MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4443 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 5 August 2014
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
Chief Executive’s Office
Office of the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4443 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 5 AUGUST 2014
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS _____________________________________________________________ i
PRESENT: ______________________________________________________________________ 1
OPENING OF MEETING: __________________________________________________________ 1
MINUTES: _____________________________________________________________________ 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: __________________________________________________________ 1
QUESTION TIME: ________________________________________________________________ 6
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: _________________________________________ 17
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE _________________________________________ 17
A PROPOSED RESUMPTION OF PRIVATE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES, LOCATED AT 1, 3 AND 5
MANNING STREET, MILTON ________________________________________________________ 26
B GRANT AND PREPAYMENT OF RENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEASES ___________________ 28
C ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND CONTRACTING PLAN 2014/15 _______________________ 29
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ___________________________________________________________ 31
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BISHOP STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT _____________________ 37
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO PROVIDE PARKING PERMIT RESTRICTIONS ON LOCAL
STREETS SURROUNDING THE STONES CORNER BUSWAY STATION _________________________ 38
C PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO IMPROVE SAFETY AT THE INTERSECTION OF LACEY ROAD
AND BEAMS ROAD, CARSELDINE ____________________________________________________ 39
D PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 50KM/H TO 30KM/H ON
MACQUARIE STREET AND VERNON TERRACE, TENERIFFE, AND INSTALL SEVERAL PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS _____________________________________________________________________ 41
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE ______________________________________________ 43
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BICENTENNIAL BIKEWAY STAGE 4 UPDATE ___________________ 44
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ___________________ 45
A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009: PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 241 TO CARRY OUT BUILDING WORK FOR CENTRE ACTIVITY AND
EDUCATION PURPOSES AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNDER SECTION 243 FOR MATERIAL CHANGE
OF USE FOR CENTRE ACTIVITY WITHIN CENTRE AND EDUCATION PURPOSES – 69 GREY STREET,
SOUTH BRISBANE – JMC INVESTMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD _____________________ 48
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE ____________________________________ 51
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CARING FOR WAR MEMORIALS ____________________________ 55
B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF MUIRFIELD CRESCENT PARK, 27 PINEHURST PLACE, OXLEY,
AS ‘WESTON PLACE PARK’ _________________________________________________________ 56
C PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF A SECTION OF FREW PARK, FREW STREET, MILTON, AS
‘WENDY TURNBULL GREEN’ ________________________________________________________ 57
D PETITION – OPPOSING ANY PROPOSAL TO RESUME HOMES IN ROGERS AND RAVEN STREETS, WEST
END, FOR NEW PUBLIC PARKLAND, AND CALLING ON COUNCIL TO DELIVER A NEW PARK AT 405
MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END ______________________________________________________ 58
E PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO RENAME THE GREEN AT FREW PARK, MILTON, AS ‘WENDY
TURNBULL GREEN’ _______________________________________________________________ 59
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE _____________________________________________________________ 59
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PINE MOUNTAIN RECYCLING FACILITY ______________________ 60
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4443 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 5 AUGUST 2014
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE _________________________________________________________ 61
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – AUSTRALIAN PERFORMING ARTS MARKET 2014 OVERVIEW _____ 65
B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RELOCATE HOME BUSINESSES OPERATING IN VENOSA
PLACE AND INCA STREET, SUNNYBANK HILLS __________________________________________ 67
C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY IN FLEET LANE AND JOLLY PLACE
PARK, SOUTH BRISBANE ___________________________________________________________ 69
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ______________________ 71
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION AND REPORT – NET BORROWINGS, CASH INVESTMENTS AND
FUNDING (JUNE 2014 QUARTER) ____________________________________________________ 75
B BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 2 MAY 2014 ___________________________ 75
C BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 30 MAY 2014 __________________________ 76
D PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF A CBD FRAME RATING CATEGORY AFFECTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN WOOLLOONGABBA AND CHANGES TO THE DEMOLITION CONTROL
POLICY _________________________________________________________________________ 77
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION - Cedar Woods Development Application A003905687:
_____________________________________________________________________________ 79
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________ 92
GENERAL BUSINESS: ____________________________________________________________ 92
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: ________________________________ 97
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: _____________________ 98
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4443 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 5 AUGUST 2014
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP
The Chairman of Council, Councillor Margaret de WIT (Pullenvale Ward) – LNP
LNP Councillors (and Wards)
Krista ADAMS (Wishart)
Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)
Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)
Vicki HOWARD (Central)
Steven HUANG (Macgregor)
Fiona KING (Marchant)
Geraldine KNAPP (The Gap)
Kim MARX (Karawatha)
Peter MATIC (Toowong)
Ian McKENZIE (Holland Park)
David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)
Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR (Parkinson) (Deputy
Chairman of Council)
Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)
Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor)
Andrew WINES (Enoggera)
Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)
ALP Councillors (and Wards)
Milton DICK (Richlands) (The Leader of the
Opposition)
Helen ABRAHAMS (The Gabba) (Deputy Leader of
the Opposition)
Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly)
Kim FLESSER (Northgate)
Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)
Victoria NEWTON (Deagon)
Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)
Independent Councillor (and Ward)
Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the
business set out in the Agenda.
MINUTES:
22/2014-15
The Minutes of the 4442 meeting of Council held on 29 July 2014, copies of which had been forwarded to each
councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded
by Councillor Kim MARX.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Mr Richard Kumar – Proposed redevelopment at 2 Latrobe Terrace and 299 to 303 Given Terrace,
Paddington
File number: 137/220/701/187
Chairman:
I would like to call on Mr Richard Kumar who will address the Chamber on the
proposed redevelopment of 2 Latrobe Terrace and 229 to 303 Given Terrace,
Paddington. Orderly, would you please show Mr Kumar in.
Mr Kumar, you may stand or sit, and you have five minutes, so please proceed.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-2Mr Richard Kumar:
Okay, thank you. Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR, Councillors, my name is
Richard Kumar. I am here to represent a community group: Preserve our
Paddington, and I am here to speak about a development at 2 Latrobe Terrace,
Paddington, which is on the corner of Given and Latrobe Terraces.
We hold the very strong view, supported by more than 90 official objections and
two petitions with a total of 1,000 signatures, give or take, that the application in
its current form should be refused because it does not comply with the City Plan
or the local plan. In particular, it is because of its excessive scale, lack of
compliance with the relevant development standards, its certainty to cause
significant detriment to Paddington's community and Queensland's historic
preservation.
The proposal is for up for seven storeys when the local plan calls for a
maximum of two storeys for a site in this area. The local plan calls for a
maximum of 9.5 metres above ground level; the height of the proposed
development ranges from 21 metres to 30 metres. So the local plan is 9.5, they're
trying to put through 21 to 30 metres above ground level. That gives you an idea
of the scale compared to the local plan.
The proposal includes the demolition of a pre-1946 dwelling within a
Demolition Control Precinct. The local plan clearly states that a building must
be structurally unsound for this to occur. The building that they want to
demolish is renovated, maintains character features and is in good condition, and
has tenants who use it every day. If that was allowed to go ahead, that would
open a floodgate of people who wanted to demolish the original architecture of
Paddington to build something else in its place. That must not go ahead.
The plot ratio proposed is 2.5 times greater than the maximum plot ratio allowed
in the local plan; site boundary setbacks of 5 metres are outside the six metre
requirement of the local plan. The proposal requires a reduction in on-street
parking of five cars in an area which experiences significant on-street parking
pressure. The visitors' car parking allows for seven in their plan, in the
developer's plan; the local plan calls for 15. So they are going to put in seven
visitors' car parks; the local plan calls for 15.
The overall design and scale and bulk of the building are not in keeping with the
hillside tin and timber character of the area. The proposed development is made
up of 45 multi-unit dwellings, short-term accommodation of 17 units, 10
commercial tenancies, a club and a two-level car park, representing a gross
overdevelopment of the site, as demonstrated by the many areas of noncompliance with the city and local plan.
Put simply, the proponents are trying to squeeze too much development into too
small a site. The relaxations for building height, plot ratio, on-site parking, side
setbacks and other matters clearly demonstrate that the proposal represents
overdevelopment of the site. Paddington is one of Queensland's best preserved
historic areas. The preservation of this architecture has been hard fought, both
from a community action perspective and from the preservation from the
elements. So people work very hard to maintain the buildings they own or live
in. They are very proud of this suburb and they are not keen to see it dismantled
through inappropriate development.
Because of this, Paddington's unique character is well demonstrated throughout
the suburb. So basically it is tin, timber on stumps. We are not saying that they
have to build a development that is tin and timber and on stumps, but something
a bit more sympathetic would go a long way to calming everybody's nerves.
The Union Co-op’s proposal disregards Paddington and Brisbane's heritage,
disregards the local and wider community's proven desire for the character of
the suburb to be retained; it will increase traffic at a major intersection that is
already struggling to cope with traffic load, and that is at the corner of Given
and Latrobe, which you may know; it is outside the local plan in all major
requirements of the local plan and shows no respect for anything except shortsighted financial gain of the developers at the expense of Paddington community
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-3and Queensland's history, which is very important to preserve, because we have
lost so much of it.
It is very important that the BCC (Brisbane City Council) rejects this
development proposal in favour of one that meets the local plan—
Chairman:
Thank you, Mr Kumar—
Mr Richard Kumar:
—and respects the community in our—
Chairman:
—your time has expired. Just take a seat and Councillor COOPER, would you
like to respond?
Response by Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development
Assessment Committee
Councillor COOPER:
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I would particularly like to thank
Mr Kumar for coming in to address Council this afternoon. Certainly your
comments are very well-considered comments, and as you pointed out, there has
been an application lodged with Council. That was lodged on 20 August 2013,
and under Brisbane City Plan 2000, which is what it is being assessed against. It
triggered the highest level of assessment as an impact-assessable application.
It is on the corner of Latrobe and Given Terrace. Some of us know that area
pretty well, at close proximity to Kookaburra Café. Many of us as students used
to certainly be great fans of that particular area, so it is an area that is well
known and very highly regarded by the community and I think all councillors
would recognise that you are putting forward your views with respect to that
application. So I understand the Union Co-op is seeking to put an application for
48 multi-unit dwellings with 17 short-term units, shop, they want an indoor sport
and recreation area, and they want two levels of basement car parks with 93
spaces proposed.
So Council has gone back to the applicant on 27 September last year, and sent an
information request that outlined a whole range of issues and sought further
information with regard to that application. In particular, we focused on things
that you yourself have touched on, with the height and scale of the proposal; in
particular, of course, the setbacks to residential properties, clarification about
what those proposed uses might be, further information about the proposed
demolition, car parking and how those spaces would be allocated, and
particularly also information about that service bay that was proposed for Given
Terrace, how that would function.
The applicant then came to Council on 26 March this year and said that the
existing plan was a plan that had been prepared a number of years ago, saying it
was over 20 years old, and they made a number of arguments as to why they
should be given further consideration. They did make some amendments to their
initial design. So Council then have again been reviewing that proposal. I
understand also the number of multi-unit dwellings was reduced from 48 to 45.
So that went out to the community for feedback from 23 April to 16 May. There
were 111 submissions received; 91 valid, and 20 in support of that proposal. So
the community certainly has been having their say about this particular
application. I believe you also lodged two submissions as part of that process. So
I thank you for that.
Unfortunately they were not deemed as valid submissions, but the feedback that
you provided was certainly taken on board by officers and was used in their
ongoing assessment of the application. There were a number of issues that still
are currently outstanding. You may be following the application through PD
Online; you may be looking at all that information that is available. There is
continued assessment of the application. Council at this point in time has
certainly not formed a view on the application. The officers are trying to look at
all of the arguments that have been put through the submission process and
review those against what the applicant is saying.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-4So that is really the point we're at right now. I note that there has been no
decision on this particular application. I've certainly had Councillor MATIC
having a chat to me about it. He is very passionate, as you would know, about
Paddington, and is really keen to make sure that all of those issues are
comprehensively addressed. So I thank him for his involvement; I thank you for
getting involved. I think you are coming to have a chat with me this week, so we
will be talking a bit more about it. But certainly your issues are issues that
Council is absolutely focused on, and we will be making sure that they are
addressed as part of the outcome of this.
So there is no decision at this point in time. Thank you so much for coming in
and talking to Council. We really are very keen to have your point of view put
forward. So thank you very much.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mr Kumar.
Mrs Margaret Davies – Proposed development at 18 Bryce Street, St Lucia
File number: 137/220/701/187
Chairman:
I would now like to call on Mrs Margaret Davies who will address the Chamber
on the proposed development at 18 Bryce Street, St Lucia. Orderly, would you
please show Mrs Davies in.
Mrs Davies, you have five minutes. You may sit or stand, and please proceed.
Mrs Margaret Davies:
Thank you. My name is Margaret Davies, and I am a member of Guyatt Park
Action Group. This group formed because its members all live in St Lucia and
were distressed to be told that a developer had submitted a development
application for an eight-storey unit block on an 801 square metre site at 18 Bryce
Street, zoned for three storeys.
We found that, if a DA did not conform to the zoning and other laws, it could be
judged by a process called Impact Assessment. We contacted and met with our
local Councillor, Julian Simmonds, and were offered support and advice. We
knew that the Council had previously decided to allow high-rise unit buildings in
the area around our beloved Guyatt Park, but the Council had promised to
rescind this decision after vehement public protests.
Councillor SIMMONDS promised us that the new draft City Plan would
preserve the present zoning of most of St Lucia as three storeys. We have seen a
copy of the draft plan and this promise was fulfilled. However, we found that the
fact that high rise blocks were being allowed, one block at a time, meant that the
draft City Plan had no teeth, because the impact-assessment process resulted in
developments that contravened the regulations.
I am here this afternoon to ask whose interests are being served by what is
happening in St Lucia.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Please have some respect for a visiting speaker. It is a difficult task, and it
makes them nervous. So please just hear them in silence.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Mrs Margaret Davies:
Guyatt Park Action Group mobilised our resources and about $8,000 and
hundreds of hours of work later had over 850 objections submitted in the short
time allowed for their objections. The Council has rejected the DA (development
application) and the developer has appealed, so we still have no final decision.
Many hours spent canvassing objections has convinced me that the residents of
Brisbane fall into three groups: there is the rare person who is motivated by the
thought that he works in St Lucia and does not want to travel far to work. Prices
for houses and units are high, and a simple answer is for more high-rise to be
built and then prices will come down. He has no interest in the character of the
suburb, and his motto is: let us have wall-to-wall high-rise. The other extreme is
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-5rare—those who don't want the suburb to change, and they're against all new
development.
In the middle are responsible residents who are the vast majority and who look at
each new DA and judge it with the twin realisations that more people are coming
into the area and need housing, but realise that the new developments must not
be destructive of the suburb.
When I bought a unit in 2013, I was told that blocks along Macquarie Street and
the river were zoned for 12 storeys, and that when these blocks are built on, it
would impact on my views, breezes, sun, et cetera. I accepted this, but was
reassured that 18 Bryce Street next door was zoned for three storeys and was
only a large house site.
Chapter 2, section 4.2.2.1 of the City Plan states that people should be able to
choose their residential location with realistic expectations for the future amenity
of the area. I do not want the proposed development of eight storeys on a threestorey block. The responsible residents who signed objections do not want it.
Our local councillor was sympathetic to our cause, but pointed out that the
Council division which judges development applications makes the decision.
This division rejected the development application, and so must not want it.
The draft City Plan has it zoned as three storeys, so presumably the Council
planners do not want eight storeys on these areas. The process of impactassessment dilutes the otherwise clearly stated guidelines of the City Plan. So my
question remains: whose interests are being served by what is happening in St
Lucia? Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mrs Davies. Councillor COOPER, would you care to respond?
Response by Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development
Assessment Committee
Councillor COOPER:
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I would like to thank Mrs Davies
for coming in to speak to Council this afternoon. Just before I make any
comments, just to say that this is an appeal, so this is a matter that is no longer
before the Council; it is a matter before the court, and nothing I say should be
considered as to express a view in relation to that matter. We are always very
careful to make sure that the court—
Public speaker interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:
Yes. I certainly appreciate that both you and I don't want to do anything in
breach of the court's requirements. So thank you very much for understanding
that, and understanding where I am coming from in my remarks.
Certainly this was an application that the Council officers did have quite a bit of
ongoing involvement with. It was refused on 20 June this year and has been
appealed to the Planning and Environment Court. I believe the appeal period has
recently concluded, on 23 July. At this point in time, Council hasn’t been
advised that there are any submitters to that matter in the court. So that is the
current advice that I have to hand.
Of course, I won't be able to say anything that would prejudice that particular
matter, but I note that this was an application that was lodged with Council on 14
August last year for nine storeys, with 15 multi-unit dwellings in Bryce Street, a
very beautiful street. Certainly I passed there on the weekend having a look, and
I certainly congratulate you for having a lovely location in our city to live in. But
it is currently zoned for LMR—so low to medium density under both the
previous City Plan 2000 and the current new City Plan 2014. That is Council's
view as to what is appropriate on that particular site.
Council identified a number of particular issues with the application, and those
were all outlined in the information request which was put to the applicant on 26
September. That was really issues relating to height, setbacks, built-to-boundary
walls, parking, engineering issues, so concerns about the height of the basement
parking, landscaping and particularly how the potential impact on neighbours
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-6would be addressed. There was a response to Council on 15 January this year,
and there were some changes made as a consequence of that response. Then
obviously it went out to public notification from 17 February to 7 March.
There were 960 submissions, with 840 of those being formal submissions with
right of appeal to the Planning and Environment Court. You, of course, being a
submitter, would know that many of those issues that Council had put in its
information request were again those issues that came through as part of that
submission process. So showing a lot of consistency about Council's view and
the view of local residents, which shows I think quite clearly that the applicant
wasn't really listening to feedback from all of the parties involved.
There was a further information request on 7 April asking further information
about the built-to-boundary issue, the design, parking, and how the response was
being dealt with in relation to the submissions that were made. Then the
applicant came back to Council on 12 May providing further details. Council
then made a decision based on that information, and felt that it could not support
the application, and therefore the application was refused. So Council has gone
through a lengthy process. I think they have been given a lot of opportunity to
address the issues, and those issues Council does not feel have been satisfactorily
addressed. So we are in total agreement with your view that you have expressed
here this afternoon.
As a result, it will go to the court, and then the court will go through that
information. So the court undertakes an independent assessment of the
application. So in terms of your comments about impact-assessable applications,
that actually allows in many ways greater scrutiny of the intricate detail of the
application, and the court will again go through a process and start from the very
beginning, review the application and then the court will form a view as to
whether it supports or refuses that application. So we have no knowledge of
what the court's decision will be, but certainly Council has paved the way for all
of those issues to be issues that are very comprehensively dealt with as part of
that process.
So thank you very much for coming in today. I appreciate your feedback, and
certainly I note that the local councillor—he again was very passionately arguing
to me that residents had serious concerns and certainly his involvement was very
influential on this particular outcome. Thank you very much for coming in.
Chairman:
Thank you, Mrs Davies.
QUESTION TIME:
Chairman:
Councillors, are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of
any of the Standing Committees? Councillor HOWARD.
Question 1
Councillor HOWARD:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. LORD MAYOR, I understand that today you
were opening a project that is very dear to my heart and one that I am very
proud to have been associated with. Can you please update this Chamber on the
fantastic upgrade of the Brunswick Street Mall and explain why projects such as
this deliver tangible benefits to the broader community?
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor HOWARD for
the question. Back in 2012, we made a commitment as an Administration to, by
2016, have in place a refurbished Brunswick Street Mall. We made that decision
at that time, in 2012, because the Administration had held a visioning process
for Fortitude Valley, and we were inspired and encouraged by the extent of
interest that there was in Fortitude Valley, its future, and a sense of unity, I
suppose, about its future and making sure that something positive happened for
it into that future.
Since that time, since that visioning process occurred, late in 2011, we have seen
some terrific things happen in Fortitude Valley. The Chamber of Commerce
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-7down there, for example, has grown from 150 members to 400 members. Today
we have some $2 billion worth of investment happening or about to commence
in Fortitude Valley itself.
So, with the amount of investment that was occurring, we believed it was
appropriate to support that investment and to bring forward the development or
upgrade of the Brunswick Street Mall. So we have invested $4 million. I firstly
want to thank the various shopkeepers and business down there for their
patience over the last several months while the refurbishment has been taking
place.
Certainly we hope that people will now go down and support that mall, the
traders, take a look at the revamped mall. It is refreshed with a number of
things—a new surface. It has overhead apparatus which provide for artwork. It
has some place designs on the ground which reflect the live music and
entertainment history of Fortitude Valley.
It is a refresh, and it is going to be celebrated firstly this weekend with some live
music entertainment and other events from 12 noon on Saturday through to 7pm,
and again on Sunday from 12 noon through to 5pm. That will be backed by the
Valley Fiesta later this month on 23rd and 24th August. That is an event which,
until last year when it was rained out, has been growing very significantly, and
we hope with this revamped mall that people will also get along to that event
and to really take the opportunity to see what is on offer and to support all that is
associated with Fortitude Valley.
So we in most part, I guess, Councillor HOWARD, expect to see growth occur
from the centre out. The Fortitude Valley situation has been one where
developments have occurred around the Valley Mall, and they are now coming
in to the centre. We are going to see, I believe, a significantly improved daytime
economy. The Valley had its heyday probably 40 or 50 years ago with three big
departmental stores down there—McWhirters, TC Beirne and Waltons—big
names, big department stores in that era. Of course, in the probably late 1970s,
we saw the decline of those particular stores into the 80s, and then of course we
saw the establishment of the Brunswick Street Mall.
But it was time for a revamp, time for a refresh, and as part of this refresh, today
I announced also that we will see free wi-fi established in the Brunswick Street
Mall as well as the Chinatown Mall, the adjoining mall, and that will be in place
by the end of October. It fits with our push for this city to be a digital friendly
city. It adds to the free wi-fi in the Queen Street Mall, Victoria Bridge, South
Bank, and the various parks and Botanic Gardens here in the city as well as
King George Square, Post Office Square, and many other venues across the city,
in our libraries and parks.
So, Madam Chairman, it is the Valley's time. Its time has come. There is a
momentum; there is an energy; there is an enthusiasm, and importantly there is
an investment creating many, many hundreds if not thousands of jobs down in
Fortitude Valley right now. So Councillor HOWARD, I thank you also for your
enthusiastic coordination of effort in Fortitude Valley. You have done a great
job in relation to bringing people together there, to get a direction set, to make it
happen, and it is I think a real model for the future, and I thank you for your
efforts.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
Question 2
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD
MAYOR, you have publicly thrown your support behind a call for people to put
their money into the Cedar Woods Properties proposed residential development
at Upper Kedron via an announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange. It
includes land currently zoned as environmental management.
