% -0.90%
Hobart City 2.90% -12.70% -2.30% -16.10% -18.50% -9.34%
Huon Valley 25.90% 5.60% 22.50% 18.00% 21.30% 18.66%
Kentish -3.70% 10.40% 31.60% 30.00% NA 17.08%
King Island 25.80% 43.50% 34.20% 44.60% NA 37.03%
Kingborough 45.50% 46.70% 23.20% 17.90% 11.10% 28.88%
Latrobe -21.90% -12.70% 10.70% 25.40% 37.80% 7.86%
Launceston City 1.30% -22.30% 11.40% -0.80% 7.10% -0.66%
Meander Valley 44.00% 67.10% 77.80% 81.20% 72.10% 68.44%
Northern Midlands 31.90% 14.70% 11.00% 2.40% 53.10% 22.62%
Sorell -7.87% -0.14% 27.70% 31.20% 35.10% 17.20%
Southern Midlands 54.50% 60.80% 90.70% 77.70% 68.40% 70.42%
Tasman -12.80% -15.00% 3.40% 20.20% 48.90% 8.94%
Waratah - Wynyard -0.10% -1.30% 25.40% 29.00% 37.90% 18.18%
West Coast 1.50% -16.90% 26.70% 15.40% 28.30% 11.00%
West Tamar 42.40% 54.00% 55.60% 20.70% 32.90% 41.12%
Average 13.89% 21.62% 31.22% 28.52% 40.69% 27.00%
Maximum 80.20% 95.60% 110.40% 119.40% 123.70% 105.86%
Minimum -29.20% -24.20% -13.00% -16.10% -18.50% -20.20%
No meeting benchmark 12 13 5 6 4 8
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
46/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX G – ASSET SUSTAINABILITY RATIO
Benchmark = greater than 100 per cent
Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Break O'Day 127.00% 35.00% 63.00% 68.00% 65.00% 71.60%
Brighton 64.00% 86.00% 82.00% 153.00% 144.00% 105.80%
Burnie City 64.00% 129.00% 182.00% 53.00% 94.00% 104.40%
Central Coast 58.00% 96.00% 112.00% 103.00% 182.00% 110.20%
Central Highlands 28.00% 31.00% 24.00% 38.00% 53.00% 34.80%
Circular Head 116.00% 77.00% 93.00% 85.00% 63.00% 86.80%
Clarence 35.00% 68.00% 60.00% 53.00% 77.00% 58.60%
Derwent Valley 90.00% 139.00% 161.00% 145.00% 172.00% 141.40%
Devonport City 55.00% 113.00% 101.00% 108.00% 67.00% 88.80%
Dorset 74.00% 74.00% 126.00% 74.00% 89.00% 87.40%
Flinders 47.00% 73.00% 80.00% 90.00% 108.00% 79.60%
George Town 71.00% 108.00% 157.00% 91.00% 70.00% 99.40%
Glamorgan - Spring Bay 122.00% 112.00% 91.00% 114.00% 78.00% 103.40%
Glenorchy City 47.00% 47.00% 61.00% 51.00% 52.00% 51.60%
Hobart City 49.00% 97.00% 84.00% 80.00% 89.00% 79.80%
Huon Valley 174.00% 153.00% 107.00% 69.00% 116.00% 123.80%
Kentish 91.00% 120.00% 45.00% 89.00% NA 86.25%
King Island NA NA 120.00% 117.00% NA 118.50%
Kingborough 36.00% 51.00% 56.00% 64.00% 84.00% 58.20%
Latrobe 72.00% 58.00% 60.00% 86.00% 55.00% 66.20%
Launceston City 53.00% 41.00% 135.00% 164.00% 68.00% 92.20%
Meander Valley 70.00% 94.00% 99.00% 109.00% 88.00% 92.00%
Northern Midlands 106.00% 120.00% 109.00% 99.00% 128.00% 112.40%
Sorell 93.00% 83.00% 101.00% 87.00% 102.00% 93.20%
Southern Midlands 68.00% 101.00% 70.00% 133.00% 98.00% 94.00%
Tasman 171.90% 80.10% 68.40% 70.80% 64.00% 91.04%
Waratah - Wynyard 88.00% 94.00% 78.00% 76.00% 104.00% 88.00%
West Coast 61.00% 321.00% 199.00% 215.00% 113.00% 181.80%
West Tamar 100.00% 101.00% 65.00% 111.00% 77.00% 90.80%
Average 79.68% 96.50% 96.19% 96.41% 92.59% 92.27%
Maximum 174.00% 321.00% 199.00% 215.00% 182.00% 218.20%
Minimum 28.00% 31.00% 24.00% 38.00% 52.00% 34.60%
No meeting benchmark 7 11 12 11 9 9
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