Do you believe your support for this development will impact on local residents'
confidence that Council's assessment of this application will be undertaken in a
thorough and impartial manner in accordance with the current zonings and the
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-8local area plan? Accordingly, will you support an external independent
assessment of this development to allay residents' concerns?
LORD MAYOR:
I thank the Opposition Leader for the question. Can I say in relation to this
particular site that there are some existing rights that relate to that site. I am not
calling on anybody to invest in anything. I never have, and I never will. I never
will. What I have simply done is to say that this is an interstate investor; this is
an investment in our city. It is on land which has some development rights, and
the assessment process will be carried out in this place the same as every other
assessment is carried out.
I have the faith in the officers of this Council to undertake that independent
assessment, but I add this: the assessment in its finality will be through the
Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee on which
there are representatives of both parties, and also then on to this full Council
which is going to be the outcome in relation to this particular assessment. But
that will be only, of course, after the officers have done their full assessment of
the application and provided recommendations to the committee. Indeed, then,
the committee and its outcomes providing recommendations to this full Council.
The Opposition Leader may want to abrogate his responsibilities as a councillor
in this place for that duty that we have on occasions to assess these high level
applications. I am not intending to do that, and I don't think it is appropriate that
anyone ought to. So, Madam Chairman, that is the state of play. There is a
motion I think on the books later today for debate in this place around this issue.
But that is where we stand in regards to it. It will be adequately and properly
assessed by the officers of this Council.
Chairman:
Further questions; Councillor McKENZIE.
Question 3
Councillor McKENZIE:
Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the
Infrastructure Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER. I was pleased to see the
launch of a new Brisbane parking guide website recently which I understand was
developed in partnership with a number of the city's private car park operators.
What does this website offer residents and visitors to Brisbane, and how can you
update this Council on how Council is working cooperatively with other car park
operators?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Councillor McKENZIE, for the question, and a pertinent one as well,
the issue of parking in particular. As most of you would be aware, on 10 July we
announced the establishment of the Brisbane Parking Guide website. It is
www.brisbaneparkingguide.com.au. It is a website portal that is hosted by
Brisbane Marketing in the Visit Brisbane portal. It is all about providing
residents and visitors to Brisbane with information about parking.
All of us these days know that, if we want to purchase anything, any major
purchase, we shop around. It is just the way we do business these days. If we
want to buy a new washing machine, for example, the first thing we will do is do
our research. When it comes to parking, many people often get caught not
knowing where to park and not knowing how much that parking will cost. So we
are saying to the people of Brisbane and also visitors: here is a way that you can
do some research to find out the best parking options to help you save time and
money.
This is not a revolutionary concept; it is simply applying the type of principles
we would apply to any other purchase to the issue of parking. I mentioned, for
example, if you were to buy a washing machine, how you would shop around.
So I thought I'd do a little quick bit of research and find out how quickly I can
find information on washing machines.
I did a quick search, and within a matter of seconds, I got a list of 50 different
washing machines ranging from $489 up to $1529, so there's a big range there,
as you would expect, and I was able to quickly do the calculation on what's the
most effective deal I can get. But the reality is, if I had just walked into a
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
-9washing machine retailer and bought the first washing machine I saw, I could
potentially be paying $1500 instead of $400.
That's the same thing that people, when they're visiting the CBD or inner-city
areas and they drive into the first car park they see, that's the risk that they face.
If they don't shop around, if they don't do their research, they will probably pay
too much. We have all heard the stories about people being hit with very
exorbitant prices for a stay in the CBD. As I said, what we're saying to people is:
here's a tool to allow you to shop around, to find the best deal and save you
money.
As part of this website portal launch, we also announced for the first time I am
aware of, some discounts at the Council car parking stations. If anyone knows
better, I am happy to hear it, but as far as I'm aware, this is the first time Council
has actually offered discounts on King George Square and Wickham Terrace car
park. I don't know why that is, but I guess no one has ever asked the question. So
I asked the question. I asked the officers why is it that we can't offer these
special discounts, and they said, well, we can. So we did.
So, $5 parking in the evenings, after 4.30pm. If you enter after 4.30pm, the most
you will pay for the rest of the evening is $5. The same on the weekends. If you
visit the city on the weekends, the most you will pay for the full day is $5. I am
pleased to say the results vary per day, up and down, but when you have a look
at King George Square Car Park, for example, and this is afternoon parking,
after 4.30pm, on the week before the special offer was announced, the most cars
we got in in the afternoon after 4.30pm was 128 on one particular day. So that is
the number of vehicles coming into the car park after 4.30.
Once we announced this deal, on Thursday 17 July, the following week, 256 cars
came in after 4.30pm, and the following week, 224 cars came in on a particular
day, and the week after, 222 cars. So we have seen on particular days quite a
significant increase in the number of people visiting the CBD, and that means an
increase in the number of people shopping in local businesses, going to local
restaurants and cafes, and helping enlivening our CBD area. That is what it's all
about.
In those off-peak times, we want to encourage people to come into the CBD,
enjoy the advantages of our great inner city areas, cafes and restaurants, and the
world-class retail facilities. So I think it has been a great thing to try, and
certainly the initial signs of this special offer is that people are really taking this
offer up. They are really enjoying the opportunity to come in and to park for a
fixed rate. They won't have any nasty surprises when they get back to their car.
Council is not the only provider offering special deals. We know that Secure
Parking, Wilson Parking and the Myer Centre also have very cheap deals.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired, thank you. Councillor DICK.
Question 4
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Your wellrespected former Divisional Manager of Brisbane Transport has confirmed that
$20 million was cut from funding to public transport; that is $4 million more
than you previously announced. What is being cut behind closed doors and why
are you keeping this a secret?
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, this is just bizarre. Everybody knows what buses are
running. We have timetables out there, and we have discussed ad nauseam in
this place, with a full public consultation process, the changes to bus services.
We allowed people an opportunity to put forward their views in relation to
proposed changes. We made amendments accordingly, and we then delivered a
bus review. That has been in place now for some time.
As I indicated, in spite of changes which the Leader of the Opposition squeaked
and squawked about in his own area, we saw an improvement in the patronage
levels as a result of those changes in his area.
Councillor interjecting.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 10 LORD MAYOR:
Well, it is true—in his area, I have said, Councillor FLESSER, if you are
listening closely. The reality is that we have made savings.
You weren't here last week, Councillor DICK, but I did make it very clear also
that the State Government have indicated that there is a two and a half per cent
limit to fare increases each year for the next three years. Of course, that would be
in stark contrast to the 15 per cent increases that were being undertaken in fares
by the former Labor State government. So, Madam Chairman, if we are going to
see improvement to the structure of fares, then you also have to make sure that
you don't allow costs to go out of control. So we have been diligent in our
means.
But I offer you this, Councillor DICK: when the Labor Administration was in
Office, I think it bought 60 buses in five years. The number of bus routes—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR; yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, as I understood the question, it was what was the additional
$4 million between what Council announced as the cut of $16 million, and the
$20 million cut that was flagged by the Divisional Manager. I appreciate that the
LORD MAYOR is speaking about a lot of other issues, but he has not addressed
the question, and I am interested in why or what that $4 million cut was. So
could you please ask him to address the question rather than talk about generally
bus issues?
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, we brought a budget down in the middle of June. There was a
two-hour, in fact three-hour information session that was held for Public and
Active Transport in that particular part of the budget. The Opposition had loads
of opportunity to ask any question they wanted about the budget. Are they now
saying—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order—just a moment, LORD MAYOR; yes, Councillor JOHNSTON—
point of order.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, that too, Councillor DICK. Madam Chairman, the Rules of Procedure are
clear; you are not allowed to debate the nature of the question. The LORD
MAYOR is under an obligation to answer the question. That question was about
what makes up the $4 million difference between the Council announced $16
million and the $20 million that was referred to by the Divisional Manager.
Could you please draw him back to answering the question?
Chairman:
I think he was getting there, Councillor JOHNSTON, if you'd given him half a
chance. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
This is the very point, Madam Chairman. I am referring them to the budget. The
numbers that the Divisional Manager refers to are all contained in the budget.
You know, the Opposition have got to learn one thing: if ever they want to be
back over here, they've got to start to do some homework from over there. Stop
flitting around the nation doing reviews into Federal election campaigns and start
to focus your efforts on where they need to be, where they are paid to be, which
is right here in the Brisbane City Council. That is what they've got to do.
They had plenty of time to ask the appropriate questions.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
I invite them now to go back and delve into the budget books—
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
—delve into the budget books and have a look. I have been there, done the hard
yards there, and it is very character building, and it is very worthwhile, and it is
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 11 very helpful if you spend the time profitably over there to find a means of getting
back over here. So lots of luck, and go to it; you've had plenty of opportunities—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
I am not going to do the Opposition's homework for them, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Order! Order!
LORD MAYOR:
No, they want to be—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
They want to be spoon-fed every week, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
All they rely on—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON!
LORD MAYOR:
All they rely on is statements from other people. They never come up with new
material or a bit of research of their own. I invite them, if they want the answer
to their question—
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
—refer to the budget book.
Chairman:
Further questions; Councillor HUANG.
Councillor HUANG:
Thank you, Madam Chair—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HUANG:
—my question is to the Chairman of the—
Chairman:
Just a moment, Councillor HUANG. When the Chamber is quiet—
Councillor HUANG:
My question is to the—
Chairman:
Just a moment. Okay. Thank you, Councillor HUANG.
Question 5
Councillor HUANG:
My question is to the Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee,
Councillor MATIC. I understand that the Bulimba Ferry Terminal upgrade is
scheduled to commence today. Can you please update the Chamber on this
upgrade to Brisbane's fifth busiest ferry terminal, and detail how Council will be
proactively managing the 8,000 passengers who use this ferry each week,
ensuring that they can get to their destinations during construction?
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor HUANG for the question
and the opportunity to discuss this project and advise the Chamber that, yes
indeed, work has now formally begun on the Bulimba Ferry Terminal, starting
today. The terminal was closed today for the work to begin, and there has been a
number of important steps that have been taking place to get to this point and an
awful lot of planning moving forwards.
This terminal, of course, is being upgraded to become more flood resilient and
accessible. There is an $8.1 million project dedicated to this, and it will improve
the local network efficiency through the installation of a new dual-berth
pontoon, upgrading the access for persons with mobility impairment, additional
seating, improved flood resilience and a drop off and go location as well.
This upgrade will greatly enhance the current structure, providing a number of
important initiatives that we haven't seen across our terminals before in the areas
of improved accessibility for persons with a mobility impairment. The new
gangway which we are introducing, is the first of its kind in its design. Because
of the tidal nature of the river, it is incredibly challenging to meet the necessary
gradient requirement for people with a mobility issue, so we have undertaken
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 12 some innovative engineering solutions in order to provide that solution. I am
proud to say that once again Brisbane City Council is leading the way in respect
of this kind of innovation. I really want to acknowledge the LORD MAYOR for
his passionate commitment to access and inclusion, and providing the necessary
funding and the support for us to go forward and do that.
By being able to provide a gangway that rises with the tide and falls accordingly,
we will be able to provide 24/7 gradient approval for residents and users of the
service during its working hours. As Brisbane's busiest suburban ferry terminal,
servicing the fifth largest group of passenger movements across our city, being
able to deal with providing alternative transport has fundamentally been one of
the most important things about this project. So there are a number of initiatives
that we have taken in conjunction with Brisbane Transport to meet the needs of
those residents.
The new 237 ferry replacement service will be providing 30-minute frequency to
and from Bulimba to Hawthorne. It will also have a service to be able to shuttle
people backwards and forwards so that we can get people to and from where
they need to as quickly and as easily as possible.
One of the biggest challenges that we face, when you are servicing that many
people, is to come up with a strategy that will meet all the needs. I understand
completely that, as best as we plan for these things, there may be things that
come up in the course of the construction works where residents say to us we
need to tweak the service. I think it is important that we do that, and I certainly
encourage feedback from residents and from and through the local councillor,
Councillor SUTTON, in regards to this process. I think fundamentally one of the
keys to our success in being able to build this terminal is also to assist and
address the needs of residents on a day-to-day basis until the terminal is
eventually built next year.
So, Madam Chairman, making sure that the closure of this is done in a
constructive fashion has been one of the key aspects of it. One of the big issues,
too, is the frequency of services across from Hawthorne to Teneriffe, so that we
can provide that connection across to those residents who still use the CityGlider
service, so there are frequency improvements within that Hawthorne service as
well. So this connected approach between being able to get people from the
terminal by bus down to Hawthorne and then from Hawthorne, they can catch
the service across, or alternatively they just may continue on the bus in the
ordinary course to get to the CBD. By having these options there, we want to
make sure that we cover all bases.
I certainly want to acknowledge also the work of the officers and the project
planners in this. It has been a long process. I think the Chamber is fully aware of
its history, but we are now moving forwards in a productive way to deliver an
important local resource to all residents, and I certainly look forward to its
delivery in late 2014, weather permitting, with something that will be
outstanding and of a great asset to the local community.
Chairman:
Thank you. Further questions; Councillor DICK.
Question 6
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. You have now
confirmed for the first time that the actual amount of cuts to public transport is
$20 million for public transport services in our city. Will you guarantee any of
your future so-called efficiency measures won't result in a future reduction in bus
services and even further reduction of public transport patronage across the city?
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, there are occasions when an Administration undertakes a bus
review. This is not something that is peculiar to this Administration; it has been
the case for the almost 30 years that I have been a member of this Chamber. It is
the case that there are times when you have to look at the number of passengers
that are catching buses. If the numbers of people catching those buses is fewer
than five, then I think we have a responsibility as the custodians of ratepayers'
money, to have a look at those services.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 13 What the Labor Party is proposing here is that somehow what you should do is
you just keep buses running regardless of whether anyone is catching them. It's a
little bit like that Yes Minister episode.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
Of course we have hospitals, but no, no, Minister, we don't have any patients. It
is, of course, a gross waste of public funds to do so. We have to always
remember that we are the custodians of the public purse.
I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the fare regime of increasing fares by
15 per cent a year that the Opposition went along with when their State
government was undertaking those acts, if that had continued, we would have
nobody left on the buses. They would all be in their cars. They would all be in
their cars, because it would simply not be an economic equation to catch public
transport under those continued scenarios.
So, Madam Chairman, we are on a trail to pull back increases in fares in public
transport. I congratulate the State for doing that. As part of that, you can't just,
on the one hand, have a constraint put on increases in revenue via fares and at
the same time have unimpeded increases in expenditure. Somebody at the end of
the day has to pay for that. It is ratepayers and it is taxpayers. Often that means
two of the same. We are talking people in general.
So it is about a responsible outcome; it is about having a good public transport
system. I stand on the record knowing that the history is that, between 1991 and
2004, during the Labor years, patronage only increased by 4 million, from 44
million passengers to 48 million passengers, 9 per cent growth at a time when
the population increased by 20 per cent. By contrast, this Administration in the
last decade has improved patronage from 48 million to 80 million passengers a
year on bus services. That has been because we have invested.
We have invested in making the bus fleet air conditioned. That was the first act.
Only one in three buses had air conditioning, you will recall. We had a need to
create a far better and far more modern bus fleet. There are so many aspects to
this, but we will do the responsible thing; that is the one thing I assure the Leader
of the Opposition.
Chairman:
Further questions—
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Question 7
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Given you received $300
million for the Legacy Way toll tunnel from the Federal Government 12 months
early, will you now do as you promised and use this money to fast track the
Wynnum Road upgrade this financial year?
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I thank the councillor for her question, but the answer to that
is no. We knew the money was coming this financial year. The fact that we have
received that money a year earlier than predicted doesn’t change the revenues
that we have in terms of the forward expenditures. We have budgeted in terms of
the forward expenditures in relation to Wynnum Road. I don't know whether
you're suggesting we've somehow now got $300 million more than what we
thought we were going to have, because we don't. We've just got it—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, we have it early.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON!
LORD MAYOR:
We’ve got it early.
Councillor interjecting.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 14 Chairman:
Just a moment, LORD MAYOR. Councillor SUTTON, I just called your name
because you were interjecting, and you just totally ignored me. Now, you asked
a question; remain quiet while the answer is given. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks, Madam Chairman. That money is accounted for. We knew it was
coming, and it was accounted for when we developed the forwards when the
budget was brought down in June this year. Nothing has changed in relation to
that.
It is a silly question in many ways. I can understand, as a local councillor,
someone who doesn't have a citywide perspective, I can understand why you
asked that question. I'd be asking it too as a local councillor, so I am not denying
you that. But, Madam Chairman, it is nonsense to say that simply because we've
got money 12 months earlier than we otherwise would that we have somehow
then got flushed with funds. It has already been accounted for. We knew it was
coming. The commitment was there from the Federal Government, so the only
benefit has been that we get interest on that money by getting it earlier.
As I indicated to the media on the day when I announced the Carbon Tax refund
to the ratepayers of this city, those interest funds will be in part of what will
make up the return of those moneys from that particular carbon tax. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further questions; Councillor WYNDHAM.
Question 8
Councillor WYNDHAM:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to Councillor McLACHLAN. Last
week Council resolved to amend the name of Waste Services Branch to Waste
and Resource Recovery. What is the rationale behind this change, and is there
any evidence of any increasing commitment by Brisbane households and
businesses to recycling?
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to Councillor WYNDHAM for the
question. The change in the name from Waste Services to Waste and Resource
Recovery Services is another important step in the journey we have been on now
for the past several years to Towards Zero Waste. Towards Zero Waste is the
policy adopted by this Council in 2009, so about five years ago.
The focus of the strategy of Towards Zero Waste is on introducing measures that
result in decreasing what ends up in landfill and increasing, instead, the amount
of material that is reused, recycled or recovered. The simple title of Waste
Services reflects the pre-recycling era and an out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude
to disposal. A simple journey from household to rubbish bin to dump.
By including Resource Recovery in the name of the branch, this is a further clear
signal that is provided and makes it clear to our residents, businesses and visitors
that they need to think about and act on the proper disposal of everything they
touch that is no longer needed. Can the item be reused, and if so, by whom, and
how to get it to them, or can it be recycled or broken down into its component
parts that allows for resource recovery? The last resort is disposal to the wheelie
bin of that material; that's what ends up in the landfill.
Over the past few years, under the umbrella of the Towards Zero Waste strategy,
measures have been introduced such as the provision of larger recycling bins,
recycling for multi-unit dwellings, public place recycling bins, Tip Shops north
and south, the fortnightly green waste service, and the modification of our waste
transfer stations to resource recovery centres. Willawong is the completed
model, with work under way for the transformation of Chandler, Nudgee and
Ferny Grove transfer stations.
In addition to these physical elements, we have made sure that householders
have access to information about the dos and don'ts of recycling, like the
information that is on the Council website, and in our Brisbane's Best Recycling
booklet, which everyone should have a copy of, and please feel free to contact
me for more if you need them. Since the Towards Zero Waste strategy was
adopted and the introduction of the measures mentioned above, the trends have
been good. This has been assisted by the introduction of trucks, specially and
specifically for general waste, for recycling and for green waste under the
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 15 contract that commenced in 2010. There has been a steady decline in the amount
of waste sent to landfill on a per capita basis since 2009. We have seen a decline
from a high of 2008-09 of 361 kilograms per person disposed to landfill down to
307 kilograms per person disposed in 2013-14.
Alongside decreased waste to landfill has been increased rates for materials
diverted into beneficial reuse. Tip Shops now account for around 300 tonnes per
annum of material that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill. Green waste
is at the 75,000 tonne mark, and what goes into the yellow tops accounts for
around 100,000 tonnes per annum across the city, between 150 and 160
kilograms per person per year.
The diversion of e-waste and no longer needed mobile phones has also been
enthusiastically embraced by our Brisbane residents. e-waste tonnages collected
for the year got close to the 1,500 tonne mark, and e-waste is now collected, as
everyone will be aware, every day at our transfer stations under the auspices of
the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. This takes out metals,
plastics, glass and wiring, to name a few of the materials in an old TV or
computer that can be reused after recovery.
One of the recognised recycling achievements for 2013-14 was the collection of
old mobile phones. Brisbane's contribution to this cause was recognised in a
National award for the Mobile Muster at the Australian Local Government
National General Assembly in Canberra in June. The top collector award was
awarded to Brisbane Council for the number of phones collected during the last
muster for recycling. The 215 kilograms of phones collected in Brisbane was a
50 per cent increase in the amount collected the previous year.
But, Madam Chairman, we are not in this business of recycling to win awards; it
is to provide a clean and green environment for the residents of Brisbane. That is
why we will continue to get the message across about the dos and don'ts of
recycling, and that includes with advertising a new campaign due to commence
soon, and that will be in different languages to make sure the message does well
and truly get out. The no-nos include plastic bags and potential recyclables tied
up in plastic bags—one of my pet hates—green waste and green grass clippings,
disposable nappies and clothes all find their way into those yellow top bins, and
that's what the campaign will be focused on.
I would just like to finish by thanking Spencer Howson and his team for their
interest in this this morning, and for their promotion of our Brisbane's Best
Recycling Guide for Households this morning.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 9
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. For
over a year, the Queensland Country Women's Association have been attempting
to renegotiate their lease with Brisbane City Council, and they have not been
able to. I am particularly concerned about the Annerley Yeronga Country
Women's Association. They have existed on their site in Yeronga Memorial Park
for almost 90 years, and they have been without a lease for the first time in all of
that period. They are concerned, as are all the other women of the Queensland
Country Women's Association, that this Council has not issued a new lease to
the organisation.
LORD MAYOR, what is the problem, and will you agree today to personally
intervene and resolve this matter so a lease can be issued to these hard-working,
dedicated community volunteers?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor JOHNSTON for
the question. I am not aware of the situation in relation to the Queensland
Country Women's Association—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 16 LORD MAYOR:
—at Yeronga Memorial Park. That said, I am very happy to have a look into it. I
don't know what the reason is as to why they haven’t got a lease. Happy to have
a look into it, Madam Chairman, and come back with a response to this
Chamber.
Chairman:
Further questions; Councillor KING.
Question 10
Councillor KING:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the Chairman of Environment,
Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Could you please
outline Council's approach to making Brisbane an environmentally sustainable
city?
Councillor BOURKE:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I would really like to thank
Councillor KING for the question, because this question, I guess, flows on from
the question that was just asked to Councillor McLACHLAN when we are
talking about what this Administration is doing to make Brisbane a more
sustainable city. So, Councillor KING, there's a number of things that this
Administration has got on the table when it comes to projects to make obviously
Brisbane a more sustainable city.
On top of our green power purchase, as the largest purchaser of green power in
Australia, something that was done before there was a carbon tax, Councillor
KING, something that this Administration took great pride in doing, in leading
the way—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS!
Councillor BOURKE:
—Madam Chairman, through you to Councillor KING, in terms of
implementing, as well as fully offsetting our carbon emissions. They are two of
the things that we have been doing for quite a while when it comes to being a
sustainable Council.
On top of that, though, there are new projects and new programs that we have
been rolling out. At the 2012 election, the LORD MAYOR announced the $2
million creek filtration trial. We have been rolling out the creek filtration trial in
Norman, Kedron Brook, Oxley and Toowong Creeks. We are trialling different
types of filtration devices to trap sediment, chemical pollutants and other
pollutants into our waterways in our creeks, sometimes in the top of catchments
to obviously help stop those pollutants entering into the river and obviously
getting down into the bay.
So there is work that we are doing there, and that builds upon all of the work that
we do with our creek catchments as well as our Habitat Brisbane program, as
well as many other programs right across the city. One of the key things that we
are doing is our Stormwater Harvesting project. This involves sites in CB Mott
Park, Ekibin Park, Whites Hill Reserve, Sexton Street Park, Norman Park Sports
Complex, Downey Street Park in Councillor HOWARD's ward, as well as
Langlands Park.
The aim of this project is to use the existing waterways or some of the existing
infrastructure and facilities that are located at these particular locations to
obviously capture, store and then re-use stormwater and the rainwater that might
be in those particular areas. There are multiple benefits to this. In capturing and
storing that water, obviously we are able to filter it and then we are able to re-use
and provide that water back to sporting groups and other stakeholders across
those particular locations.
It was really interesting last week in the absence of Councillor DICK when we
saw the real policy positions of the Australian Labor Party exposed. Councillor
ABRAHAMS stood up in this place and decried this project. Apart from voting
against it in the Contracts and Tendering Report, when they have also voted
against the Shorncliffe Pier as well—Councillor McLACHLAN, you are
nodding—when they voted against the Shorncliffe Pier, they also voted against
our Stormwater Harvesting project.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 17 But Councillor ABRAHAMS went on to say that there was no consultation
carried out, that any day of the week she would trust the lessees over Council in
anything that we say. But I would say that Councillor ABRAHAMS has been a
little bit reckless with the truth once again when it comes to this project, fast and
reckless with the truth, because there has been detailed consultation. We have
been working since August last year with all of the groups involved with this
particular project.
There was initial stakeholder consultation letters that were sent out as well as
stakeholder engagement sessions in July and August last year, and in particular
the Langlands Park on 1 August 2013. There was a follow-up letter in February
this year, as well as construction notifications provided in July this year.
So through you, Madam Chairman, to Councillor ABRAHAMS, I would suggest
that before you go out there trying to run scare campaigns in your community on
good, sustainable projects that are delivering benefits to sporting groups, helping
to reduce their running costs, which obviously then takes pressure off the fees
and charges that those groups would be charging the mums and dads, I suggest,
Councillor ABRAHAMS, you do a little bit of homework. You go and actually
do some research and ask the questions, rather than running scare campaign after
scare campaign after scare campaign in your community.
Whereas we on this side of the Chamber will get on with the job of actually
delivering projects that have impacts on the day-to-day lives of residents across
the city, that provide better facilities, better outcomes, better infrastructure for
the people of Brisbane on a daily basis, so they can get around and do their job,
live their lives and have the best when it comes to parks, sports and recreation
services across the city.
It is great to see that the projects are starting, particularly the one down at
Langlands Park. I look forward to actually going to the Downey Park one
because that is going to be something quite unique.
Chairman:
Councillor BOURKE, your time has expired, thank you. Councillors, that ends
Question Time.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 28 July 2014, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to acknowledge that today was
the first day from 100 years ago when the Allied Forces entered into the First
World War. It is, of course, a significant day, and we lead up to the
commemoration of the landing at Gallipoli on 14 April next year. So, Madam
Chairman, in conjunction with that, over the course of the last week, we have
seen the Anzac Square Eternal Flame relocated from its normal place down to
the square itself, a temporary measure while we carry out a refurbishment
program to the Shrine and to the offices under that Shrine. That will be an
ongoing project jointly between the State Government and this Council, with the
State undertaking the major funding share.
On 30 July, since our last Council meeting, we have seen the United Nations
International Day of Friendship. This International Day of Friendship was
proclaimed in 2011 by the United Nations General Assembly with the idea that
friendship between peoples, countries, cultures and individuals can inspire
peace, efforts and build bridges between communities.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 18 We have seen the Children's Medical Research institute Jeans for Genes Day
held on 1 August. Jeans for Genes is a major fundraising event for children's
medical research for the institute that undertakes that research. Of course, it is a
mission to reduce the number of children born with genetic illnesses.
We have, of course, this coming Friday, the commencement of the Ekka, a day
later this year for the very first time, and will run a day later, taking in the
Sunday, the two full weekends. Last Saturday night, I had the privilege to attend
the Ronald McDonald House Charity event held at the showgrounds. It was a
terrific event, and the Ronald McDonald House Charity have ambitious plans to
construct a $40 million facility for people when they have to come to the city
when their children are in need of hospitalisation and to provide some assistance
to families to be with their children during those times. So it is a great cause, and
I congratulate them on their ongoing efforts.
Finally, I just wanted to make mention of the City Hall organ. It was the last
remaining long-standing piece that needed to be fixed in this place, some 4,300plus individual pipes that needed to be tuned, and of course that all had to be
done around events that are taking place in this particular City Hall. So it is now
up and operating, and there will be a formal opportunity for people to hear that
organ in the not too distant future.
Madam Chairman, we've got three items before us today. The first item is
resumption of lands at numbers 1, 3 and 5 Manning Street at Milton. This is a
combined total of 1,215 square metres of land. It is in tune with the Milton
Station Neighbourhood Plan which was developed in 2011. That plan area
provides for development of between four and 30-storey buildings in that
precinct. Part of the plan said that there was a need to develop a piece of land for
an urban common. So these three blocks have been identified as appropriate for
that purpose. There were no objections received in response to these resumption
notices.
Item B is the granting and pre-payment of rent for telecommunications leases. In
2009, the Establishment and Coordination Committee at that time approved the
granting of 21 additional telecommunications leases to Crown Castle Australia
Pty Ltd in respect of each of their existing leased sites for various periods of
tenure. In other words, they finished at a whole range of different times.
To enable all of the 29 leases at that time, what we did was we granted a single
date in terms of the closure of those leases on 30 June 2025. In January 2014,
Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd approached Council with an unsolicited offer
seeking an extension to the term of all of its telecommunications leases in
consideration of a lump sum payment. There has been negotiations around that
lump sum payment, and today Cabinet comes to the Council with the final offer
that is provided by Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd for $12.2 million.
There are a number of reasons in relation to why we believe it is prudent to
accept that offer, the first of those being that the telecommunications industry
conditions are changing constantly. We have seen the rapid growth in
telecommunications. We don't know one day to the next what turn it might take.
What this payment will do, by way of an upfront payment in regards to these
leases, is that it will take away any risk associated with those future changes. It is
an upfront payment which has no ability to claw back any early termination that
might otherwise be the case in relation to those leases. So, Madam Chairman that
is presented for Council's consideration today. We believe it is a good offer.
Item C is the Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan. People might
recall that, year-after-year, the Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan needed
to be debated in advance of the budget. I have argued this for years; it was
always nonsense. This Chamber, I dread to think, how many hours over the last
several years we have spent debating the Annual Procurement Policy and
Contracting Plan, and it was always before the budget, and until you know what
is contained in the budget, it is just nonsense. So last year, of course, we went to
a situation where we undertook the procurement plan before the budget and then
legislative change occurred to the regulations at least to the City of Brisbane Act
and Regulations, and that allowed us to bring it in after the budget.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 19 So this year for the very first time we have that Annual Procurement Policy and
Contracting Plan alone coming in after the budget as a one-off. This will be the
case every year from hereon. Schedule C is probably the most pertinent part of
the document. There are other parts which set out the philosophy and so forth,
but schedule C outlines item-by-item whether it is bridge and culvert
construction, whether it's issues around local drainage construction, whatever it
might be, the various estimates that we will be going out to tender, out to the
market.
It sets out a procurement strategy in relation to each of those areas, how we
might deal with it, whether it is by public tender, whether it is by obtaining
quotes under existing procurement arrangements. It is a much more meaningful
document, and I think one which better serves this Chamber in terms of open
information being available.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak on all three items.
Seriatim - Clause C
Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause C, ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND
CONTRACTING PLAN 2014/15, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Item A is, as the LORD MAYOR indicated, is the
resumption of private land for park purposes located at Manning Street, Milton.
Labor councillors will be supporting this item today. The Milton Station
Neighbourhood Plan, as councillors know, was approved in 2011, and there was
an identification in the Neighbourhood Plan for the need for an urban common in
this location. So we are today dealing with an urban common, and the definition
of an urban common is a park type that provides space for a range of recreational
and social activities in a medium-density urban setting.
Under the City Plan 2014, this land is zoned OS2—open space district—and we
certainly do believe in providing open space where we will see this high density
living in the precinct. We understand that it is possible to build up to 30 storeys,
so obviously that's going to see a huge increase in the population around that
area. We know that the neighbourhood plan is situated next to the railway station
on a good public transport node. I think there are two landowners of these three
land parcels that we're dealing with today.
The LORD MAYOR said there were no objections to the resumption on this
land. Of course, this is the first stage of the resumption process, and the next
stage will be writing to the Minister for Natural Resources to take this land for
park purposes. Whilst perhaps not strictly a park, even though the item does say
it's for park purposes and these residences are being resumed, I just make the
point that back on 12 March, the Chair of Environment and Sustainability said,
'We don't resume people's homes for parks', so a little inconsistency there—that
is nothing new—but we know that the land is flood prone and listed on the flood
map. We don't have an objection to this land being used for an urban common.
Obviously the future residences there will need a further parkland down the road,
which we are aware of, and this is at least a small parcel for those immediate and
new residents who will be calling those developments home.
Item B is the grant and pre-payment of rent for telecommunication leases. This is
a fairly standard operating procedure that we have dealt with a number of times.
We don't have an objection to this, as long as there is adequate community
consultation and local residents are informed, I think that is the key when
dealing with telecommunication issues. They can be controversial from time-totime. We understand the need, as users of technology. However, I do stress the
importance of always engaging with the local residents and making sure that
they are fully apprised of any changes or ongoing claims in this area.
Item C, as the LORD MAYOR said, is the Annual Procurement Policy and
Contracting Plan for 2014-15. I agree with the LORD MAYOR; this is a more
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 20 streamlined process of obviously dealing with a policy, particularly in light of
the budget being handed down. Whilst I agree with the LORD MAYOR in the
practical delivery of this Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan, I do disagree
and have some concerns regarding the plan, and have some questions that I
would like answered today.
On page 7 of the Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan, we see that there is a
complaints process, and this is the process in place to manage complaints. I
would like a report on how many complaints have been made about Council's
procurements and disposals. I would be interested to know if that figure is on the
rise. That would be a useful amount of information that I think all councillors
could benefit from when we're looking at allocating these contracts, particularly
regarding if there are businesses that aren't happy with the way Council is doing
business.
If not today, I would encourage the LORD MAYOR to bring forward a regular
report regarding complaints in the interests of open and accounting. I think to
have that information to know where Council is falling down or what areas we
can improve, wouldn't be a bad thing.
Turning now to pages 11 and 22, which is of course the exemptions, low value
procurements, procurement for micro-enterprises, social enterprises and
community enterprises, we understand that there are requirements for
exemptions from time to time, but looking through the documents that we are
seeing coming to Council, I am concerned that we're seeing more sole-sourced
tendering coming through the Council as part of the contracts and tendering. At
all stages, we must be delivering value-for-money to make sure that we get the
best outcome for ratepayers.
At that time, 3.21pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, assumed the Chair.
Councillor DICK:
We know that our budget is under extreme pressure, and I want to make sure on
behalf of my ratepayers and the ratepayers across the city that we're confident
always that we are getting value for money, or at least the best possible terms.
It is good to see those major projects and the timelines on when they are to be
delivered—sorry, when the major projects which begin on page 34 and the
quarters in which we'll be dealing with these issues. There is the $7.03 million
for the built Karawatha Forest Environment Centre; things like the $2 million for
the Bracken Ridge Pool. We will certainly be keeping an eye on those, and we
will want to make sure that at all stages we are on track and on time in delivering
those projects, and obviously getting value for money with those projects.
On the goods and services significant, listed on page 37, we have identified
around $40 million in Engineering infrastructure consultancies. Once again the
LORD MAYOR, through you, Madam Deputy Chair, it would be very useful
information to keep up to speed about all of those allocations, what some of
those projects are coming on line for and matching up those consultancies. That
is a lot of money of the ratepayers' hard-earned dollars.
In the non-significant goods and services, on page 39, something that jumped out
at me straight away that we’re having figures delivered there of around $1.3
million for Media placements and fulfilments, Advertising – master media
services. It is listed on page 39, $1 million for Market research, Market research
services, and $1 million for Public relations and professional communication
services, Marketing communication – community engagement.
We all know we have an extremely large amount of dedicated employees in our
Comms Unit within our organisation, but we are looking at millions of dollars,
which is essentially outsourcing some of those key areas, and it would be good
to get regular reports and regular information about significant amounts of
money. I have had long concerns that we are spending far too much money on
media and marketing just across the organisation, and I certainly hope the LORD
MAYOR can demonstrate good value for money and detail some of the future
projects and line items that that money will be allocated to.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 21 So, Madam Deputy Chair, there are some concerns that Labor councillors have,
and I certainly hope in the LORD MAYOR's summary today he will be able to
provide further light on that important information.
Deputy Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair; I shall be brief. I just wish to comment on item A
which is the proposed resumption of private land for park purposes at 1, 3 and 5
Manning Street, Milton. I, too, support this proposal. I support parkland being
acquired where the urban renewal and density ranging from four storeys to 30
storeys is taking place. I just wish to do a contrast. This plan or proposal, if you
look at the PIP—the Priority Infrastructure Plan—it clearly has against these
sites annotated that it is going to be purchased for parkland. The City Plan also
indicates that it is zoned open space. Wonderful things. It shows an intention of
Council to acquire, which they are doing.
Exactly the same situation existed in terms of urban renewal indicated on the
PIP; it was to be purchased at a specific site, and it had been zoned open space in
the City Plan 2000, yet this LORD MAYOR has made a decision to go back and
not purchase that site. That is 281 Montague Road, West End—
Deputy Chairman:
To the report, councillor.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
I am simply—
Deputy Chairman:
Order! Councillor ABRAHAMS, to this report, thank you.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an argument of equity, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING:
Yes, thanks Madam Chair. I will refer briefly to item C, the procurement policy,
and I am concerned about the procurement policy for Council, especially after a
presentation in the Field Services Committee today. It turned out the Field
Services Committee has got five people in their procurement office, and I am
just wondering if there is a bit of a procurement office bureaucracy across the
Council, and I wonder how many other departments have procurement officers
and how many staff they have in their procurement offices.
At that time, 3.27pm, the Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, resumed the Chair.
Councillor CUMMING:
Also we were told that one of the strategic procurement office members was
actually embedded in Field Services, so I would like to know how many of the
SPO (Strategic Procurement) officers are in other committees across the city as
well.
The other thing is that reference was made to what was called a blanket order
where the example was given of some machinery that could be required to be
prepared later in the financial year but not at present, so a blanket order for a
certain amount, say $1,000, was put in, but no specific quotes obtained from
panel suppliers which should have been the case. I am wondering how many
other departments are sort of ignoring the process that is supposed to be pursued
as well. I would just like to know answers to those questions.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on item C, and I won't be
supporting the Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan for the current financial
year. Those reasons are that, over the past couple of years, we have seen the
LNP Administration significantly increase the number of delegations to Council
officers and also the limits and values of the contracts in which they can enter
into without the oversight of this Council and councillors in this place.
In listening to the LORD MAYOR earlier today, he said he did not want to
abrogate his rights to make decisions in this place about DAs (development
applications). I would say, Madam Chairman, through you to the LORD
MAYOR, that spending ratepayers' money deserves his equal attention and that
of all councillors in this place. So I am particularly concerned that again this
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 22 contracting plan enshrines a series of inappropriate delegations, particularly for
larger items. We can see things that can be done, for example, with respect to
information technology, again where there is no competitive tendering, there is
no oversight by this Council, and a Council officer of some indeterminate rank
can make a major decision about an IT (Information Technology) solution for
this Council without any oversight.
I am referring to page 18, which is one of the exemptions to the contracting
policy. It is problematic, I think, when there is no competitive process and no
oversight by the body which has been elected to do so. That is very problematic.
We also see I think other problems as well with respect again to information and
communication technology maintenance support contracts.
Contracts up to $250,000 go to the Chief Procurement Officer; between
$250,000 and $500,000 to the CEO, and over $500,000, so half a million dollars,
it goes to E&C. We know that things are going to E&C that aren't coming to this
Council, and this would be another example of that, where a decision is being
made in secret by this Administration about the delivery of information and
communications technology to the city of Brisbane. I would like the LORD
MAYOR certainly in his summing up to guarantee that all contracts relating to
information communication technology will be disclosed to this Council, and we
will have the right to debate and vote on those measures. That is the important
part; that it is not done in secret by E&C and then tabled at a later date, but there
is rigorous scrutiny by elected officials of the program of this Council. So that
exemption 6, as well as exemption 4, is a concern.
Exemption 7 is also concerning. The Chief Legal Officer is being delegated the
power to engage barristers up to $500,000. Number one, I wouldn’t want the
Chief Legal Officer engaging anybody on behalf of this Council if I was in
charge. But what is a concern is, let's say a barrister might cost about $2,500 a
day, maybe $4,000 if it was a bit more than that, so that would be allowing a
phenomenal amount of legal advice to be provided. It is too high and that
delegation is not appropriate.
I think that we should not—even over $500,000—this Council could be
committed towards millions and millions of dollars of legal action without it
ever coming here ever, because over $500,000 it goes to Stores Board. So it's a
real problem that this Council has delegated away its oversight rights to enter
into financial arrangements. That is my main problem with this document before
us today and the reason that I do not support it.
I also note with some concern at the back as well the number of goods and
services which are identified as significant, which we are seeking to outsource,
essentially. That is problematic, because we do have, as the LORD MAYOR
tells us over and over again, Council officers who are engaged for this purpose.
We have a huge amount, particularly in the communications area, and I would be
very concerned about why we are needing to seek such large or multiple—
depending on what it is because we don't know—outsourcing contracts to deliver
services like media and public relations and communication services.
There are probably—I would be guessing over 100 easily, easily, and I might put
a question on notice unless the LORD MAYOR is prepared to answer it today.
How many people in this organisation are working in communications and PR
(public relations) roles? I would say that you would find the number is well over
100 across Council. So why do we need to engage and outsource further PR
services is beyond me. There's at least $1 million there by which we could
certainly invest in things like backflow valves or other necessary devices in this
city. That money could be better spent, and I don't agree with the allocation that
has been made by this Administration.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman; I just rise quickly to enter the debate on
item A, which is the resumption of the land at Milton for a park purpose. I am
very pleased to be able to support this particular item coming before us today
because, as we have said all along, when we are doing neighbourhood plans, we
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 23 are very keen obviously to provide the appropriate infrastructure to support the
density that we are seeing in parts of our city.
So, before us today, despite the cries of those opposite—and Councillor
ABRAHAMS has left the Chamber; I don't know whether she is going to come
back and vote for this item—but despite the cries of those opposite, as we have
gone through the neighbourhood planning process, we see today again another
piece of infrastructure being provided in the form of this urban common for the
people of Milton to help facilitate the development and the density that is going
in there.
I just reflect, when Councillor ABRAHAMS talks about equity, her position on a
block of land that we voted on last week over in West End that she opposed in
her local community and actively campaigned against Council acquiring for an
urban common and park purposes. So, you've just got to remember everything
that the Australian Labor Party says, is said with—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor BOURKE:
—is said with a political point-scoring point of view. They aren't here for the
best interests of the people of Brisbane.
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor BOURKE. Yes, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
A lecture about the Labor Party is not in the report, as the former Chairperson
just asked us to bring back to and I ask Councillor BOURKE to do the same.
Chairman:
Thank you; Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Madam Chair, as I was saying, when the Labor Party talks about an item—
Chairman:
Back to the report.
Councillor BOURKE:
I am talking about item A. The comments they have made about item A today
need to be taken in the context in which they have said and their actions previous
when it comes to these particular items as they have come before us. So I look
with interest to see how they vote on this item and how they vote going forward
when it comes to the acquisition of parks for the people of Brisbane.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; I just rise to speak briefly on item C,
the Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan. As the LORD MAYOR
pointed out, this is a plan that is brought to the Council every year. It is most
appropriately brought to the Council after the budget so that those funding
discussions as part of the budget can inform this plan. We appreciate the changes
to the regs (regulations) that have allowed that common sense outcome to take
place.
This plan sets out how Council conducts its strategic procurement and
contracting. Last year Council achieved its goal of $30 million worth of savings
from contracting and procurement work. We are again aiming to deliver the
same savings for ratepayers this year. So the procurement team do an
outstanding job, Madam Chairman, year after year, and I would like to add my
thanks to them.
There have been some changes between this year's procurement and contracting
plan and last year's and I just wanted to take the opportunity to outline those to
the Chamber in a little bit more detail. Obviously there are the standard
formatting and administrative changes, including updates in the document from
Vision 2026 to the new Vision 2031. There have also been several changes to the
policies and guidelines referred to. Council now includes the Sustainable
Procurement Policy as part of the document, on pages 7 and 8, so these are no
longer referenced as a separate document.
Probity guidelines have also been incorporated directly into the procedures for
procurement and disclosure, which are already referenced as part of this
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 24 document. References have also been removed to the IT governance model and
IT project procurement handbook and financial management accounting manual
which no longer exist, and have been rolled into other items.
References to procurement needed for QUU (Queensland Urban Utilities) fleet
assets has also been removed, as Council no longer purchases fleet on behalf of
QUU. The document does, however, continue to commit this Administration to
its key policy objectives, including 100 per cent green power, which is located
on page 26, the utilisation of recovered material in Council's construction
program as part of working Towards Zero Waste strategy. Those targets are on
page 26 and of course 100 per cent carbon offset of Council's fuel emissions—
this is located on page 27.
I also wanted to note for the Chamber that the annual spend on social enterprises
has increased from $1 million to $1.5 million and the number of social enterprise
suppliers is targeted to increase by 10 per cent—a very worthy aim. In Schedule
B, Council has now also included the accessibility objectives to improve
Council's procurement processes, procedures and increase organisational
awareness of accessibility requirements. These are now located on page 26 and
are a core objective of this Administration and this Council.
I also wanted to deal with some of the matters raised by other councillors as part
of the debate. Councillor DICK and Councillor JOHNSTON raised the issues of
exceptions, particularly with regard to the low value procurements. We have
debated these before, so I simply want to add that these exemptions have not
changed year on year from last year's procurement plan; they are simply a
reflection of what we previously have and have previously discussed.