47/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX H – ROAD ASSET CONSUMPTION RATIO
Benchmark = greater than 60 per cent
Council 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Break O'Day 70.30% 68.90% 67.80% 69.60% 68.00% 68.92%
Brighton 70.20% 69.20% 68.20% 67.40% 84.70% 71.94%
Burnie City 53.80% 52.80% 51.50% 50.90% 50.20% 51.84%
Central Coast 70.00% 69.00% 68.00% 81.30% 86.40% 74.94%
Central Highlands 79.40% 76.20% 72.90% 71.20% 80.10% 75.96%
Circular Head 58.90% 58.70% 58.10% 58.70% 57.80% 58.44%
Clarence City 51.80% 50.40% 51.10% 50.40% 49.20% 50.58%
Derwent Valley 53.20% 53.00% 54.80% 71.40% 72.40% 60.96%
Devonport City 46.80% 46.20% 43.50% 42.90% 43.20% 44.52%
Dorset 39.20% 37.00% 72.50% 71.20% 70.10% 58.00%
Flinders 43.70% 41.90% 40.50% 39.00% 77.80% 48.58%
George Town 73.10% 74.40% 73.40% 72.40% 72.70% 73.20%
Glamorgan - Spring Bay 68.80% 67.00% 65.50% 64.30% 63.10% 65.74%
Glenorchy City 53.20% 52.10% 51.00% 50.00% 50.60% 51.38%
Hobart City 59.70% 60.30% 63.80% 62.50% 60.80% 61.42%
Huon Valley 53.80% 53.10% 55.80% 57.90% 57.00% 55.52%
Kentish 54.00% 53.40% 52.20% 74.40% NA 58.50%
King Island 62.30% 66.80% 67.00% 66.30% NA 65.60%
Kingborough 57.10% 56.10% 55.40% 63.70% 64.30% 59.32%
Latrobe 63.00% 59.30% 58.20% 72.40% 71.30% 64.84%
Launceston City 59.10% 58.40% 57.60% 60.50% 59.60% 59.04%
Meander Valley 78.20% 77.10% 76.30% 75.50% 77.60% 76.94%
Northern Midlands 68.70% 68.40% 69.90% 69.70% 69.30% 69.20%
Sorell 51.60% 89.20% 87.60% 86.00% 84.40% 79.76%
Southern Midlands 52.70% 50.80% 48.90% 47.20% 46.00% 49.12%
Tasman 59.20% 56.80% 53.30% 32.90% 75.40% 55.52%
Waratah - Wynyard 55.40% 53.20% 52.50% 52.00% 51.10% 52.84%
West Coast 57.60% 52.40% 56.70% 57.10% 61.50% 57.06%
West Tamar) 74.70% 69.90% 67.60% 67.00% 65.90% 69.02%
Average 59.98% 60.07% 60.74% 62.27% 66.04% 61.82%
Maximum 79.40% 89.20% 87.60% 86.00% 86.40% 85.72%
Minimum 39.20% 37.00% 40.50% 32.90% 43.20% 38.56%
No meeting benchmark 11 12 13 18 18 13
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
48/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX I – ASSET RENEWAL FUNDING RATIO
Benchmark = 90 – 100 per cent
Council 2010-11 2011-12 Average
Break O'Day 100.00% NA NA
Brighton 100.00% 166.00% 133.00%
Burnie City 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Central Coast 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Central Highlands NA NA NA
Circular Head NA 139.00% NA
Clarence City NA NA NA
Derwent Valley NA NA NA
Devonport City 97.00% 96.00% 96.50%
Dorset NA 58.00% NA
Flinders NA 56.00% NA
George Town NA 100.00% NA
Glamorgan - Spring Bay NA NA NA
Glenorchy City 91.00% 78.00% 84.50%
Hobart City 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Huon Valley 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Kentish NA NA NA
King Island NA NA NA
Kingborough 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Latrobe 77.00% 106.00% 91.50%
Launceston City 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Meander Valley 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Northern Midlands NA 96.00% NA
Sorell NA NA NA
Southern Midlands NA NA NA
Tasman NA NA NA