Councillor DICK did mention the dollar amount of media placements. I would
also make the point that, compared to Labor's last year in administration, 200304, this Administration's spending on media placements has reduced by 35.9 per
cent from what was spent by the previous Labor administration. So you can see
that this Administration is ensuring the ratepayers' dollars are only spent on what
is required.
I would also note that, despite the howls from those opposite, these media
placements are not for personal gratification; they are for important campaigns
such as the Summer Storm campaign and it is important that, as part of those
campaigns, we understand how to reach people and the messages that are key to
getting that important information across to people. We want people to be
prepared for summer storms. We want our campaigns to be effective when we
run them and that does require from time to time some market research. I would
simply note it is far less than the previous Labor administration spent.
Just in regard to Councillor CUMMING's comments, I note his argument that we
should be reducing the number of procurement staff. It is probably one of the
few times I have heard the Labor councillors argue that it is a good idea to
reduce staff within this organisation, and I will certainly keep that argument in
mind for future Councillor CUMMING. Except to say that I believe the
procurement staff are doing an excellent job in their roles as they currently are.
Regarding ICT (Information and Communication Technology) measures, that
Councillor JOHNSTON raised, and that was specifically in relation to
exemptions as well, all I can say is this is a $3 billion Council; officers need the
scope to be able to go about the normal course of business and make sure that
this Council can continue to function. I note that when big ICT decisions are
brought to this Council, like BaSE (Business and System Efficiency), it is not
even noticed by those opposite. It took them three years to figure out the project
even existed, even though it was listed in the budget year after year after year. So
the idea that they should all come here, Madam Chairman, just to be ignored by
those opposite is pretty ridiculous and a lot of hypocrisy as part of it.
I also know that Councillor JOHNSTON plucked a figure for media and comms
staff out of her head. She totally made that up. It is nowhere near that figure, and
if Councillor JOHNSTON ever decides to do some work and actually investigate
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 25 these kind of things, or ask a question in relation to them, then I encourage her to
do that, but please do not just make things up. Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Claim to have been misrepresented.
Chairman:
Well, it is the end of the speech. Councillor SIMMONDS has completed his
speech. All right, what is the misrepresentation?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. The figures I referred to are in the
contracting and tendering document, attachment B, on the page headed, Goods
and Services, Non-Significant, which is page 39 of the document. I refer to the
figure $1 million for market research, $1 million for media placement and $1
million for public relations. It is listed there on page 39.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Councillor SIMMONDS! Further debate; LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON! Be quiet.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank councillors for their
contribution. I would say, firstly, though, in relation to Councillor CUMMING's
remarks with respect to procurement staff, he made reference particularly to
Field Services, this organisation has worked very hard over the last several years
now to up-skill our procurement knowledge base, our procurement skills in
every respect across the organisation.
It is very important that we have appropriate in-house skills for procurement,
because we do have a lot of contracts out there across the board, whether it is
road projects, whatever it might be, right through to the various aspects of
Council—it could be parks contracts, it could be anything. Those skills are
about, in the end, saving money for the people of Brisbane. Whilst Councillor
CUMMING is entitled to his view that there should be reductions in staff in that
procurement area, it is our view that it is an important part of getting that valuefor-money proposition for the ratepayers of this city.
In regard to Councillor JOHNSTON's statements on Mr Askern, I allowed her to
get away with the statement for no other reason than she's entitled to have a
point of view. But I found the statement distasteful; I found it over the top; I
found it absolutely unnecessary. It didn't add any value to this debate to suggest
that a Chief Legal Officer ought not have any delegation in terms of any spend at
all.
Councillor DICK, I don't have the figures in relation to complaints. I am more
than happy to get those out, or you are more than able to put a question on notice
in relation to it, but I just don't have those numbers with me in terms of that.
There would probably be some difficulty, I would suspect, around the detail of
the names of companies and the like, but I am happy to provide a numerical
figure in relation to it. I think that has basically covered it, and I am happy to
move the report.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for items A and B.
Clause A and B put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause A and B of the report of the
Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for item C.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 26 Clause C put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Milton DICK immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES
and
Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 8 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor
(Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke,
Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.
A
PROPOSED RESUMPTION OF PRIVATE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES,
LOCATED AT 1, 3 AND 5 MANNING STREET, MILTON
112/20/711/1
23/2014-15
1.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability provided the information below.
2.
In 2011 Council introduced the Milton Station Neighbourhood Plan (the Plan). The Plan will
see an increase in housing density with new development ranging from four to 30 storeys
within the Plan area. The Plan identified the need for an Urban Common located at 1, 3 and 5
Manning Street, Milton, listed in Attachment B, hereunder, as per the Priority Infrastructure
Plan (PIP). An Urban Common is a park type that provides space for a range of recreational
and social activities in a medium density urban setting.
3.
The acquisition of 1, 3 and 5 Manning Street, Milton, will enable Council to develop the land
as an Urban Common. The subject land is located in an area deficient in the provision of
public park infrastructure with regards to accessibility and increased population density. With
significant population growth in the Plan area, further deficiencies in the provision of public
park infrastructure will arise. The subject land has excellent road frontage which provides
high visibility.
4.
On 6 December 2013, the Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, gave
authority to issue Notices of Intention to Resume in respect of the land listed in Attachment
B. Council issued the Notices to the affected property owners and all registered interested
parties on 10 January 2014. No objections were received in response to those Notices.
5.
Upon completion of the formal resumption process, the owners’ interests in the resumed land
are converted into a claim for compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 27 -
Land Act 1967. Negotiations concerning compensation will continue concurrently with the
formal resumption process. The subject land is highlighted in red on the map of the area set
out in Attachment C, submitted on file.
Customer Impact
6.
The provision of a park at 1, 3 and 5 Manning Street, Milton will ensure that future public
park infrastructure needs are met.
7.
The Divisional Manager submits the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A,
submitted hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO PROPOSE RESUMPTION OF PRIVATE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES,
LOCATED A 1, 3 AND 5 MANNING STREET, MILTON
1.
As:
(a)
On 10 January 2014, the Brisbane City Council (Council) in
accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967
issued Notices of Intention to Resume the privately owned land set
out and identified in Attachment B, hereunder, to this
recommendation; and
(b)
No objections were received in response to those Notices.
Then Council is of the opinion that:
2.
(i)
The land described in Attachment B, hereunder, is required for park
and recreation grounds purposes; and
(ii)
it is necessary to take that land.
As Council is of the opinion specified in paragraph 1(i), it directs that application be
made to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines under the provisions of the
Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for the taking of that land referred to in paragraph 1(i)
for park purposes.
Attachment B
Property Description Schedule
OWNER
LOCATION
REAL PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
AREA REQUIRED
FOR PARK AND
RECREATION
GROUNDS
PURPOSES
M2
K S Allsop
1 Manning Street,
Milton
Lot 96 on RP18374
405
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 28 -
OWNER
LOCATION
REAL PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
AREA REQUIRED
FOR PARK AND
RECREATION
GROUNDS
PURPOSES
M2
K S Allsop
3 Manning Street,
Milton
Lot 97 on RP18374
405
Jaze Investments
Pty Ltd
5 Manning Street,
Milton
Lot 98 on RP18374
405
ADOPTED
B
GRANT AND PREPAYMENT OF RENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LEASES
112/445/444/830
24/2014-15
8.
The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services provided the information below.
9.
On 12 January 2009, the Establishment and Coordination Committee approved the grant of 21
additional telecommunications leases to Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd in respect of each of
its existing leased sites for various periods of tenure, to enable all of its 29 different leases
with Council (as set out in Attachment B, as submitted on file) to share a common expiry date
of 30 June 2025.
10.
In January 2014, Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd approached Council with an unsolicited
offer seeking an extension of the term of all of its telecommunication leases. In consideration
of the extension of the telecommunication leases, Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd offered to
prepay all rent due under the existing telecommunication leases together with all rent payable
for the extended period of the telecommunication leases.
11.
Following further negotiations, Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd requested an extension of all
telecommunication leases to align the expiry date for all to 30 June 2036, in consideration of
which Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd would pay Council $12,200,000 (excluding GST) as
prepayment of all rent payable under the existing and extended terms of the
telecommunication leases.
12.
It is recommended that Council accept this offer for several reasons. Firstly,
telecommunications industry conditions are changing and the opportunity to maintain this
revenue stream may not exist beyond 2024. Secondly, after 2024 Council is exposed to new
lease arrangements and the cost of a tender process could be significant. Finally, the
prepayment of rent is made without any ability for Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd to
clawback any amount on the early termination of the telecommunication leases. This also
provides Council with additional protection compared to the current lease which was not fully
prepaid.
13.
To effect this agreement, it is proposed that Council grant consecutive telecommunication
leases, each for no more than 10 years, plus a one year option, for each telecommunication
site so that all telecommunication leases have an expiry date of 30 June 2036.
Financial Impact
14.
Council will receive $12,200,000 (excluding GST) as an upfront prepayment of rent for the
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 29 -
current and additional term for each telecommunication lease.
15.
The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
16.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, submitted
hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO
APPROVE
THE
GRANT
OF
ADDITIONAL
CONSECUTIVE
TELECOMMUNICATION LEASES FOR 29 TELECOMMUNICATION SITES TO
CROWN CASTLE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND TO APPROVE THE PREPAYMENT
OF RENT FOR THE EXISTING AND ADDITIONAL TERMS OF EACH
TELECOMMUNICATION LEASE
1.
Council approves:
(a)
The granting of additional consecutive telecommunication leases for 29
telecommunication sites to Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd (Crown Castle),
on terms to the satisfaction of the Divisional Manager, Organisational
Services and the Chief Legal Counsel;
(b)
approve the entry into an agreement, setting out the terms of the prepayment
of rent for the existing and additional term of each telecommunication lease
granted to Crown Castle on terms to the satisfaction of the Divisional
Manager, Organisational Services and the Chief Legal Counsel; and
(c)
authorise the Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, to:
(i)
take all such actions and decisions necessary to give effect to
this resolution; and
(ii)
negotiate and sign such additional leases and/or documents
as may be necessary to give effect to this resolution to the
satisfaction of the Chief Legal Counsel.
ADOPTED
C
ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND CONTRACTING PLAN 2014/15
109/105/219/18
25/2014-15
17.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
18.
Section 190 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) requires that Council
make and adopt a procurement policy for each financial year.
19.
The procurement policy must include details of the principles, including the sound contracting
principles that Council will apply in the financial year, for purchasing goods and services.
Council must review its procurement policy annually.
20.
Section 210 of the Regulation also requires that Council make and adopt a contracting plan
for the same financial year.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 30 -
21.
The contracting plan provides for:
(a)
the types of contracts that Council proposes to make in the financial year
(b)
the principles and strategies for performing the contracts
(c)
a policy about proposed delegations for the contracts
(d)
a market assessment for each type of contract
(e)
the contracts that Council considers will be significant (deemed a significant contract)
having regard to the market assessment
(f)
a policy about the making of a significant contracting plan under section 211.
22.
The adoption of the contracting plan must not be before the handing down of Council’s
budget for the year in which the contracting plan is to apply.
23.
Council officers have prepared an annual procurement policy and contracting plan for the
2014-15 financial year, as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file. The plan sets out
Council’s strategic approach to its contracting activities and also attaches:
(a)
Schedule A – Exemptions from Council’s Standard Contract Manual Requirements
(b)
Schedule B – Annual Contracting Objectives for 2014-15
(c)
Schedule C – Forward Contracting Schedule for Goods, Services and Construction
(d)
Schedule D – Forward Disposal Schedule.
24.
The Sustainable Procurement Policy has been refined and integrated into the proposed annual
procurement policy and contracting plan. This further consolidates key corporate objectives
for procurement into fewer documents. The intent of the policy remains unchanged. The
refinements are intended to distil the definition of sustainable procurement and articulate how
the policy is applied to all procurements. In making the refinements, the policy has been
reduced from four pages to two pages. The application of the Sustainable Procurement Policy
is reflected in Council’s SP200 procedures for procurement and disposal.
25.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee
agrees.
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, submitted
hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL PROCUREMENT POLICY AND CONTRACTING PLAN
2014/15
As:
(a)
Council has adopted the Strategic Contracting Procedures under part 2 of
chapter 6 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation);
(b)
Council is required by section 190 of the Regulation to adopt a procurement
policy;
(c)
Council is required by section 210 of the Regulation to adopt a contracting
plan; and
(d)
An annual procurement policy and contracting plan, complying with the
requirements of the Regulation, has been prepared and is set out in
Attachment B, as submitted on file.
Then Council:
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 31 -
(e)
Resolves to adopt the Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan
2014-15 at Attachment B.
ADOPTED
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved,
seconded by Councillor Ian McKENZIE, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 29 July 2014,
be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Briefly, Madam Chair, Councillors will note that we had a presentation at
committee on the Bishop Street shared pedestrian and cycle bridge at Kelvin
Grove. This project is one of many that was done as a response to the Australia
Day storm event in 2013 where a lot of these smaller bridges and bikeway assets
right across the city were damaged. This one was, as you can see, quite severely
damaged and had to be fully replaced. So we've taken the opportunity in
replacing the asset to improve the asset, so it wasn't a like-with-like replacement,
it was a betterment replacement.
We did receive some funding for the project from the Queensland
Reconstruction Authority, but we also topped that up with Council funding to
make sure that there was a good quality, long-lasting outcome for the
community. I think that is a great example of where, even though we could have
replaced the bridge with something cheaper, we decided to make sure that we
provided a lasting asset for the community and one that hopefully won't get
washed away in future flood and storm events.
We also have a couple of petitions come through as well in this committee. One
in particular relates to a request for parking permit restrictions in the streets
surrounding the Stones Corner Busway Station. Essentially, the recommended
option is that we will convert some under-utilised two-hour parking spaces to no
limit parking to help provide some longer-term parking opportunities for
residents and their visitors. In addition, I can say that these are the type of issues
that are also being considered by the Parking Taskforce, particularly in relation
to where permits apply across the city. The question is being asked about
whether there are other permit areas that, if residents request, can be introduced
based on demand.
At the moment, as you are aware, there is a set number of permit areas and
Council's policy has been not to expand those permit areas unless there has been
the creation of a new facility such as the tennis centre. But we are also having a
look at what other types of circumstances permit areas might be introduced in, if
that is something the taskforce wants to consider.
There is also a petition requesting that the speed limit on Macquarie Street and
Vernon Terrace be reduced from 50 kilometres an hour to 30 kilometres an hour.
This is the second petition that we have had in recent times regarding traffic and
speeding issues on this particular stretch of road. We received another petition
requesting a reduction from 50 to 40 kilometres an hour, and as part of that
petition response, we said that we would survey residents in the local area on
their views to get a gauge of the wider community feedback on whether there is
support for a reduction in the speed limit.
That process is going to happen very shortly. We will be writing to all the
residents in the local area to seek their feedback on those matters. We will also
be letting them know about some pedestrian upgrades and also an intersection
upgrade that is occurring in the area as well.
There is also finally a petition at item C calling on Council to improve safety at
the intersection of Lacey Road and Beams Road, Carseldine. We have put in a
submission to obtain Federal Government Black Spot funding, and we are
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 32 waiting for official notification on the results of that submission at the moment. I
will leave it at that.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak on item B, which was a petition
requesting Council to provide parking permit restrictions in the local streets
surrounding the Stones Corner Bus Station. The recommendation is as the
DEPUTY MAYOR has indicated, to use some underutilised currently two-hour
parking spaces in the vicinity of the busway rather than install a parking permit
system.
How that decision was determined? The officer involved in that section under
road use management met with me on site because I realised, having tried to get
residential parking permits for one street in the past which took over 18 months,
the issue that residents were facing, which is they had bought in to units without
parking, and with a vehicle, and having been discovered by our very diligent
parking inspectors, they were facing daily parking fines. So this situation was
untenable to them. It is a situation that we face where developments do not
appropriately meet the need of residents where it comes to their vehicles.
Therefore I was delighted to be able to go on site, speak with the residents who
advised me of these parking spaces that have an indirect access to, and therefore
people just did not know they existed, and therefore to convert them to long-term
parking gives the residents an opportunity of being the only ones that realise they
are there and being able to use them for their vehicles.
But this is not a satisfactory situation, because I am sure within about three
months, other people will identify these parking spaces, and there will be a
demand for a resource that is limited and will not meet the demand. So I was
delighted to hear Councillor SCHRINNER speak of the Parking Taskforce to
consider seriously, I think was his tone, the investigation of other residential
parking permit areas, because just in the very next street where new
infrastructure, being the Eastern Busway Station, I lobbied very hard for a
residential parking permit in those three streets, very tiny streets, with houses
that have limited on-site parking.
So, Councillor SCHRINNER, you will certainly get another submission
highlighting just how important it is to be responsive to the needs, particularly
when we are looking at developments that haven't appropriately looked at
parking, or existing built form that, through history, does not have adequate
parking.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am delighted to rise to contribute to the
Infrastructure Report and will focus briefly on item A. As we are all aware, the
Bishop Street pedestrian and cycle bridge was damaged by flooding during the
Australia Day storm event in January 2013. The original bridge was built in
1959. It was 40 metres in length, 1.5 metres wide, and was constructed as a twospan timber structure.
The flood immunity of the Bishop Street bridge was graded at less than Q2. It is
fair to say that the bridge provided an important link for the local community
who traverse the area from Newmarket and Wilston through to the busy
shopping precinct of Bishop Street, with the post office, other specialty shops
and Aldi on the main road. I thank all those who contacted my office to tell me
how important a link this was for them and for their family and friends, and for
their continued patience during the build is very much appreciated by me.
I hope everyone is enjoying the reinstated connection. It is a connection that has
been designed to meet today's improved standards for shared pedestrian and
bikeway bridges, and it is a connection that improves the safety of our local area
with lighting installed for the many evening and early morning users. It is a
connection that has been widened from 1.8 metres to 4 metres to improve safety
and to reduce the likelihood of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. It is a
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 33 bridge that is very much welcome by the local community, so DEPUTY
MAYOR, thank you for your assistance.
While its fabric is of everyday concrete, it is a connection that means so much
more to that local community and for that I thank all of the officers involved in
the delivery of this important project. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I rise to speak on item B and item D, and I note with respect to item B that this
proposal relates to parking congestion around a busway. I note, Madam
Chairman, the statement in paragraph 21 to that which states that, 'At this point
in time, Council is not extending the regulated parking traffic area that is
currently in place'. So, what I am concerned about is this morning the DEPUTY
MAYOR was on the radio saying that all aspects of this city's parking were up
for review. Over and over again he said this to Steve Austin, the morning
presenter on 612. What we are seeing is the Administration saying one thing to
the public and then doing another when it comes to decision making,
Last week we had a petition come to this place that did say that these issues
would be taken up as part of the Parking Taskforce review. So why is it that this
issue is being ruled out? It is an important issue. The problem in this petition
before us today is about parking around a busway, but parking around train
stations, busways and major bus stops are a huge problem right across the city.
My concern is that the DEPUTY MAYOR is saying one thing publicly to the
people of Brisbane and to journalists, but when it comes to the decision-making
process in this Council, he is doing something very different, and that is ruling
out changes to parking regulations around busways and other major pieces of
infrastructure.
He stood up in here a few minutes ago and said this is something we might look
at in the Parking Taskforce review. Well, if that is actually the case, why is it
that Council papers and the decision before us today do not reflect that? It would
have been very easy to have a recommendation that says—not that Councillor
ABRAHAMS should go out and consult with her community, but this matter
should be incorporated into the Parking Taskforce review and considered as part
of any citywide changes that are happening. Now that would have been an
appropriate recommendation to make here today.
Instead, we are left with this deceptive statement in this—well, probably
misleading, I'll say misleading statement by the DEPUTY MAYOR on radio,
that everything is in the parking review, but it's not, because we're here just a
few hours later and he is ruling out that regulated parking areas will be extended
around a major busway, where there is a known problem. So what is right? What
he said on radio this morning publicly, or what he is doing in voting for this
matter here before us today? That is the problem. You cannot trust what the LNP
are saying, because what they say is different to what they actually do.
The decision before us today is ruling something out when it should in fact be
referring it as part of this Parking Taskforce review, if we are to believe what the
DEPUTY MAYOR has publicly said. I don't believe him at all, Madam
Chairman, and I am concerned, I am extremely concerned that what he says is
different to what he is doing. I note that that is an inadequate response to the
petitioners' issues that they are raising in this petition, and it is a lost opportunity
by this Council, in a very simple and responsive way, to act on their concerns.
Why wasn't it done? I don't know. I don't know what he is doing over there,
Madam Chairman; too busy on radio trying to claim that he is doing something
when he's not actually doing it in the area that he can influence, which is in his
own department here at Council. That is a major concern, and a major oversight
by the DEPUTY MAYOR today.
Secondly, with respect to item D, I am absolutely fascinated by the way in which
Council is handling this item before us today. As the report outlines, residents
are asking for a 30 kilometre an hour speed limit on Macquarie Street and
Vernon Terrace, which is a district access route that carries approximately
11,000 vehicles per day. It is a designated truck route as well.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 34 For the whole almost seven years I have been here, we are all repeatedly told
over and over again that there are rules about what the speed limits are on certain
designations and you cannot change those designations. Therefore you cannot
change the speed limits. So, if it is a district access route, it is 60 or 70; you can't
have a 50. Over and over again, that is what I've been told; that's what my
residents have been told, and that's what other councillors in this place have been
told. What I am noting here is that that is essentially what Council is saying in
paragraphs 49 and 50 as far as I can see, but what they are doing is extremely
different. I look forward to utilising the precedence that is being set here today.
This Council isn't saying, these are the rules, back to the residents; they are
saying, okay, we'll consult with everybody about the reduction of the speed
down to 30 kilometres an hour. Madam Chairman, that sets a new precedent for
this Council. I actually think it is a good one. I think that there is certainly a
number of other streets around the city where this precedent will be quite useful.
I am looking forward to the petition for Graceville Avenue coming forward,
because it is exactly the same situation—exactly. It probably doesn’t even carry
as many cars as this, and it's not a designated truck route. So I would like the
same precedent to be established for other streets in the city. If we are going to
not follow the recommendations of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, if that policy has gone out the window, which it appears to have with
this decision today, then I look forward to the same level of flexibility being
applied to other residents around the city who also request the reduction of speed
limits in their streets.
I am going to be watching the outcome of this one with some interest to see what
happens after the residents are consulted, because if they vote yes to 30
kilometres an hour, then this Council will have to implement it. I look forward to
them doing that, and the precedent being established for other councillors to get
the speed limit reduced around the city.
Chairman:
Councillor MURPHY.
ADJOURNMENT:
26/2014-15
At that time, 4.05pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor
Kim MARX, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all councillors had
vacated the Chamber and the doors locked.
Council stood adjourned at 4.06pm.
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item D and to contribute to this
discussion on the petition that was received in relation to speed limits on Skyring
Terrace and to reflect on the contribution that was made just before the break
from Councillor JOHNSTON who clearly has not read the report. Has no idea
what the report actually said.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
I quote directly from the report, the recommendation does address the
petitioners' concerns, however, the reduction of the speed limit to 30 kilometres
per hour has been investigated and identified as not being an appropriate
treatment at this time.
So in direct contradiction to the assertions of Councillor JOHNSTON that the
recommendation of this petition is to consider the views of these particular
petitioners for a 30 kilometre per hour speed limit, the recommendation of the
officers, which I support and I know that Councillor HOWARD supports, is not
to proceed with consideration of a 30 kilometre an hour speed limit along this
section of road.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 35 What is under consideration is an earlier petition to consider and ask for a 40
kilometre an hour speed limit along this area. Now that is something that the
officers have indicated, which again I support, needs to go out to the broader
community for consultation. So that was the view of a certain number of
residents who belong to or were contacted by the Teneriffe Progress Association.
Their petition, which was received some months ago, was for a 40 kilometre an
hour speed limit along this section of road.
There was a counter-petition, if you like, that requested consideration of a 30
kilometre an hour speed limit along this section of road. Clearly both of those
couldn't proceed at the same time. The clear recommendation of the officers,
which I support as the local councillor for the section of this road that includes
Skyring Terrace and Vernon Terrace along to Macquarie Street. If anyone can
explain to me why one road has three names, I'd be eternally grateful. But that's
the case. That this road, that is the limit that marks the beginning of Hamilton
Ward, beginning of the Central Ward at that point where Vernon Terrace
becomes Macquarie Street.
The whole road is under investigation for what the impacts are of a couple of
things. In particular the opening up of Skyring Terrace which previously wasn't
open through to Breakfast Creek Road. That is now a through road all the way
from Breakfast Creek Road with traffic coming down Montpelier Road, out of
the Airport Link Tunnel, down Montpelier Road, across Breakfast Creek, into
Vernon Terrace and down along to the New Farm peninsula.
That has accounted for the dramatic increase in traffic along this roadway and
the need for some consideration of the impacts of that big increase in traffic.
Now the response has been, again which I support, to investigate the potential to
look at signalising the intersection of Commercial Road and Vernon Terrace.
That would be a big advance in looking at the speed issues and the traffic
volumes along this section of road.
That work will be undertaken—is budgeted for and will be undertaken in this
financial year. The further support has been given for a new pedestrian crossing
in the vicinity of Florence Street. That again is supported. I certainly support the
investigation of, in conjunction with a community consultation of the broader
peninsula of the proposal that was put forward by the Teneriffe Progress
Association for a speed limit of 40 kilometres an hour. That needs to be actively
investigated because that was the request of the Teneriffe Progress Association.
However, it needs to be put to bed the suggestion of a 30 kilometre an hour
speed limit. I don't support that. The feedback that I've had from anybody who's
contacted me since this petition was lodged is that that's not a good idea. The
officers clearly don't believe it's a good idea. Therefore the petitioners—and in
contradiction to what Councillor JOHNSTON said earlier in this debate—that is
not a proposal that is being put forward for consideration. The proposal is, as has
been recommended here, to advise the petitioners that we are proceeding with
investigation of the views put forward in the earlier petition. That is as outlined
in the report. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Seriatim - Clause D
Councillor Victoria NEWTON requested that Clause D, PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL
REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT FROM 50KM/H TO 30KM/H ON MACQUARIE STREET AND VERNON
TERRACE, TENERIFFE, AND INSTALL SEVERAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, be taken seriatim for
voting purposes.
Chairman:
Thank you. Any further debate on the Infrastructure report? DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks to the councillors who've participated in
this discussion. One of the councillors that spoke tried their very best to suggest
that there was some kind of confusion about a number of these items here. I have
to support what we just heard from Councillor McLACHLAN. There's no
confusion. There is no confusion, it's very clear. He spelt out what had happened
very clearly, very succinctly.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 36 So we've got here a classic example of a councillor who doesn't do the work to
actually read and understand the reports that come through but gets up and
makes broad, sweeping generalisations and statements that are blatantly
misleading and are uninformed. I have to ask, is the Councillor for Tennyson,
the Clive Palmer of Brisbane City Council. Because that's the type of behaviour
we're seeing here. It is just completely—look, flabbergasting.
The reality is, that's what happens when someone is motivated, their political
career is motivated by revenge. You get them behaving in this type of way. It
makes no sense unless you look at it through that lens, because that's the reality
we've seen here. We know Clive Palmer's got those motivations and it's a shame,
it's a real shame. Because in the end what people expect from us is representation
of our communities in a manner that they would anticipate their elected
representatives to undertake and not those strange motivations that we're seeing
from people like Clive Palmer that really don't have the people's interests at
heart.
So on this particular report, and the items before us, as I said, it's very clear the
decisions that we're making today and the recommendations and the reasoning
behind those recommendations. I commend the report to the Chamber.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for items A, B and C.
Clauses A, B and C put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B and C of the report of the
Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for item D.
Clause D put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause D of the report of the Infrastructure
Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Helen ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 -
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES,
Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON and Shayne SUTTON.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), and Councillors Margaret de Wit, Victoria
Newton and Norm Wyndham.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Councillor Ian McKenzie (Deputy Chairman) and Councillor Milton Dick.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 37 -
A
COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION
REPLACEMENT
–
BISHOP
STREET
BRIDGE
27/2014-15
1.
Mark Jones, Principal Engineer, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure Division,
attended the meeting to provide an update on the replacement of the Bishop Street shared
pathway and cycle bridge in Kelvin Grove. Mr Jones provided the information below.
2.
A slide showing the location of the Bishop Street Bridge was displayed and discussed.
3.
The original bridge, built in 1959, was 40 metres in length, 1.5 metres wide (between the
handrails) and constructed as a two-span timber structure, which was later widened to five
spans. The original bridge handrail was a 1.1 metre high, four-rail timber construction. The
flood immunity of the Bishop Street Bridge was graded at less than Q2.
4.
On 26 January 2013, the Bishop Street Bridge over Enoggera Creek was severely damaged in
the Australia Day flood event. Images of the Bishop Street Bridge before and after the flood
event were displayed.
5.
The scope of the replacement bridge design was outlined. The Bishop Street Bridge is on a
strategic bike link and so the design incorporated future plans to extend the Enoggera Creek
bikeway along Enoggera Creek, from Bancroft Park to Spencer Park. The structure of the
replacement bridge has been designed to minimise any hydraulic impacts.
6.
The other features of the Bishop Street Bridge replacement were outlined as follows:
three span concrete deck unit bridge with 100 year design life
length of 41.5 metres and width of four metres (clear distance between hand rails),
designed to cater for predicted cyclist and pedestrian demand
all structural elements designed to withstand the impact of future flooding events
compliant bikeway, including 1.4 metre high balustrading and offset handrails
new bridge lighting
bridge designed to minimise future maintenance.
7.
A number of slides, showing the stages of construction of the Bishop Street Bridge
replacement, were displayed and discussed.
8.
There were a number of challenges faced during the construction of the Bishop Street Bridge
replacement. These challenges included:
Issues with the area being a hydraulically sensitive site, with high stream movement
and the potential for high volumes of water.
Being an environmentally sensitive area (mangroves), there were significant lead
times to obtain the appropriate environmental permits.
The requirement to keep the adjacent Enoggera Creek bikeway operational and safe,
and the relocation of Energex infrastructure within compressed timeframes.
9.
In conclusion, the presenter noted that the Bishop Street Bridge was re-opened for public use
on 7 June 2014, less than 10 months after the flood event that occurred on 26 January 2014.
The replacement bridge project was delivered for $1.51 million with approved funding for
part of the projects costs being received from the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. A
slide showing the completed Bishop Street Bridge was displayed.
10.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Jones for his
informative presentation.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 38 -
11.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE
REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO PROVIDE PARKING PERMIT
RESTRICTIONS ON LOCAL STREETS SURROUNDING THE STONES
CORNER BUSWAY STATION
CA14/396569
28/2014-15
12.
A petition from residents of Brisbane and surrounding areas requesting Council to provide
parking permit restrictions on local streets surrounding the Stones Corner Busway Station,
was presented to the meeting of Council held on 13 May 2014, by Councillor Helen
Abrahams, and received.
13.
The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division,
supplied the following information.
14.
The petition contained 30 signatures. Of the 30 signatures, 22 residents reside in Edith and
Gladys Streets, Greenslopes. The petitioners are requesting that Council implement a resident
parking permit scheme on local streets surrounding the Stones Corner Busway Station,
including Gladys, Edith and Laura Streets.
15.
The construction of the Queensland Government’s Stones Corner Busway Station was
completed in August 2011 as part of the extension of the Eastern Busway from Buranda to
Main Avenue, Coorparoo. The station is set within a diverse area of Greenslopes, where land
uses range from lower-density residential, commercial, retail, and industrial.
16.
When the Busway Station was constructed, two-hour parking limits were strategically placed
to manage the parking demand, and minimise the potential impact of commuter parking on
residents and local businesses.
17.
On 5 June 2014, a parking review was undertaken by Council’s Transport Planning and
Strategy Branch. This review found that of the 157 parking spaces surrounding the Stones
Corner Busway Station on Gladys, Edith and Laura Streets:
80 per cent of these spaces (126 spaces) have a two-hour parking limit which applies
during the day between Monday and Saturday;
4.5 per cent of these spaces (seven spaces) have a 15-minute parking limit which
applies during daytime hours between Monday and Saturday;
4 per cent of these spaces (six spaces) are reserved for Australian Disability Parking
Permit holders; and
the remaining 11.5 per cent of spaces (18 spaces) have no time limits.
18.
The review found the two-hour parking spaces were under-utilised where only 55 per cent of
the 126 spaces were occupied on 5 June 2014. This suggests that the balance of short and
No Limit parking could be improved, where a number of two-hour parking spaces near
residential properties could be converted to No Limit parking, without impacting access to
short-term parking opportunities near nearby retail and commercial properties.
19.
The review of the area surrounding the busway station also identified six new potential
parking spaces that could be created on Edith and Laura Streets.
20.
With the view of improving access to longer term parking opportunities for residents and their
visitors, it is recommended that Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, and the
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 39 -
Councillor for The Gabba Ward, Councillor Helen Abrahams, consults with residents of
Gladys, Edith and Laura Streets in relation to the opportunities to create six new parking
spaces, and convert some of the under-utilised two-hour parking to No Limit parking on
Edith, Gladys and Laura Streets.
21.
The petitioners are also requesting that parking permits be provided to residents within Edith
and Gladys Streets, Greenslopes. Previously, Council has provided parking permits to areas
that are marked as a residential parking permit area or exist within a regulated parking traffic
area. These residential parking permit areas are mainly located around hospitals, universities,
sports venues or popular entertainment and shopping areas. At this point in time, Council is
not extending the regulated parking traffic area that is currently in place.
Funding
22.
Funding is available in Council’s Moving Brisbane Program for consultation and minor
parking improvement work around the Stones Corner Busway Station.
Consultation
23.
The Councillor for The Gabba Ward, Councillor Helen Abrahams, has been consulted and
supports the recommendation below.
Customer impact
24.
The conversion of under-utilised two-hour parking spaces to No Limit will help to improve
access to longer term parking opportunities for residents and their visitors.
Preferred option
25.
It is the preferred option that Council consult with residents about the opportunity to create
six additional No Limit parking spaces, and convert some of the under-utilised two-hour
parking spaces on Gladys, Laura and Edith Streets to No Limit parking.
26.
The Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
27.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
C
PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO IMPROVE SAFETY AT THE
INTERSECTION OF LACEY ROAD AND BEAMS ROAD, CARSELDINE
CA14/415309
29/2014-15
28.
A petition calling on Council to improve safety at the intersection of Lacey and Beams Roads,
Carseldine, was presented to Council at its meeting of 13 May 2014 by Councillor Amanda
Cooper, and received.
29.
The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division,
provided the information below.
30.
The petition contains 288 signatures. The petitioners have not included their residential
addresses and as such, Council is unable to determine if they are all local residents.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 40 -
31.
Lacey Road is classified as a Suburban Route, which connects arterial routes in and around
suburbs and forms important links in the public transport and inter-suburban freight network.
Typical characteristics of this type of road includes: carrying between 15,000 to 35,000
vehicles per day; signage indicating speed limits of up to 80km/h; and the lack of suitability
for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM).
32.
Lacey Road is currently a signed 70 km/h suburban route that is approximately 11-metres
wide at the intersection of Beams Road. It has one north-bound lane and two south-bound
lanes (one left-turn only and the other right-turn only), runs in a north-south direction between
Beams Road and the new Telegraph Road Overpass, and is approximately 1.8 km in length. A
number of estates and frontage townhouse developments have been installed in the recent
years adding to the traffic volumes along this stretch of road.
33.
Beams Road is classified as an arterial route, which connects major centres of the city and
form important links in Brisbane’s bus and freight network. Typical characteristics of this
type of road includes: carrying in an excess of 35,000 vehicles per day; signage indicating
speed limits of up to 80km/h; limited direct property access; and lack of suitability for
LATM.
34.
Beams Road is currently a signed 60 km/h arterial route; approximately 13-metres wide at the
intersection of Lacey Road. It has two east-bound lanes and two west-bound lanes and runs in
an east-west direction predominately between Sandgate Road and Bridgeman Road. It is
approximately 6.5km in length.
35.
The intersection of Lacey and Beams Roads is currently a stop control with a staggered stop
line to allow traffic turning left onto Beams Road increased sight distance past a stopped
vehicle waiting to turn right into Beams Road.
36.
In 2011, Council carried out an upgrade of this intersection to decrease congestion and
improve safety. The upgrade included moving the centre line to install approximately
100 metres of separate left and right turning lanes, resurfacing of road, altering the stop line to
angle back to the centre of the road (staggered stop line), installation of kerb and channelling
on both sides of the road, and the installation of a footpath on the western side.
37.
This intersection is currently listed for future traffic improvements and upgrades, including
traffic signals. In addition to Council listing this location, this intersection has been included
in Council’s submission to the Australian Federal Government for possible Black Spot
funding. Council will be notified of successful locations in due course.
38.
The Black Spot Program is part of the commitment to reduce crashes on Australian roads.
Road crashes are a major cost to Australians every year. Black Spot projects target those road
locations where crashes are occurring. By funding measures such as traffic signals and
roundabouts at dangerous locations, the program reduces the risk of crashes. Programs of this
sort are very effective, saving the community many times the cost of the relatively minor road
improvements that are implemented.
Funding
39.
Funding has been requested as part of the 2014-15 budget allocation and the Australian
Federal Government’s Black Spot Program.
Consultation
40.
The Councillor for Bracken Ridge Ward, Councillor Amanda Cooper, has been consulted and
supports the recommendation below.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 41 -
Customer impact
41.
The response will not immediately address the petitioners’ concerns; however, when funding
becomes available the traffic signals will be installed.
Preferred option
42.
It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that Council has submitted a
submission to the Australian Federal Government for funding under the Black Spot Program.
If this funding submission is successful, the project will be funded this financial year.
43.
The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agrees.
44.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
D
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT
FROM 50KM/H TO 30KM/H ON MACQUARIE STREET AND VERNON
TERRACE, TENERIFFE, AND INSTALL SEVERAL PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS
CA14/344079, CA14/375961and CA14/509014
30/2014-15
45.
Council received three petitions from residents of Brisbane requesting that Council reduce the
speed limit from 50km/h to 30 km/h on Macquarie Street and Vernon Terrace, Teneriffe, and
install several pedestrian crossings. Of the three petitions, CA14/375961 and CA14/344079
were received during the Autumn Recess 2014 and CA14/509014 was presented to Council at
its meeting of 17 June 2014 by Councillor David McLachlan, and received.
46.
The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division,
provided the information below.
47.
The three petitions contain a total of 154 signatures.
48.
The Infrastructure Committee has previously considered a petition to reduce the speed limit
along the same section of road from 50km/h to 40km/h at its meeting held on 25 March 2014.
The Committee recommended that a survey of residents of the area be undertaken regarding
the potential for a reduced speed limit through this section. This survey is currently underway.
49.
Generally 30 km/h speed limits are not used on Queensland roads. Under the provisions of the
recently revised Part 4 (Speed Controls) of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUCTD), a reduction from the 50km/h speed limit would only be considered appropriate in
the following situations:
local access streets designed to support the lower speed limit, or where appropriate
traffic calming devices have been installed;
traffic carrying roads at strip shopping centres and commercial areas where
appropriate traffic calming has been provided;
on streets within a central business district (CBD) area, such as the Brisbane City
CBD, where there is significant pedestrian activity and vehicles speeds are typically
less than 49km/h; or
on streets where facilities such as entertainment areas and sporting complexes
generate significant pedestrian activity at certain times of the day.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 42 -
50.
The Macquarie Street/Vernon Terrace route is the primary district access route from New
Farm through to Newstead, carrying approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. It is also the
designated truck route. It is generally considered inappropriate to place traffic calming
devices on district access roads which carry high volumes of traffic.
51.
During July 2013, a traffic survey was conducted at separate locations along the section of
Skyring Terrace, Vernon Terrace, and Macquarie Street. The survey indicated that vehicle
speeds are typically about 50km/h (85th percentile speed). A close correlation between the
posted speed limit and the 85th percentile speed recorded is considered to be an indication of
public acceptance of the limit as being appropriate.
52.
It should also be noted that the intersection of Vernon Terrace and Commercial Road has
been allocated funding for the design the installation of traffic signals, which should further
moderate vehicle speeds and provide improved pedestrian safety.
53.
Currently, there is a zebra crossing located on Skyring Terrace at the intersection of
Commercial Road, as well as pedestrian refuge crossing points located near the intersections
of Wyandra, Dath, Ethel, Beeston, and Hastings Streets. In addition to this, there are kerb
build outs located near the intersection of Florence Street to reduce the crossing distance at
that location.
54.
The pedestrian refuge and zebra crossing locations along the length of road under
consideration are spaced at intervals of 200 metres or less, with the exception of the gap
between the Ethel and Beeston Streets locations, which is approximately 540 metres. Florence
Street is located within this gap, but as this crossing point features kerb build outs only, it
provides a lower level of service and safety.
55.
It is recommended that the petitioners be advised in accordance with the previous resolution
of the Committee from 25 March 2014, endorsed by full Council:
‘…that an upgraded pedestrian crossing facility or refuge over Macquarie Street, at the
intersection of Florence Street, be provided. These works will be subject to community
consultation on the resultant loss of parking and available funding in a future Council budget,
which will be considered in line with similar citywide priorities for this type of work.’
Funding
56.
Funding to undertake this work would need to be taken from Schedule 61, Local Access
Network Improvements.
Consultation
57.
The Councillor for Hamilton Ward, Councillor David McLachlan, and the Councillor for
Central Ward, Councillor Vicki Howard, have been consulted and support the
recommendation below.
Customer impact
58.
The recommendation does address the petitioners concerns. However, the reduction of the
speed limit to 30km/h has been investigated and identified as not being an appropriate
treatment at this time.
Preferred option
59.
It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised in accordance with the Committee’s
previous resolution, endorsed by full Council, that Council is surveying the residents of
New Farm, Teneriffe and Newstead in the vicinity of the proposed speed limit reduction area
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 43 -
along Skyring Terrace, Vernon Terrace and Macquarie Street, Newstead (between the
intersections of Skyring Terrace and Wyandra Street, and Macquarie Street and Kingsholme
Street) from 50km/h and 40km/h prior to making a decision on a speed limit reduction in this
area.
60.
Further, that an upgraded pedestrian crossing facility or refuge over Macquarie Street, at the
intersection of Florence Street, be considered. These works will be subject to community
consultation on the resultant loss of parking and available funding in a future Council budget,
which will be considered in line with similar citywide priorities for this type of work.
61.
The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillor Victoria
Newton abstaining.
62.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chairman:
Councillors, before we move to the next report, I would just like to point out an
aspect of the rules. I heard comments earlier when I called a vote twice that I
couldn't do that. I would just point you to Chapter 6, Division 6, and I'll read it
out: “The Chairman shall, in taking the vote on a motion, put the motion first in
the affirmative, then in the negative and may do so as often as necessary to form
an opinion as to whether the affirmative or the negative has the majority.” To the
councillor making all the noise, you were wrong.
Councillors interjecting.
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by
Councillor Steven HUANG that the report of that Committee held on 29 July 2014, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just briefly I'll move to the committee
presentation which was Bicentennial Bikeway Stage 4 update. I just—we had a
splendid presentation, Madam Chairman, by officers giving us an update on this
particular part of the project. I really do want to acknowledge the tremendous
work that's being undertaken by Council officers in the rolling out and the
upgrading of the Bicentennial Bikeway, Madam Chairman.
As Brisbane's busiest bikeway, it is testament to their project management skills
to be able to manage about 6,000 users a day while undertaking an extensive
upgrade of this infrastructure. I also want to acknowledge also the contribution
of the State Government towards the project. This bikeway, I think, as it's
finalised, will not only be the best bikeway in Queensland but without a doubt,
it'll be the best bikeway in Australia.
The volumes, the ever-increasing volumes of both pedestrians and cyclists that
are using it and ever-increasingly using it, is testament to the fact that—the
quality of the bikeway such that it attracts multiple users. It clearly goes to show,
Madam Chairman, that through a strong commitment and financial support that
as we roll out our bikeways, there is an ever growing number of people out there
wanting to actively utilise our networks to—not only for the social and the health
aspects but importantly also as part of—as their daily commute rather than the
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 44 use of a vehicle. Thereby Brisbane residents playing their part in reducing our
traffic congestion and making our city a cleaner and greener place.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Further debate. I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Public and Active
Transport Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors
Steve Griffiths, Nicole Johnston, Kim Marx and Ryan Murphy.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BICENTENNIAL BIKEWAY STAGE 4
UPDATE
31/2014-15
1.
Carl Billingham, Project Delivery Manager – Civil Infrastructure, City Projects Office,
Brisbane Infrastructure Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on the fourth
stage of construction of the Bicentennial Bikeway. Mr Billingham provided the information
below.
2.
The Bicentennial Bikeway provides a major cycle and pedestrian link between Toowong and
the CBD, with up to 6,500 users being recorded every day. The Bicentennial Bikeway
upgrade stages that have been completed so far include the Hale Street east and west links.
3.
An image showing the completed and proposed works on the Bicentennial Bikeway was
displayed and discussed.
4.
The proposed works to be completed as part of the Stage 4 update of the Bicentennial
Bikeway includes a 560-metre extension of the bikeway between Land Street and
Landsborough Terrace. This extension provides:
separate pedestrian and cyclist paths to improve safety
an elevated pedestrian walkway around the Eucalypt trees
commuter facilities, including rest spots, drinking water fountains,
landscaping, shade structures and lighting
construction of a new waiting area and DDA compliant ramp down to the
Regatta Ferry Terminal
local and historical themes, incorporated into the urban design, creating
distinct ‘character zones’.