Waratah - Wynyard NA 72.00% NA
West Coast NA NA NA
West Tamar) 71.00% 85.00% 78.00%
Average 95.07% 97.33% 96.20%
No. meeting benchmark 11 10 10
No. councils with plans in place 13 18 12
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
49/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX J – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Council Number of
development
applications
Number
assessed
in
statutory
timeframe
Percentage
assessed in
statutory
timeframe
Break O’Day 230 170 74%
Brighton 156 72 46%
Burnie City 140 113 81%
Central Coast 317 241 76%
Central Highlands 98 71 72%
Circular Head* 88 72 82%
Clarence City 490 387 79%
Derwent Valley 160 139 87%
Devonport City 221 217 98%
Dorset 94 94 100%
Flinders 44 31 70%
George Town 87 61 70%
Glamorgan-Spring Bay 238 222 93%
Glenorchy City 328 328 100%
Hobart City 739 527 71%
Huon Valley 268 256 95%
Kentish 85 84 99%
King Island 19 19 100%
Kingborough* 373 353 95%
Latrobe 151 151 100%
Launceston City 639 519 81%
Meander Valley 238 235 99%
Northern Midlands 312 312 100%
Sorell 267 255 95%
Southern Midlands 121 117 97%
Tasman 83 83 100%
Waratah-Wynyard 197 178 90%
West Coast 57 57 100%
West Tamar 364 277 76%
Total 6604 5641 NA
Average 228 195 87%
*for these councils, the number of applications approved rather than received has been
used because there was a large number of applications that were submitted in the 2010-11
financial year but considered in the 2011-12 financial year.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
50/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX K – PERMITTED APPLICATIONS
Council Number of
permitted
applications
received
2010-11
Number of
permitted
applications
received
2011-12
Average days
to process
permitted
applications
2010-11
Average days
to process
permitted
applications
2011-12
Break O’Day 119 160 43 25.8
Brighton 233 108 35 19.6
Burnie City 24 24 28 33
Central Coast 219 135 17 10.78
Central Highlands 44 40 17 13
Circular Head 16 18 30 16
Clarence City 71 52 28 29
Derwent Valley 93 89 8 5
Devonport City 53 69 27 26
Dorset 7 16 29 25
Flinders 13 3 42 30
George Town 77 50 33 33
Glamorgan-Spring Bay 127 102 36 16
Glenorchy City 58 50 30 25.3
Hobart City 105 95 25 24
Huon Valley 163 103 35 20
Kentish 51 29 28 37
King Island 0 2 0 30
Kingborough 208 54 23 19
Latrobe 200 55 32 34.5
Launceston City 119 157 30 16
Meander Valley 49 53 23 29
Northern Midlands 111 73 15 9
Sorell 137 69 21 21
Southern Midlands 71 60 19 15
Tasman 67 35 11 16
Waratah-Wynyard 103 73 19 19
West Coast 46 33 28 28
West Tamar 323 194 13 11.71
Total 2907 2001 725 NA
Average 100 69 25 22
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
51/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX L – DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS
Council Number of
discretionary
applications
2010-11
Number of
discretionary
applications
2011-12
Average days
to process
discretionary
applications
2010-11
Average days
to process
discretionary
applications
2011-12
Break O’Day 80 70 21 41
Brighton 136 48 50 23
Burnie City 110 116 35 23
Central Coast 154 182 34 11
Central Highlands 44 58 43 49