5.
A number of slides showing the elevated walkway through Regatta Park, the Land Street
tunnel intersection treatment and the Sylvan Road intersection, and Regatta Ferry Terminal
entrance treatment were displayed.
6.
The presenter noted that a number of other works are being undertaken concurrently with the
Bicentennial Bikeway Stage 4 upgrade. These additional works include:
Regatta Ferry Terminal land side works
replacement of timber retaining walls beside Coronation Drive
Queensland Urban Utilities sewer rising main trench repairs.
7.
The construction program of the Bicentennial Bikeway Stage 4 project was outlined. The
presenter noted that construction began in March 2014 and is due to be completed in mid[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 45 -
2015, subject to inclement weather. The works that are currently underway include the
micropiling works that began in July 2014 and are expected to be completed in January 2015.
8.
The elevated pedestrian walkway is a feature of the Bicentennial Bikeway Stage 4 project.
The elevated walkway runs adjacent to the Regatta Hotel and will be enveloped in a nonstructural fibre composite shell, replicating the shape of a boat hull when viewed from the
river. The presenter noted that this shell will be painted in the colours that represent the
Toowong Rowing Club. The street side of the elevated walkway will be constructed with an
open balustrade to provide Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
visibility from the road.
9.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Billingham
for his informative presentation and acknowledged the work of the project team.
10.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE
REPORT.
ADOPTED
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE
Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee
held on 29 July 2014, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, at committee last week,
something miraculous happened. We saw unanimous support for an application
at committee. So it was exciting. It was exciting, miracles happen, Madam Chair.
I was absolutely delighted to see that that was the case. This is an application
that was lodged with Council on 12 November last year. So it was a
development application to carry out building work and education purposes for a
centre activity within the centre and education purposes at 69 Grey Street, South
Brisbane.
So this is proposed on behalf of the JMC Academy. It's already in existence at 75
Grey Street and, as we heard at Committee last week, it's a creative industry
institution. It offers degrees, diplomas in music, audio engineering, film and
television production, entertainment, business management, 3D animation and
game design.
So we had a bit of a discussion about game design at Committee and I note that
Councillor SUTTON, she professed her love for Fruit Ninja. So it's clear that
this is an application that has really captured the imagination of the members of
the Committee and certainly we think it is an industry that is very worthy of our
support as a city. Because it certainly is a growth industry in Brisbane.
So this particular academy was established in 1982. I think it was Australia's first
private college to qualify for accreditation in audio engineering, digital television
and multimedia. It—the existing campus is at capacity. So Council has received
an application to invest in additional campus space, further along Grey Street.
This will provide room for an additional 200 students and a further 21 staff.
So a significant expansion proposed. It is a small site, it's 359 square metres. It's
bordered at the rear by the rail corridor and it’s currently vacant as a result of a
fire over 18 months ago. So there were a number of constraints that had to be
responded to as part of this application. Of course, including lot size and that
relationship with the rail corridor, this can be challenging. The site is zoned
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 46 MP2, major centre. It's in the Kurilpa precinct of the South Brisbane Riverside
Neighbourhood Plan. It is disappointing to remind people that it was not
supported by the Australian Labor Party.
But certainly this particular plan has vision for this site. It's said, particularly
within the Kurilpa precinct it has encouragement for high density mixed use
development with the building height allowed of up to 10 storeys for sites less
than 999 square metres. So it triggered a code assessable application under City
Plan 2000. While there were no public notifications required under the State Act,
there were no submissions received whether formal or informal. So people
always had that opportunity to provide feedback to Council.
The building is 36 metres above ground level, will include lecture and media
rooms, soundproof rehearsal rooms as well as a library. It did trigger referral to
DSDIP (Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning) as a
concurrence agency for DTMR (Department of Transport and Main Roads).
There was no objection to the development and conditions were set with regard
to that rail corridor. Council issued an information request on 20 December last
year, asking for further information on a range of points, including land
dedication, design, size of the lot as well as noise.
This was responded to on 1 May this year. There is a land dedication issue that
was addressed through a footpath width of five metres on Grey Street. The site
cover was actually reduced from 87 to 83 per cent of the site. Potential noise
issues were addressed through no music being allowed to be played in any
outdoor area. The only music to be played will of course be in spaces which are
treated acoustically, as you would expect in a venue of this nature. So there's
effectively very significant noise attenuation which will be delivered.
So the applicant reduced the design to include recesses on the floor plate on
levels four, five and six, and as a result complies with the acceptable solution.
There have been conditions put in place relating to hours of operation. This will
be from Monday to Friday, 8am to midnight and then 8am to 8pm on Saturday
and 10am through to 4pm on Sunday. So significant measures put in place.
The site was affected by flooding in January 2011 to a depth of 5.2 metres AHD
(Australian Height Datum) with the existing ground level 5.1 metre AHD
through to 9.1 metres AHD. The defined flood level is 4.4 metres AHD for the
required floor level, so the ground level being at 5.1 through to 9.1, it met that
requirement. As we heard at Committee, this application proposed no parking,
which complies with the TAPS (Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing)
policy which is a maximum. This is a rate set under that policy, that is a policy,
of course, which was the policy of the Australian Labor Party.
So this is something that officers took into consideration, of course. It is a nonresidential application. There's excellent public transport options with only 180
metres to the cultural centre busway and 200 metres to the South Brisbane Rail
Station. So lots of opportunities and that was discussed at length at our
Committee.
As I said earlier, I was absolutely delighted to see unanimous support from our
committee, including the local councillor. We note that the local councillor said
that she had no issues with the development and she said that no parking issues
had been raised with her personally. So it's a great outcome, Madam Chair, I
would particularly like to thank all of the officers for their work on this
application. It is a credit to the South Team, they have some very complex
applications and they work through those very diligently. To get an outcome
such as this, it is certainly a credit to them and I think an excellent partnership
between the applicant and Council to work through those issues
comprehensively.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I wish to speak on this item. I won't go
through the details of every specific part of the development because that has
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 47 already been presented. But, Madam Chair, I do wish to correct the final
comment of Councillor COOPER who said I had no concerns regarding parking.
Madam Chair, I recall the presentation actually having a dot point on it, saying
the councillor raised concerns about parking. But, Madam Chair, I did speak in
Committee and I spoke outside the committee as well, saying this is not a
residential development where the lack of parking would have been a major
concern and I would not have supported this. As this is not a commercial office
with shops and retail below with no parking, I would never have supported that,
Madam Chair, either. Because it is demonstrable that there are needs for parking
in those uses.
But, Madam Chair, I did say, based on experience with not only the development
of JMC Investment in Grey Street, but a similar one in Melbourne Street, that the
issue had never been raised with me by students for the need for parking. Neither
the students—nor had parking been by any of the teachers. Nor had there been
any concern of any of the neighbours about the intrusion of parking from that
facility on their parking.
Madam Chair, if you think about the parking in this area, Grey Street, there is no
parking at all in Grey Street. Peel Street, round the corner, there is no parking at
all in Peel Street. It's all yellow lines, all the time. Melbourne Street, Madam
Chair, there is no parking in terms of a good block and a half in Melbourne
Street. So it is not as if there is parking available on the street. Also, Madam
Chair, experience shows, and it was reported in the Committee, that where there
is absolutely no parking, in fact there is much better compliance than when there
is a few spaces and people always believe the spaces are for them when in fact
they may not be available.
This is a situation where students are leading and showing us that where you
have excellent public transport, they survive very comfortably without using
their motorcars to commute for their educational services. Madam Chair that is
what they have shown. Madam Chair, why I really am delighted to have this
development in the ward is I do believe that the new technologies, the computer
based, the game based, all of those endeavours do fit very comfortably with the
inner city areas. That was outlined so well in Richard Florida's book, Creative
Class and was very clear that we need to have facilities and places in the inner
city for exactly those activities.
Therefore I am delighted to see it rather than another residential property. Also,
Madam Chair, because it is actually an eight storey building and I have no doubt
that there will be 20, 30 storeys—probably 30, 35 and 40 storeys in this area,
even though that's not what the Plan says at this time. Therefore, to have some
relief from a wall of high rise apartment buildings really adds to the streetscape
and the dynamic inner city parts of our city.
That's something that we should be thinking about seriously as this city
develops. That's why I support this. As I said many times, Madam Chair, anyone
can build a high rise building one after another after another after another. Every
major city in the world has done it. Surely Brisbane, in our inner city area,
should be developing a community, a community of creative class in these inner
city areas. If that means they're clever enough not to need cars, that's certainly
got my support on this development.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor COOPER. Any wrap up? I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the
Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and
Councillors Helen Abrahams, Geraldine Knapp, Shayne Sutton and Andrew Wines.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 48 -
A
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING
ACT 2009: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 241 TO CARRY
OUT BUILDING WORK FOR CENTRE ACTIVITY AND EDUCATION
PURPOSES AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNDER SECTION 243 FOR
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CENTRE ACTIVITY WITHIN
CENTRE AND EDUCATION PURPOSES – 69 GREY STREET, SOUTH
BRISBANE – JMC INVESTMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
A003747822
32/2014-15
1.
The Team Manager, Development Assessment Planning Services South Team, Development
Assessment Branch, City Planning and Sustainability Division, reports that a development
application has been submitted by Buckley Vann Town Planning Consultants, on behalf of
JMC Investments and Developments Pty Ltd, and was properly made on 12 November 2013,
as follows:
Development aspects:
General
proposal:
description
Land in the ownership of:
Address of the site:
Described as:
Containing an area of:
of
Carrying out building work – preliminary approval (under
section 241 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA))
Material change of use – Development permit (under
section 243 of SPA)
Eight-storey building including lecture rooms, media
rooms, sound proof rehearsal rooms, a library and
ancillary staff offices
32.25 metres high above ground level
Site cover of 328.8 square metres (91.6 per cent)
Gross Floor Area of 1,846 square metres
Hours of operation include 8am to midnight, Monday
to Friday; 8am to 8pm Saturday; and 10am to 4pm
Sunday
JMC Investments and Developments Pty Ltd
69 Grey Street, South Brisbane
Lot 10 on RP89153
359 square metres.
2.
The subject site, which is currently cleared and vacant, has frontage to Grey Street, is
bordered at the rear by a Queensland Rail corridor and has adjoining commerical office
buildings on either side. The site is designated Multi-purpose Centre MP2 – Major Centre and
is located within the boundary of the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan under the
superseded Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan).
3.
JMC Academy is a creative industry institution offering degrees and diplomas in: music,
audio engineering, film and television production, entertainment business management,
3D animation, and game design. The applicant advises that the existing JMC campus at
75 Grey Street, South Brisbane, is at capacity and the proposed development will be an
expansion to the existing campus by providing for approximately 200 additional creative
student places and employing 21 additional staff.
4.
The proposed development involves an eight-storey building that is specifically designed for
the proposed use with a gross floor area of 1,846 square metres. The uses include:
lecture rooms
media rooms
soundproof rehearsal rooms
a library
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 49 -
-
ancillary staff offices.
5.
The proposal generally complies with the relevant provisions of the superseded City Plan,
including the code assessable criteria and the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan
(Kurilpa Precinct).
6.
The Kurilpa Precinct encourages high density mixed-use development with building heights
of up to 10 storeys on sites less than 999 square metres.
7.
The site is also located within the City Frame Area where onsite car parking for
non-residential uses is provided at a maximum rate of one space per 200 square metres of
gross floor area.
8.
The application does not conflict with the relevant State Planning Policies and State Planning
Regulatory Provisions, which include:
Module 1 – Community amenity (sections 1.1 and 1.2)
Module 17 – Public and active transport (sections 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3)
Module 18 – State transport infrastructure protection (sections 18.1, 18.2, 18.3)
Module 19 – State transport network functionality (sections 19.2 and 19.3).
9.
The Councillor for The Gabba Ward, Councillor Helen Abrahams, was notified of the
application by email on 18 November 2013. On 22 July 2014, Councillor Abrahams emailed
a response raising concerns about onsite parking, but noted that she did not object to the
proposal.
10.
The proposal was subject to code assessment. No public notification was required to be
undertaken and no formal or informal submissions were received.
11.
The application was referred to Department of State Development, Infrastructure and
Planning (DSDIP) as a concurrence agency for the Department of Transport and Main Roads
relating to the following technical matters:
Development impacting on State transport infrastructure – Material change of use – a
new educational establishment likely to accommodate an additional 100 students or
four classrooms (Schedule 7, Table 3 Item 2)
Public Passenger Transport – Material change of use development within 25 metres
of a passenger transport corridor (Schedule 7, Table 3 Item 14)
Railways – Material change of use – development within 25 metres of a railway or
future railway land (Schedule 7, Table 3 Item 15A).
12.
DSDIP raised no objection to the proposal and has set conditions relevant to development
adjoining a rail corridor.
13.
Queensland Urban Utilities set conditions in the relation to the connection of water and
sewerage services to the proposal.
14.
The Team Manager advises that relevant reports have been obtained to address the assessment
criteria and decision process prescribed by SPA appropriately justifying the proposal and
outlining reasonable and relevant conditions of approval.
15.
The Team Manager recommends that the application be approved subject to the approved
plans and conditions included in the Development Approval Package, submitted on file and
marked Attachment A. The Committee agrees unanimously.
16.
RECOMMENDATION:
(i)
That it be and is hereby resolved that whereas—
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 50 -
(a)
A development application was properly made on 12 November 2013, to the
Council pursuant to section 260 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA),
as follows:
Development
aspects:
General description
of proposal:
Land
in
the
ownership of:
Address of the site:
Described as:
Containing an area
of:
(b)
Carrying out building work – preliminary approval
(under section 241 of SPA)
Material change of use – Development permit
(under section 243 of SPA)
- Eight-storey building including lecture rooms,
media rooms, sound proof rehearsal rooms, a
library and ancillary staff offices
- 32.25 metres high above ground level
- Site cover of 328.8 square metres
(91.6 per cent)
- Gross Floor Area of 1,846 square metres
- Hours of operation include 8am to midnight,
Monday to Friday; 8am to 8pm Saturday; and
10am to 4pm Sunday
JMC Investments and Developments Pty Ltd
69 Grey Street, South Brisbane
Lot 10 on RP89153
359 square metres.
The Council is required to assess the application pursuant to Chapter 6, Part
5, Division 2, section 313 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (the Act) and
decide the application under Division 3, Subdivision 1, section 318 and
Subdivision 2 of the Act;
the Council—
(c)
Upon consideration of the application and those matters set forth in sections
313, 318 and subdivision 2, section 326 of the Act relevant to the application
considers that:
1.
The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal does not cause
conflict with the State Planning Policies, Planning Regulatory
Provisions or South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031;
2.
The proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions within the
superseded Brisbane City Plan 2000;
3.
The proposal facilitates the growth of the city’s economy and
employment through the provision of higher education;
4.
The widening of Grey Street will improve pedestrian movement and
the desired streetscape works;
5.
The proposal will not create adverse amenity impacts on the
surrounding area;
6.
The development can be accommodated within the existing essential
infrastructure networks; and
7.
The proposal does not directly or adversely impact the surrounding
State development infrastructure or is not adversely impacted by
noise or air emissions from the State transport infrastructure;
(d)
Accordingly considers that were the reasonable and relevant conditions,
submitted on file and marked Attachment A, imposed on the development, it
would be appropriate that the proposed development be carried out on the
subject land;
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 51 -
(e)
(ii)
Issue a Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice for the
development pursuant to the Act and the Brisbane Adopted Infrastructure
Charges Resolution (No. 4) 2014, for the transport, community purposes and
stormwater trunk infrastructure networks; and
Whereas the Council determines as in (i) hereof, THE COUNCIL APPROVES
THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION referred to above, subject to the
conditions in the Development Approval Package submitted on file and marked
Attachment A, and directs that:
(a)
the applicant be advised of the decision;
(b)
the applicant be given the Infrastructure Charges Notice for community
purposes, stormwater and transport;
(c)
the Central SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority be advised of the decision;
(d)
the concurrence agency, the Department of State Development, Infrastructure
and Planning, be advised of the decision; and
(e)
the Councillor of the Gabba Ward, Councillor Helen Abrahams, be advised
of the decision.
ADOPTED
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved,
seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 29 July 2014, be
adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor BOURKE:
Look, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just a couple of things before I turn
to the formal Committee report that we have before us. Madam Chairman, it was
with great pleasure that Council got advised late last week that we'd been
successful in acquiring some of the Green Army grants or Green Army projects
that have been announced by the Federal Government. So this Council, last
week, voted to repeal our Carbon Tax liability for the people of Brisbane.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor BOURKE:
This week, I'm reporting to the Council Chamber, that we're going out into our
bushland areas and actually doing practical measures on the ground that will
have a positive impact on the environmental values of the city and also help to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the city.
So, Madam Chairman, Brisbane Koala Bushland is one of the projects, Kedron
Brook Catchment Revegetation project is another one, Madam Chairman.
Tingalpa Creek Reservoir Restoration project, Ithaca Creek Riparian Zone
enhancement is another one, Madam Chairman, as well as the Deagon Wetlands
Lagoon Restoration project and the Salisbury Recreation Reserve Restoration
project, Madam Chairman, as well as Banks Street Reserve.
So seven projects which is the first wave of the Green Army, Madam Chairman.
Some 2,500 people, I believe, young people that will be engaged across the
country building up to 15,000 young people where they'll learn skills and formal
training in maintaining, preserving and various aspects of working in our natural
areas. It's great to be able to support and be a part of that. But for the residents of
Brisbane to also benefit in environmental outcomes on the ground, having that
positive benefit.
Madam Chairman, to the report. There was a presentation last week at our
Committee meeting on caring for war memorials. It was quite timely, last
Tuesday was 29 July and Councillor KNAPP and I had a small discussion
before. While 4 August was indeed the day that Britain and the Allied Forces
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 52 entered the war, 28 July was the official start of proceedings where war-like
situations occurred in various parts of Northern Europe.
So we took the opportunity in the Committee to reflect on some of the
memorials and some of the spaces across the city. But also on some of the
aspects on how we can support our community groups, particularly RSLs
(Returned and Services League), but also historical societies in the maintenance
and maintaining of those memorials. But also the work that we are undertaking
as a Council.
This year, the LORD MAYOR has put additional funding into the budget. So on
top of the significant investment that we're making with the State Government to
repair and restore Anzac Square and to make that space a more friendly, a better
educational space for people, there is also money being spent right across the
city in five, in particular, memorials, to do restoration works that need to be
undertaken. But then that allocation that's being made in each region to help do
the little bit of sprucing up and the better presentation for obviously the
centenary of the Anzac landings in April next year.
So it was quite a detailed presentation, the State has prepared a handbook which
you can access on the State's website, around preparing memorials, installing
memorials and also the maintenance and management of memorials, and some
of the key elements that you need to be mindful of around that, Madam
Chairman. I encourage all councillors, if you haven't had a look at that
document, to access it on the State's website.
Madam Chairman, a number of petitions on the agenda as well. So there was two
items, though, that I want to speak to very, very quickly here. Wendy Turnbull
Green at Frew Park in Milton. I had the pleasure with Councillor KING last
Friday in having a small tour of the development out there at Frew Park. It's
coming along very well. The facility looks amazing, the arena and the
playground are taking shape. Here we see another one of these petitions, there's
quite a few of these petitions, Madam Chairman, for the name. But also, Madam
Chairman, the formal park naming submission is also with us here today.
So Council considered the petitions, we've sought a resolution, Council's agreed
to the official naming and today we see the official park naming coming through
as a part of this package. Also, Madam Chairman, a park naming in Councillor
DICK's ward, down in Oxley. Also, Madam Chairman, and I can't wait to hear
the same speech again as we got about six weeks ago, Madam Chairman, on
Councillor ABRAHAMS' petition around the resumption of homes in Rogers
and Raven Streets in West End.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair. Just on this report, item B which is the formal naming of
Muirfield Crescent Park as Weston Place Park. This is as a result of a number of
residents who contacted me primarily through the Neighbourhood Watch that
operates there. There was some confusion that there was already a sign in place
at the particular park but formally wasn't known within Council. It came as a
result of us doing an event there, combined community even with the
Neighbourhood Watch in the park and we wanted to make sure that residents
knew exactly where we were holding that event.
Then we realised that within the Council itself, the formal name hadn't
happened. So this is just, I guess, tidying up something that perhaps slipped
through the cracks many years ago. I am delighted to offer my support and I
wanted today, to publicly thank members of the Neighbourhood Watch and local
residents who signed my petition and to make sure that we work with the
Council officers to make sure that the due credit for the Weston family and
particularly with Albert Weston who worked at Huttons and Foggit Jones Meat
Factory for many years and the Weston family lived in Alban Street at Oxley,
close to the Blunder Road intersection.
So like many families, they had a number of people who worked at the bacon
factory and have had a long association with the area. So I'm thrilled that we
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 53 have now got the park formally named which was known as Muirfield Crescent
Park now known as Weston Place Park.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I wish to speak to item D which is an
ePetition about the resumption of houses on Rogers and Raven Street West End,
and a new park on the former Distance Education site at 405 Montague Road,
West End. Madam Chair, this petition has previously come to Council and I
spoke in favour of it at that time. Because, Madam Chair, I understand that the
LORD MAYOR has said, sufficient times, that he will not resume houses in
Rogers Street for park purposes, and that he cannot walk away from those
comments.
I would also like to restate that Councillor BOURKE has also made those
comments. But, Madam Chair, and I wish to write into the record, still in the
City Plan 2014, the priority infrastructure plan, shows an indicative park on
Rogers Street and Raven Street. Now, Madam Chair, I raised that before City
Plan 2014 was approved. Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR said before City
Plan 2014 was approved he had no intention of purchasing houses for a parkland
on this site.
So, Madam Chair, I don't understand why the PIP has not been modified to
completely remove any intention, any indicative intention of an acquisition of a
park on this site. So that everybody is talking to the same hymn sheet, there is no
uncertainty, the residents can look at the PIP and be quite happy that they don't
see anything over their site.
Madam Chair, if you were going to convince the community that you had
integrity on this issue, surely you would have brought the City Plan up to date
with your intentions. Madam Chair, the final part of this petition relates to open
space on 405 Montague Road. Madam Chair, it indicates that there are the
powers within the City Plan 2014 and the South Brisbane Riverside
Neighbourhood Plan for there to be a public space outcome.
Now, Madam Chair, since Labor was in administration, the words public open
space, public space, plaza, urban common, public space outcome have been
introduced, I mean to say there are so many words but we just seem to have
forgotten that simple word that everyone understands, park. Well, Madam Chair,
I'm making it very clear that when the development comes in on this site, the
residents want a space that's green and grass and chairs and trees, that is big
enough and has the dimension enough where they can have the informal game of
kicking a football with family members, being able to have the informal
activities which is what we desperately need when we're going to have 14, 12,
eight-storey buildings right through this area.
That is why I support this recommendation.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Look, it was an interesting contribution
from Councillor ABRAHAMS. She talked about integrity; she talked about
getting the community to believe the intentions of the Administration. So let's
just have a little thing about what Councillor ABRAHAMS just proposed. She
proposed that we go and change the PIP in the 2014 City Plan, Madam
Chairman, arbitrarily, without any consultation, without going through the due
process, without actually engaging with the community or going through the
proper processes, Madam Chairman, without going through the proper processes
just to take this park—the indicative park out for Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Because we know that the Labor Party are so obsessed and focused on process,
normally, Madam Chairman, Councillor ABRAHAMS wants us just to go and
not worry about any State planning laws, not worry about any Council planning
laws, rather than dealing with it as part of a review, Madam Chairman,
Councillor ABRAHAMS just thought that the town planners should just go and
go, oh look, I'll get the eraser out and we'll just squiggle that indicative park out
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 54 down there, Madam Chairman, between when Councillor ABRAHAMS raised
this issue about three months ago and now.
Well, Madam Chairman, it doesn't work like that, through you to Councillor
ABRAHAMS, and she should know, she's been in this place for long enough. As
a former chairman for Environment, Parks and Sustainability, Madam Chairman,
you would think that she would know better. But, Madam Chairman, it's quite a
shame. But then she goes no, Madam Chairman, to give us a lecture about this
Administration providing or talking about open space and urban commons, but
always missing out that little, that other P word, parks.
Well, Madam Chairman, I just spent two minutes talking about this park at
Milton that we're building, Frew Park, and I remember a councillor from the
Australian Labor Party who made comments when we went out and we actually
announced that we were going to acquire and build that park. Her comments
were something along the lines of, it was astounding that Council would go and
do this, Madam Chairman. It was amazing and astounding.
Madam Chairman, we're building a new four and a half hectare park at Milton
called Frew Park. Madam Chairman, I also remember cries from those opposite
when we built a new park at Tennyson, Madam Chairman. I remember we've
also built a new park at Calamvale, Madam Chairman.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor BOURKE:
Madam Chairman, we're building parks, the PIP (Priority Infrastructure Plan)
and the City Plan include numerous new parks across the whole of the city going
forward for the next 10 to 15 years, Madam Chairman. So let's not have any
more of this rot from those opposite, any more diatribe from Councillor
ABRAHAMS when it comes to the provision of open spaces, because obviously
they don't have a vision or a plan. They don't acknowledge that the people of
Brisbane want a range of different spaces to have recreational activities in.
So the plan under Labor is a socialist template, you must have a park. You can't
have an urban common, you can't have a facility that actually meets the
expectations and the needs of the community and the residents who are moving
into an area, Madam Chairman, that's the view of those opposite. We saw it last
week with the purchase of the land at Thomas Street at West End which
Councillor ABRAHAMS openly opposed in her community. When Council
went out and said, we want to acquire this block of land to provide an urban
common, to provide open space, to help facilitate the future growth that's going
to occur in West End, Councillor ABRAHAMS went out and said, no, no, no,
it's terrible, you shouldn't be doing this.
Well, Madam Chairman, the residents of Brisbane wanted that park because we
saw the responses. I read out the figures last week, Madam Chairman, in this
place. So we will continue to provide the appropriate spaces, a range of spaces,
Madam Chairman, because that is the best outcome for the city. You don't need
this one size fits all approach to providing recreational opportunities and
environmental opportunities across the city.
We want to provide a range of different opportunities, a range of different spaces
for people to undertake peaceful, pleasant activities, social activities, sporting
activities and the like, Madam Chairman. Irrespective of the views of those
opposite when it comes to what they would think is appropriate, Madam
Chairman. We'll listen to the residents of Brisbane and make sure that we're
providing the appropriate spaces, whether it's parks, urban commons, open space
or alike.
Chairman:
I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the
Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report as follows
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 55 -
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors
Peter Cumming, Kim Flesser, Geraldine Knapp and Ryan Murphy.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CARING FOR WAR MEMORIALS
33/2014-15
1.
Joseph Casabella, Group Manager, Parks and Natural Resources, Natural Environment, Water
and Sustainability Branch, City Planning and Sustainability Division, delivered a presentation
on caring for the city's war memorials. The Queensland Government has released a new
guideline for the conservation of war memorials. Mr Casabella provided the information
below.
2.
The importance of conserving Brisbane’s war memorials was discussed. It was noted that:
Memorials represent the city’s shared heritage and they belong to all residents.
Memorials are easily damaged through incorrect, insufficient or too-frequent
maintenance.
Memorials require regular maintenance by appropriately skilled people.
A photograph of the Windsor War Memorial, which was unveiled on Anzac Day 1925, was
displayed.
3.
In March 2014 the Queensland Government released the guideline titled Caring for war
memorials. The guideline covers key issues and common problems. A photograph of the
Nundah Memorial was displayed. The stone in this memorial discolours quickly and may be
damaged by too-frequent cleaning or inappropriate cleaning methods.
4.
The new guideline creates a four step process for memorial conservation:
1.
understanding the memorial (including its setting, design, construction, inscriptions,
relationship to other elements, as well as its view lines, ceremonial area and the space
for onlookers during ceremonies)
2.
inspect and maintain (regular inspections help to prevent and arrest damage)
3.
determine essential repairs or changes (a conservative approach is applied through the
principle of doing as much as necessary, but as little as possible)
4.
manage repairs and changes (all work requires careful planning, management and
record keeping. Complex repairs or making changes to the memorial may require
Queensland Heritage Exemption Certificates).
5.
Implementation of this approach will:
extend the longevity of memorials
improve results by using appropriately skilled people
reduce the need for major repairs
reduce the occurrence of inappropriate repairs and changes
reduce costs by using correct materials and methods.
A photograph of the First World War memorial in Mowbray Park, East Brisbane, was
displayed. This was the earliest First World War memorial in Brisbane (dating to 1917). It has
an Honour Roll honouring all soldiers, sailors and nurses who enlisted for active service from
the Kangaroo Point training area.
6.
The key messages outlined in the new guideline were summarised as:
understand the memorial (design, construction and purpose)
document original design, any changes and keep records
regularly monitor its condition
seek advice and use qualified labour
prepare a maintenance schedule.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 56 -
A photograph of the Women’s Memorial Gates at Yeronga Memorial Park was displayed.
The gates contain two plaques: one is dedicated to the memory of those men who fought in
the First World War and the other plaque carries a rare dedication to the women of Stephens
Shire.
7.
Benefits for Council will include: more consistent outcomes, decentralisation of knowledge, a
reduction in mistakes, longer lasting memorials, an overall improvement in the condition of
memorials, greater ease of working with community custodians and more sound decision
making. A photograph of the Anning Monument at Hemmant Recreation Reserve was
displayed. The Anning Monument is historically significant as it commemorates Australia`s
participation in the South African (or Boer) War of 1899-1902.
8.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Casabella
for his informative presentation.
9.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE
REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF MUIRFIELD CRESCENT PARK,
27 PINEHURST PLACE, OXLEY, AS ‘WESTON PLACE PARK’
161/540/567/112
34/2014-15
10.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
11.
Weston Place Park (number D1837) is located at 27 Pinehurst Place, Oxley, and is an
informal use park. The park contains play equipment and visitor facilities.
12.
Representation has been received from local residents to name the park after the Weston
Family, who lived and worked in Oxley. It is also supported by Councillor Milton Dick, the
Councillor for Richlands Ward.
13.
The Weston family lived in Alban Street, Oxley, close to the intersection with Blunder Road.
Albert Weston worked at Huttons and Foggitt Jones Meat Factory for many years and
ultimately was granted life membership by the Meat Workers Union.
14.
Like most Oxley families, more than one family member worked at the ‘bacon factory’ and
another member, David, attended Corinda Primary School in the 1940s. He is believed to still
live in the area.
15.
There is currently a park name sign calling the park Weston Place Park. No record of this
decision could be found in Asset Services South Parks’ history file. It would appear that a
submission was started in 1999, however this didn’t make it to the approval process.
16.
The proposed wording for the park name sign is ‘Weston Place Park’.
Funding
17.
Funding for the park name sign is available in the Asset Services South recurrent budget for
2014-15.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 57 -
Consultation
18.
Councillor Milton Dick, Councillor for Richlands Ward, agrees that the proposal is
appropriate for this parkland.
19.
The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
20.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO NAME THE PARK CURRENTLY
KNOWN AS MUIRFIELD CRESCENT PARK (D1837), AS ‘WESTON PLACE
PARK’, in accordance with Council Procedure OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or
Tracks and that a name sign and information panel be erected on the road frontage of
the park.
ADOPTED
C
PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF A SECTION OF FREW PARK,
FREW STREET, MILTON, AS ‘WENDY TURNBULL GREEN’
161/540/567/116
35/2014-15
21.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
22.
Council has received a number of petitions requesting a section of Frew Park (D1723), Frew
Street, Milton, be named as ‘Wendy Turnbull Green’.
23.
Wendy Turnbull is a Brisbane sporting heroine and Hall of Fame recipient. She was born and
raised in Brisbane and was affectionately known as ‘Rabbit’ because of her court speed.
Wendy enjoyed success on the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) Tour as both a singles
and doubles player. She reached the final of three Grand Slam Singles Championships and
held a spot among the top 10 singles players in the world from 1977 to 1985, peaking at
number three.
24.
Ms Turnbull won nine Grand Slam Ladies Doubles and Mixed Doubles titles. At the 1979
French Open she reached the final of all three events, losing the singles but winning the
Ladies Doubles and Mixed Doubles Championships. While on tour, Wendy won 13 singles
and 55 doubles titles.
Consultation
25.
Councillor Peter Matic, Councillor for Toowong Ward, and the local community agree that
the name ‘Wendy Turnbull Green’ is appropriate for this section of parkland.
26.
The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
27.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO NAME A SECTION OF FREW PARK
(D1723), FREW STREET, MILTON, AS ‘WENDY TURNBULL GREEN’ in accordance
with the Council Procedure OSO3 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.
ADOPTED
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 58 -
D
PETITION – OPPOSING ANY PROPOSAL TO RESUME HOMES IN
ROGERS AND RAVEN STREETS, WEST END, FOR NEW PUBLIC
PARKLAND, AND CALLING ON COUNCIL TO DELIVER A NEW PARK
AT 405 MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END
CA14/405984
36/2014-15
28.
An ePetition from residents of Brisbane opposing any proposal to resume homes in Rogers
and Raven Streets, West End, for new public parkland, and calling on Council to deliver a
new park at 405 Montague Road, West End, was presented to Council at its meeting of
27 May 2014 by Councillor Helen Abrahams, and received.
29.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.
30.
The ePetition contains 49 signatures requesting that Council develop a new public park at
405 Montague Road, West End, consistent with the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood
Plan.
31.
The site at 405 Montague Road, West End is 1.779 hectares and is privately owned. It
contains several lots zoned for mixed-use development in the South Brisbane Riverside
Neighbourhood Plan area, Riverside South Precinct.
32.
No development application has been lodged on the former Distance Education Centre site.
Council will, through the development assessment process, use the open space provisions
contained in the neighbourhood plan to determine a public space outcome for this site.
Council does not intend to resume homes in Rogers Street, West End, for park purposes.
33.
Council has commenced the resumption process on allotment at 68 Vulture Street, West End,
which is identified in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan.
34.
It is therefore recommended that the petitioners be advised that Council does not intend to
resume homes in Rogers and Raven Streets, West End, for park purposes. Council will,
however, seek a public space outcome as part of any future development of the former
Distance Education Centre site, in accordance with neighbourhood plan provisions.
Consultation
35.
Councillor Helen Abrahams, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, was consulted on 30 June 2014
and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
36.
The community will benefit from a new public open space in the South Brisbane Riverside
Neighbourhood Plan area, Riverside South Precinct.
37.
The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agrees.
38.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL DOES NOT INTEND
TO RESUME HOMES IN ROGERS AND RAVEN STREETS, WEST END, FOR
PARK PURPOSES. Council will however, seek a public space outcome as part of any future
development of the former Distance Education Centre site, in accordance with neighbourhood
plan provisions.
ADOPTED
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 59 -
E
PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO RENAME THE GREEN AT
FREW PARK, MILTON, AS ‘WENDY TURNBULL GREEN’
CA14/418829
37/2014-15
39.
A petition from residents of Brisbane requesting that Council rename the green at Frew Park
as ‘Wendy Turnbull Green’, was presented to Council at its meeting of 20 May 2014 by
Councillor Peter Matic, and received.
40.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, provided the
information below.
41.
The petition contains 12 signatures.
42.
A brief history of Ms Wendy Turnbull was submitted as part of the petition. Wendy Turnbull
is a Brisbane sporting heroine and Hall of Fame recipient. She was born and raised in
Brisbane and was affectionately named ‘Rabbit’ because of her court speed. Wendy enjoyed
success on the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) Tour as both a singles and doubles
player. She reached the final of three Grand Slam Singles Championships and held a spot
among the top 10 singles players in the world from 1977 to 1985, peaking at number three.
43.
Ms Turnbull won nine Grand Slam Ladies Doubles and Mixed Doubles titles. At the 1979
French Open she reached the final of all three events, losing the final of the singles, but
winning the Ladies Doubles and Mixed Doubles Championships. While on tour, Wendy won
13 singles and 55 doubles titles.
Funding
44.
Funding will be provided through the Frew Park Project.
Consultation
45.
Councillor Peter Matic, Councillor for Toowong Ward, has been consulted and supports the
recommendation below.
46.
The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agrees.
47.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL NAME THE
LARGE OPEN SPACE IN FREW PARK, MILTON, AS ‘WENDY TURNBULL
GREEN’.
ADOPTED
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor
Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of that Committee held on 29 July 2014, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. There's been a fair discussion today about
recycling. The report before us at item A was the Committee presentation last
week before our Committee on the Pine Mountain recycling facility. This is a
long way, though, from processing the contents of our yellow top bins. This is
recycling of an entirely different sort but does make a significant contribution to
the clean and green agenda of this Administration.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 60 This facility is located on Pine Mountain Road at Carina Heights. It's an old
quarry site undergoing long term rehabilitation and adjacent to the White Hills
Reserve and is surrounded by some residential developments. This is a facility
that takes construction waste from Council projects and reprocesses that material
into usable materials, ensuring that this conserves raw materials and also
reducing the amount of material that would otherwise be going to landfill. So it
certainly makes a significant contribution towards our—towards zero waste
objectives.
It also means that asphalt that comes in off-road plaining when roads are being
resurfaced, this is the facility that accepts that material. About 180,000 tonnes of
material accepted in the last financial year, and that in turn is turned into an
asphalt product that goes out for re-asphalting new roads or re-asphalting
roadways. So that reduces the cost and demand for new products, which saves
the Council a considerable amount of money in the order of $2.5 million to $2.6
million per annum.
This is also the facility that is crushing waste glass as a suitable replacement for
sand in asphalt mixers, rather than the use of fresh sand, which is also a very
good outcome. Of the concrete that's taken away from footpaths and kerbing in
replacement and is also taken to this location and crushed into drainage materials
as a replacement for blue metal. So all in all, Madam Chairman, this is a good
facility making a great contribution to our clean and green objectives across the
city. I recommend the report to the Chamber.
Chairman:
Further debate? I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Field Services Committee
was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Nicole Johnston,
Kim Marx and Norm Wyndham.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:
Councillor Ian McKenzie (Deputy Chairman).
A
COMMITTEE
FACILITY
PRESENTATION
–
PINE
MOUNTAIN
RECYCLING
38/2014-15
1.
Jamie Hall, Acting Manager, Asphalt and Aggregates Branch, Field Services Group, Brisbane
Infrastructure Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Pine Mountain
recycling facility. He provided the information below.
2.
The Pine Mountain recycling facility is located on Pine Mountain Road in Carina Heights.
The site is an old quarry site that operated during the 1930s to 1980s and is now undergoing
long-term rehabilitation. It was noted that the recycling facility is adjacent to the Whites Hill
reserve and is surrounded by residential areas.
3.
An image, showing the location of the site was displayed and discussed. The presenter noted
that the operational hours of the site are strictly controlled due to the residences in close
proximity.
4.
The Pine Mountain recycling facility takes construction waste from Council projects and
reprocesses into useable materials. This conserves the use of raw materials and reduces
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 61 -
materials going into landfill, while also progressively remediating the old quarry site. The
facility is also used as the distribution point of new quarry products for small load
requirements. The presenter handed around some samples of the materials that are produced
at the Pine Mountain recycling facility.
5.
A slide, showing the volumes of materials processed by the Pine Mountain recycling facility
in the 2013-14 financial year, was displayed.
6.
The operating costs of the Pine Mountain recycling facility includes a $4.4 million annual
operating budget, funded through sales of products generated and disposal fees received. The
presenter noted that the internal prices, for the sale of processed materials and dumping fees,
are lower than market price.
7.
The use of recycled asphalt from the Pine Mountain facility reduces the cost for road
resurfacing by reducing the volume of new quarry material and bitumen used in producing
asphalt. This represents a saving to Council of approximately $2.6 million per annum, and
also eliminates the cost for disposal of the old asphalt.
8.
The Pine Mountain recycling facility also produces other recycled materials for use rather
than sending the waste to landfill. Crushed waste glass is used as a suitable replacement for
sand in asphalt mixes and surplus concrete footpaths and kerbing is crushed into drainage and
subgrade replacement materials.
9.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Hall for his
informative and demonstrative presentation.
10.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE
REPORT.
ADOPTED
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE
Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Brisbane Lifestyle Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor
Andrew WINES, that the report of that Committee held on 29 July 2014, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go to the report, I would just like to remind
councillors that the two grants that opened on 7 July and will close on 25
August, the School Sport and Recreation Facility Upgrade program and the
School Tennis Partnership program. So both of these funded by Brisbane City
Council and Education Queensland provide financial assistance to our Brisbane
state schools to upgrade existing school sport and rec (recreation) facilities that
could be used within the community as well as school use.
So there is a pool there of $200,000 available to our schools to upgrade existing
school sport and rec facilities and I really encourage all councillors to make sure
they touch base with their schools if they've got those facilities and they would
like to apply for those grants.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor ADAMS:
As I said, closing on 25 August.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Would Councillor ADAMS take a question, it's very quick and straightforward.
Councillor ADAMS:
No.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 62 Chairman:
No, okay, thank you. Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Last week's presentation was on the Australian
Performing Arts Market (APAM), which was a highlight of earlier this year,
February, March. It recognised Australia as our new world city, because it's the
12th biannual year of APAM but the first one that we've had in Brisbane, which
was very, very exciting. After we stole it from Adelaide who've had it for the
past 11 events. We're very excited now that we can showcase this event in
Brisbane and I suppose showcase Brisbane as well as an events capital for,
particularly, the Asia-Pacific region.
It was held from 18 to 20 February across five partner venues. So there was the
Powerhouse, QPAC (Queensland Performing Arts Centre), Queensland
Conservatorium, QUT (Queensland University of Technology) and the Judith
Wright Centre.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, point of order against you, Councillor ADAMS. Yes, Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I'm just concerned Councillor ADAMS has perhaps
inadvertently misled the Chamber. She just said those grants were for state
schools. My question was to clarify and I've just checked online, Madam
Chairman, they are available to private schools and—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—independent schools and I just think, Madam Chairman, the record needs to be
corrected because that is misleading—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, your point of order is inappropriate. Please resume
your seat.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, you've created a point—
Chairman:
Resume your seat.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
You created the right to raise misleading the Chamber, I am—
Chairman:
Resume your seat.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I am asking for a ruling on the fact that Councillor ADAMS has misled the
Chamber.
Chairman:
I don't support your point of order. Councillor ADAMS made a statement about
grants being available and she suggested that all councillors make sure that they
are promoted in their community. I do not uphold your point of order. If you
continue to interject, I will invoke section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act.
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, Powerhouse, QPAC, Queensland
Conservatorium, QUT and Judith Writhe Centre all had the perfect opportunity
to showcase not just what they have but what our great city has. The events of
around Australia and opportunities to the rest of the world.
So we secured the rights to APAM along with the World Theatre Festival to be
held this year, 2016 and 2018. Through the Queensland Government, Arts
Queensland, Tourism Events Queensland and the Australian Arts Council, it was
a fantastic event held this year. I can see Councillor HOWARD nodding because
I know she went to a lot of the events as well. A hundred showcases and events,
400 artists, crew and staff, Brisbane Torres Strait Islander, Aboriginal
community worked really closely through the opening ceremony which was a
spectacular performance of their indigenous dance.
Seventy performers there that actually opened it. So I think that was very new,
particularly to some of our overseas delegates that came from far away as the
Netherlands. Seventy eight showcases that had everything from excerpts to full
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 63 length presentations. The idea what to show what we have here for producers to
pick it up and travel overseas and have those people perform overseas.
So we had a combined participation of more than 1,200 people, largest
delegation APAM has had in history. So obviously people are enjoying coming
to Brisbane more than Adelaide. Six hundred and twenty seven delegates and
more than 389 artists and crews from the various events as well. I think it is
interesting to see that 45 per cent were first time to APAM in Brisbane, which is
great. So hopefully they'll be coming back in two years.
We had a very strong volunteer team as well, 72 volunteers aged from the age of
18 to 68, got involved which is fantastic for those more elderly to be involved in
the community but also those young who want to get into the creative industries
as well, to have a look at those opportunities within that area. Twenty different
languages spoken and we had some partnerships with Culture Island and with
the Canadian Consulate as well, to really expand those connections.
I have to say it was great having the World Theatre Festival at the same time, a
lot of the delegates used that opportunity to go to the World Theatre Festival as
well. It really increased the visitation to that event, too. So in many ways,
Madam Chairman, APAM has benefited Brisbane from an economic benefit of
just under $1 million when you add in the nights' accommodations, they stayed
for the three nights of the event, then the book-endings on either side of the
event as well.
We had residents as well as our visitors being able to experience and engage
with art and really learn about all the different types of cultures and Brisbane art
opportunities. Of course, there was the networking for the organisations as well,
which is fantastic, to strengthen our city's commercial and entrepreneurial
capacity. Madam Chair, APAM 2014 was a huge success and we can't wait for
the next editions in 2016 and 2018.
There was also two petitions here today. Which were both unanimously
supported by the Committee. One around illegal businesses in local streets, in
Councillor MARX's area, and one responding to the work that's being done in
Fleet Lane and Jolly Place in Councillor ABRAHAMS' area as well. So I'll leave
that to the councillors thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I wish to just make a few comments on
item C which is the Council improved public safety in Fleet Lane and Jolly Place
Park, South Brisbane. Madam Chair, I again, I think for the third time in as many
weeks I give my thanks and support to Councillor ADAMS. When I was asked,
as we all are, what my comment might be to the recommendation on this
petition, I was asked to comment on the following, Madam Chair.