Circular Head 87 70 15 28
Clarence City 464 438 39 41
Derwent Valley 93 71 22 21
Devonport City 188 152 30 47
Dorset 69 78 36 32
Flinders 36 41 42 46
George Town 51 37 38 51
Glamorgan-Spring Bay 176 136 36 16
Glenorchy City 337 278 34 32
Hobart City 658 644 97 41
Huon Valley 186 165 23 37
Kentish 68 56 37 40
King Island 25 17 48 30
Kingborough 418 319 35 32
Latrobe 0 96 39 36
Launceston City 427 482 42 40
Meander Valley 185 185 34 19
Northern Midlands 277 239 36 35
Sorell 204 198 42 42
Southern Midlands 60 61 32 33
Tasman 51 48 35 41
Waratah-Wynyard 168 124 26 24
West Coast 28 24 28 28
West Tamar 140 170 28 23.43
Total 4920 4603 1057
Average 170 159 36 33
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
52/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX M – BUILDING APPLICATIONS
Council Number of
building
applications
Average number of days
to assess building
applications
Break O’Day 268 2
Brighton 213 7
Burnie City 213 12
Central Coast 311 4.55
Central Highlands* 79
Circular Head 151 3
Clarence City 666 2.5
Derwent Valley 111 11
Devonport City 273 3.3
Dorset 181 15
Flinders* 20
George Town 98 5
Glamorgan-Spring Bay 209 7
Glenorchy City 355 3.81
Hobart City 738 12.69
Huon Valley 278 3
Kentish 90 2
King Island 33 20
Kingborough 587 15
Latrobe 234 19.7
Launceston City 819 1
Meander Valley 307 10
Northern Midlands 266 5
Sorell 270 7
Southern Midlands* 89
Tasman 45 6
Waratah-Wynyard 242 6
West Coast 60 7
West Tamar 418 2
Total 7624 193
Average 263 7 *These councils do not collect data on the average number of days to assess building applications. This is
because the councils accept building applications at the same time as they receive all other applications. The
councils ensure that the building applications are processed within the 42 day statutory timeframe associated
with planning applications.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS REPORT
2011-12
53/54 Department of Premier and Cabinet
APPENDIX N - APPEALS
Council Number of
decisions
appealed*
to RMPAT
2010-11
Number of
decisions
appealed*
to RMPAT
2011-12
Number of
decisions found
in favour of
council 2010-11
Number of
decisions found
in favour of
council
2011-12
Break O’Day 2 4 1 0
Brighton 7 4 0 0
Burnie City 1 1 0 0
Central Coast 8 5 2 2
Central Highlands 0 3 0 0
Circular Head 0 1 0 0
Clarence City 10 10 3 1
Derwent Valley 5 0 1 0
Devonport City 6 7 0 2
Dorset 4 0 3 0
Flinders 0 0 0 0
George Town 3 7 0 0
Glamorgan-Spring Bay 2 5 0 1
Glenorchy City 9 8 0 1
Hobart City 35 20 2 1
Huon Valley 7 6 2 2
Kentish 0 1 0 1
King Island 1 0 0 0
Kingborough 18 14 3 0
Latrobe 4 2 0 0
Launceston City 9 11 1 1
Meander Valley 0 1 0 1
Northern Midlands 7 2 0 0
Sorell 4 4 0 1
Southern Midlands 1 2 0 0
Tasman 1 0 0 0
Waratah-Wynyard 1 1 0 0
West Coast 0 2 0 0
West Tamar 1 3 0 3
Total 146 124 18 17
Average 5 4.3 0.6 0.6
*only valid and completed appeals that are within the jurisdiction of RMPAT were counted.
Local Government Division
Department of Premier and Cabinet
GPO Box 123, Hobart 7001
Phone: (03) 6232 7022
Email: [email protected]
Visit: www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/lgd