That is recommendation 1, the outcomes of Council's review of safety issues in
Fleet Lane and Jolly Place Park are communicated to the head petitioner. The
second, the completed and planned actions to improve the safety of Fleet Lane
and Jolly Place Park by the Asset Services branch are communicated to the head
petitioner. Three, anti-social behaviour is referred to the Queensland Police
Service.
Now, Madam Chair, I knew that Council is committed to safety in public spaces
and that probably there was some content that was going to be given to the head
petitioner, but clearly I could not support that recommendation, seeming all it
was telling me was a process, it wasn't telling me an outcome. So, Madam Chair,
I requested additional information and I'm sure Councillor ADAMS would have
had to intervene so that I was given the information that is provided in this
petition.
That information is a number of changes to improve the lighting in the area, to
make sure that stickers and floodlights are in appropriately to increase the
lighting in Fleet Lane. To undertake maintenance of the park in terms of lopping
trees and trimming shrubs and generally maintaining this area. Madam Chair, I
support those proposals. I know the businesses that were part of this—collecting
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 64 the signatures on this petition, have already availed themselves in submissions to
see if they can have the Suburban Crime Prevention grants to help them install
CCTV.
I would hope that they were successful as that community is very aware that it
was a CCTV camera installed under that program that in fact led to the
identification of the offender with the death that we had in a nearby park. But,
Madam Chair, I do believe there may be a need in the future for more structural
changes, to remove some of the landscape along Grey Street. It is an old barrier
form of landscaping rather than opening it up and I would just ask that
Councillor ADAMS stay abreast of my concerns on monitoring and making sure
the problems that have been identified have been appropriately solved through
this process. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor HOWARD?
Councillor HOWARD:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to Item
A on the report of the Australian Performing Arts Market or APAM as we call it.
It's our Major International Arts Market Development Project and Event
Showcase Fair and it was presented last weekend in committee.
I can only applaud the diverse and unique nature of the performing arts here in
Brisbane and Queensland, led in my area by Brisbane City Council's
Powerhouse under Kris Stewart and Noelene Galloway. It is especially the case
in Central and I imagine in the Gabba too, Councillor ABRAHAMS, that I am
reminded every day how many residents and ratepayers are involved and rely on
an income in the arts. These residents deserve our support and I am happy to
assist them to further their journey where I can.
Madam Chairman, from cutting-edge interactive new media art to the
preservation and presentation of heritage items in local galleries, from seeing an
Australian film at the cinema to reading the first novel of a young and emerging
Australian author, all images of Australian creativity are important. Our sense of
ourselves would be different and poorer without Namatjira's landscapes,
Lawson's literature or Sutherland's arias.
Contemporary arts and culture through APAM reflect and define how we see
ourselves at this moment in time, as a modern and tolerant society. It is my aim,
along with Councillor ADAMS and my good friends, Ian Walker and Senator
Brandis, to encourage excellence in, and access to, all areas of the arts in
Australia and to encourage all Australians to celebrate our culture and creativity.
But in order to realise this we must strive for excellence in training, excellence in
artist endeavour and excellence in promotion and presentation of artists' work.
That is where APAM fits, Madam Chairman. It's this promotion and presentation
that we saw with 100 showcases and events featuring 400 artists, crew and staff
and over 600 delegates from around the globe.
As the minutes say, APAM 2014 had a total combined participation of over
1,200 people. This being the largest delegation in history and the main reasons
for attending the event were to buy, sell and network. Buying, selling and
networking; important to any industry, but particularly so for the arts sector.
The total combined participation of over 1,200 people came to see the best in
contemporary Australian performing arts. They came to see an international
platform for discovering new performance works. They came to see amazing
local and international performing artists from across the region, and importantly
for our local Central Ward economy, they came with just under $1 million of
economic injection to our hotels, our restaurants, our bars and our cafes.
Madam Chairman, you could feel the buzz in Central that week from the river
and the Powerhouse, down Brunswick Street to the Judith Wright Centre and
along to QUT. I'm so glad to support a Council administration that through our
agencies and the Australia Council works consistently to broaden the reach of
arts and culture in Australia.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor MARX?
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 65 Councillor MARX:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the petition, on Item B. I'm only
going to talk for a few minutes because I know my voice sounds awful.
I spoke to the journalist last week about this particular petition that was coming
to Council today; she wanted to do a story on it, and I wanted to make it very
clear to her and to the residents in my area that Brisbane City Council is not
against people having home businesses, but what we are against is people who
have home businesses that flout the local laws.
I'm not going to name the two businesses that are mentioned here in the petition
here in Chambers because I don't know that that's particularly appropriate, but I
just want everyone to know that there was a very long history about these local
businesses in my ward. There were a lot of problems with it, in particular
increased traffic creating hazards within the street. We had situations where
there were people sitting in their car waiting to pick up their children with their
car doors open, and then as you can imagine that would cause a problem. Also
parking over residents' driveways, which as we all know is a big issue, not only
around local home businesses but also at our schools.
So I really just want to stand today and commend Councillor ADAMS and the
CARS (Compliance and Regulatory Services) officers. They investigated both of
these businesses over quite a substantial period of time. They liaised with my
office on numerous occasions where we were monitoring the local businesses on
Facebook, where they were quite openly flouting Brisbane City Council local
laws. They were made to show due cause too. Our notices were issued to them,
and all that process has been followed, and as a result of the CARS officers and
their work on this situation, this problem has been resolved satisfactorily. Thank
you.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ADAMS? I will put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the
Brisbane Lifestyle Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors
Steve Griffiths, Vicki Howard, Steven Huang and Victoria Newton.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – AUSTRALIAN PERFORMING ARTS
MARKET 2014 OVERVIEW
39/2014-15
1.
Georgina Siddall, Acting Creative Communities Manager, Creative Communities, Connected
Communities, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, attended the meeting to provide an overview of
the Australian Performing Arts Market that took place in Brisbane between 18 and
22 February 2014. She provided the information below.
2.
The Australian Performing Arts Market (APAM) is a major international market development
project and event showcase. It is Australia's and the regions premier trading market place for
business in performing arts and culture.
3.
APAM presents the best in contemporary Australian performing arts to programmers,
presenters and artists from around the world. It is a major international platform for
discovering new performance works, artists and collaborators and has become a powerful
springboard of international opportunities for performing artists from Australia and
throughout the region.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 66 -
4.
APAM 2014 was the 12th biennial year this event has been held and the first year this event
has been hosted by Brisbane. APAM 2014 was held from 18 to 22 February 2014 at five
partner venues: Brisbane Powerhouse, Queensland Performing Arts Centre, Queensland
Conservatorium, Queensland University of Technology and the Judith Wright Centre.
5.
APAM 2014 was presented by the Australia Council for the Arts in partnership with Brisbane
Powerhouse. It staged 100 showcases and events, featuring 400 artists, crew and staff, and
hosted over six hundred delegates from around the globe. Brisbane City Council is the
principal supporter of APAM, and the Queensland Government through Arts Queensland and
Tourism and Events Queensland are proud supporters for the 2014, 2016 and 2018 events.
6.
Aims for the event included:
showcasing Brisbane as a ‘New World City’
delivering an opportunity for Brisbane residents to experience and engage with art
that is promoted and available to the general public
working with Brisbane arts organisations and communities
contributing to the city’s creative economy and employment
providing returns on arts and cultural investment
strengthening Brisbane’s commercial and entrepreneurial capacity
growing the public’s value of arts and culture
strengthening Brisbane’s cultural tourism.
7.
To further strengthen APAM’s brand and presence in the local, national and international
sector as well as aid the shift for APAM from Adelaide (previous location) to Brisbane,
Brisbane Powerhouse provided a strategic, central approach for all APAM marketing and
communications activities.
8.
Media promotion for the event included:
representation at international events
postcards
advertising campaign through national and international forms of media
database and email marketing
website (online registration form)
social media and publicity.
9.
Brisbane’s Torres Strait Island and Aboriginal community worked together to present a linked
opening ceremony for APAM 2014 events; featuring over 70 Queensland Indigenous and
Torres Strait Islander performers.
10.
The presenter showed images and described some of the events including the pitch and panel
sessions, showcases and a curated tour around the city with a child as the guide that offered
participants and audiences a new way to see and experience places and spaces in Brisbane.
11.
APAM 2014 employed three full time staff, 10 long-term (longer than 12 months) contract
staff, over 75 short-term contract staff, four structured intern placements and engaged over
25 local international students.
12.
Brisbane’s accommodation sector benefitted from the event with interstate and international
delegates staying on average for two days prior and one day post event, averaging out a seven
night stay in Brisbane and Queensland.
13.
APAM 2014 had a total combined participation of over 1,200 people, this being the largest
delegation in history. The main reasons for attending the event were to buy, sell and network.
The event had a strong international student volunteer commitment with tri-level government
stakeholder partnerships. Other partnerships for the event included Austrade, the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Culture Ireland and the Canadian Consulate.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 67 -
14.
There were a total of 627 delegates; of these, 186 were international delegates, 441 were
Australian delegates, 85 of them were supported international delegates. Of the 627 delegates
258 were first time delegates. Of the 186 international delegates, over 55 per cent were first
time attendees, and less than 45 per cent had previously attended an APAM. This result shows
that the APAM 2014 participation rate for first time international delegates was higher than
previous events. This supports the shift in international regions and delegations and their
interest in Australian Performing Arts.
15.
World Theatre Festival accompanied APAM and was deliberately aligned to fall at the same
time with the intention of highlighting Brisbane’s creative program. APAM delegates
purchased 12.7 per cent of the World Theatre Festival tickets.
16.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Siddall for
her informative presentation.
17.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE
REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RELOCATE HOME
BUSINESSES OPERATING IN VENOSA PLACE AND INCA STREET,
SUNNYBANK HILLS
CA14/485923
40/2014-15
18.
A petition from residents of Sunnybank Hills requesting that Council relocate home
businesses operating in Venosa Place and Inca Street, Sunnybank Hills, was presented to the
meeting of Council held on 10 June 2014, by Councillor Kim Marx, and received.
19.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, supplied the following information.
20.
The petition contains 21 signatures.
21.
The petitioners state that the businesses operating from these residential addresses are causing
increased traffic hazards for the surrounding residents and damaging footpath infrastructure.
22.
Built Environment officers, from Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Services Branch
(CARS), have conducted inspections at 1 Venosa Place and 25 Inca Street. The officers
determined that there are no development approvals for either property, and both sites are
non-compliant with the Home Business Code of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (City Plan). As
such, both sites are in breach of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).
23.
Council has issued Show Cause Notices to the business operators, advising that Council
reasonably believes they are committing a development offence under the SPA. The notices
allow 20 business days for each owner to make written representations to Council, as to why
further enforcement action should not be taken. To date, Council has not received any written
representations from either property owner.
24.
Upon receipt of representations, officers will assess any submissions to determine whether
further enforcement action is warranted. If so, Enforcement Notices will be issued to the
property owners, requiring all business activities to cease operation within a specific
timeframe.
25.
As a result of the concerns raised about traffic hazards, CARS Parking Compliance officers
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 68 -
conducted a number of patrols in this area between 21 June and 10 July 2014, to ensure
motorists are parking lawfully. During this time, four infringement notices were issued for
various parking offences.
26.
Officers from CARS Built Environment and Parking Compliance teams have liaised with the
head petitioner.
Consultation
27.
Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Karawatha Ward, supports the recommendation below.
28.
The Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees unanimously.
29.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THAT THE
DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, BE SENT TO THE HEAD
PETITIONER.
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA14/485923
Thank you for your petition requesting that Council take action to relocate home businesses
that are operating from 1 Venosa Place and 25 Inca Street, Sunnybank Hills. I also appreciate
your concerns that patrons attending these businesses are causing traffic congestion and a
safety hazard in your residential area.
Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Services Branch (CARS) has investigated the home
businesses identified within your petition. Built Environment officers from CARS Branch
have established that both businesses are non-compliant with the Brisbane City Plan 2000
(City Plan), and require a development approval to operate at these locations.
As a result, Council has issued Show Cause Notices to the business operators, asserting that
Council reasonably believes they are committing a development offence under the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The Show Cause Notice is a legislative requirement that
provides the business operators with 20 business days, to make representations to Council of
their intentions, or provide evidence of their compliance with the City Plan. Upon receipt of
these submissions, Council will assess what further actions may be taken.
Council’s Planning Compliance officer, from CARS Built Environment Team, spoke with
you on 10 June and 4 July 2014 to outline Council’s actions. Council’s Planning Compliance
officer, from CARS Built Environment Team will continue to keep you updated on this
investigation. Should you like to discuss this matter further, please contact him on
(07) 3403 8888.
Council acknowledges your concerns about the parking congestion caused by patrons
attending the above businesses. Council’s Liaison and Review Officer from CARS spoke with
a member of your household on 19 June 2014 regarding this matter.
Council’s Liaison and Review Officer from CARS has arranged for regular parking patrols to
be conducted in your area. Parking Compliance Officers attended this location on numerous
occasions between 21 June and 10 July 2014, resulting in infringement notices being issued
for various parking offences.
If you would like to discuss Council’s parking enforcement practices further, please contact
Council’s Acting Parking Compliance Team Leader, on (07) 3403 8888. Should you continue
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 69 -
to encounter motorists parking illegally, you are encouraged to call Council’s 24-hour Contact
Centre, on the same number.
ADOPTED
C
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY
IN FLEET LANE AND JOLLY PLACE PARK, SOUTH BRISBANE
CA14/465094
41/2014-15
30.
A petition from residents and visitors of Brisbane requesting that Council improve public
safety in Fleet Lane and Jolly Place Park, South Brisbane, was presented to the meeting of
Council held on 3 June 2014, by Councillor Helen Abrahams, and received.
31.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, supplied the following information.
32.
The petition contains 269 signatures.
33.
Jolly Place Park is a small park between Grey Street and Fleet Lane, opposite the State
Library in South Brisbane. Fleet Lane is a road reserve and acts as a service laneway for
commercial businesses and accommodation facilities. Fleet Lane is also a thoroughfare to
Montague Road and a proportion of the laneway is owned by Riverside Hotel South Bank.
34.
The park and laneway are in close proximity to Southbank Campus Apartments and Common
Ground Queensland. Southbank Campus Apartments provide accommodation for a large
number of international students and Common Ground Queensland provides housing for
homeless people who often also experience mental illness and/or drug and alcohol addiction.
35.
A lighting inspection of Fleet Lane and Jolly Place Park was conducted on 27 May 2014 by
an officer from Council’s City Lighting and Mr Brian Stokeld, from the Riverside Hotel
South Bank. Council’s Asset Services Branch and Community Safety Team have also
reviewed Jolly Place Park for lighting and safety improvements according to Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. These improvements
include:
Removing the stickers on the existing light nearest the car parking spaces and on the
path bollard lights.
Removing the light bollard near Fleet Lane car park.
Installing two lights along the pathway between Fleet Lane and Grey Street.
Energex to install a flood light on the rear of an Energex light in Fleet Lane.
Energex to prepare a design to upgrade the existing lighting from high pressure
sodium to metal halide lighting for Grey Street, between Peel Street and William Jolly
Bridge.
Lifting the canopy of the existing mango tree.
Trimming shrubs according to CPTED guidelines.
Conducting ongoing maintenance of the vegetation in Jolly Place Park.
36.
Southbank Campus Apartments and Riverside Hotel South Bank received funding through
Council’s Suburban Crime Prevention Grant (SCPG) to install CCTV cameras to provide a
level of surveillance to Fleet Lane. Riverside Hotel South Bank was also funded by the SCPG
to create a mural to respond to safety issues in Fleet Lane.
37.
With regards to the request for a pedestrian path to be constructed through Jolly Place Park, it
is noted that the park has an existing path from Grey Street to Fleet Lane.
38.
Any anti-social behaviour that occurs in the park and laneway should be reported to the
Queensland Police Service.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 70 -
Funding
39.
Funding for the lighting design being undertaken by Asset Services Branch is available within
Program 1 – Clean, Green and WaterSmart City, Service 1.4.3.1 Parks Maintenance and
Enhancement.
Consultation
40.
Councillor Helen Abrahams, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and
supports the recommendation below.
41.
The Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
42.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT
RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A BE SENT TO THE HEAD
PETITIONER.
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA14/465094
Thank you for your petition requesting that Council improve public safety of Fleet Lane and
Jolly Place Park, South Brisbane. Council appreciates the concerns raised in your petition
about the safety of students, short term visitors, staff and residents of the surrounding
buildings.
A lighting inspection of Fleet Lane and Jolly Place Park was conducted on 27 May by an
officer from Council’s City Lighting and Mr Brian Stokeld, from the Riverside Hotel South
Bank. Council’s Asset Services Branch and Community Safety Team have also reviewed
Jolly Place Park for lighting and safety improvements according to Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
Fleet Lane is classified as a road reserve until it reaches the Riverside Hotel South Bank,
where it becomes private property through to Montague Road. The review of the street
lighting in Fleet Lane revealed that the lighting levels exceed Australian Standards for this
category of road.
To improve the lighting in Jolly Place Park, Council has removed the stickers on the existing
light nearest the car parking spaces and on the path bollard light. Council will now develop a
lighting design for the park, and this will include the removal of the light bollard near Fleet
Lane car park and the installation of two lights along the pathway between Fleet Lane and
Grey Street. Council has also engaged Energex to install a flood light on the rear of an
Energex light in Fleet Lane to illuminate the seating area under the mango tree.
In relation to Grey Street, Energex has advised that, due to the age and the style of the
existing poles, they are unable to mount an additional flood light for the eastern side of Jolly
Place Park. However, Energex has agreed to prepare a design to upgrade the existing lighting
from high pressure sodium to metal halide lighting for Grey Street, between Peel Street and
William Jolly Bridge.
As you may be aware, the canopy of the mature mango tree has been lifted and the shrubs
along the property in Grey Street have been trimmed according to CPTED guidelines.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 71 -
Council’s Asset Services Branch will conduct ongoing maintenance of the vegetation in Jolly
Place Park.
Regarding your request for a pedestrian path to be constructed through Jolly Place Park,
however, the park has an existing path from Grey Street to Fleet Lane.
Southside Campus Apartments and Riverside Hotel South Bank in Fleet Lane have received
funding from Council’s Suburban Crime Prevention Grant (SCPG) to install CCTV cameras
on the external façade of their buildings, facing Fleet Lane and Hope Street. The Common
Ground building also has CCTV cameras that cover the exit into Fleet Lane. Riverside Hotel
South Bank was also granted funding through the SCPG to install a large mural in Fleet Lane
to reduce graffiti vandalism and improve the sense of ownership and safety of the area.
At this stage, Council’s CitySafe CCTV camera network does not extend to South Brisbane
and there are no plans to install CCTV cameras in the laneway and park. However, Council’s
SCPG opened for applications on 21 July 2014 and closes on 20 October 2014. Eligible
businesses and community organisations can apply for safety improvements in and around
their facilities. If you or surrounding businesses would like more information on the SCPG,
please visit Council’s website, www.brisbane.qld.gov.au and search for Suburban Crime
Prevention Grant.
In relation to anti-social behaviour that occurs in the park and laneway, Council encourages
you to refer these incidents to Queensland Police Service.
If you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact the Regional Coordinator Parks
for Central, Asset Services, on 3403 8888.
Thank you for raising your concerns.
ADOPTED
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the Finance, Economic Development and Administration
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, that the report of that Committee held
on 29 July 2014, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Madam Chairman, just quickly, to thank councillors who attended the G20
briefing today and reiterate my comments that it's the start of the conversation
and not the end and I look forward to keeping the Chamber updated about G20
activities as we count down the last 76 working days towards the event; and also
to add my comments to those already mentioned by the LORD MAYOR in
regards to the Brunswick Street Mall, which had the finishing touches put on it
today.
There's a big opening event this weekend. I had the opportunity to inspect it this
morning, it looks excellent. I'd like to thank all the officers involved who have
put in a lot of time and effort as part of this project. Also to John Cotter and
Robyn Maini and to all the businesses down there who have been very patient
throughout the renovation, but I think they should be very happy with the result,
which you see is a much more inviting mall. It looks more open and a much
better pavement as well, a much safer mall. Then in a couple of months it will
also have free Wi-Fi, which is a great addition to it as well.
So I look forward to that $4 million renovation done by Council on behalf of the
people of Brisbane yielding some great results for that precinct. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS?
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 72 Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak on Item D.
Seriatim - Clause D
Councillor Helen ABRAHAMS requested that Clause D, PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE
INTRODUCTION OF A CBD FRAME RATING CATEGORY AFFECTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
IN WOOLLOONGABBA AND CHANGES TO THE DEMOLITION CONTROL POLICY, be taken seriatim
for voting purposes.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair, this petition is from the business community of Woolloongabba
and members of the Woolloongabba Business Association who had an e-petition
lodged because of their concerns of the impact to the change of the rating base
where they were given a CBD Frame rating base.
It's a year later and it shows just how angry that community is that now we are
having this petition concerned about the impact on their businesses, and I
absolutely share their concerns.
Councillors may not remember, but this was introduced and it was an intriguing
one, because you have rated it the same level as businesses in the CBD where
there are completely different custom, pedestrian movement, industry,
commerce. The other side of the Chamber are so keen to tell us what a
successful CBD we have, and that was the rate in which businesses in the frame
were rated.
But then they were given a reduction or a rebate, I think was the word, and that
was a cap of their increases to five per cent. So you're in this increased rate
bracket but because we are feeling full of largesse we will cap it.
Well, Madam Chair, that did not provide a sense of security and understanding
to the businesses, because they saw the level of the CBD rates initially and they
are concerned that caps may come and go. Why are they so concerned? Well one
of them looked at 12 properties in the Woolloongabba area and looked at what
the impact of this policy was, and found that in reality the change in the rates
was an increase of 4.9 per cent to 5.8 per cent, so above a cap of five per cent
that was nominally put in place.
But if that cap was removed then the rate increases for 2013-14 would rise to
either 12.9 per cent, so let's call that 13 per cent, up to 19.3 per cent. So they are
huge increases, huge increases on the outgoings and everyone knows that every
increase in an outgoing has to be met with an increase in the incomings and the
cash flow of a business.
Why this is so serious is that Woolloongabba has been a workplace for over five
years. There are businesses that have closed down because there has been
construction on the footpath, road closures, awnings everywhere, noise, dust,
water in the street, and they have closed down.
Immediately on the sale of that business that five per cent cap disappears and the
property owner is paying that full amount of 12.9 per cent or up to 19 per cent on
those properties.
So, Madam Chair, everyone knows that times are tough, businesses do go by the
wayside, and if their property is purchased then this is what the next person
incurs and the business people are understandably really concerned about that.
But can I tell you just how angry they are, not only at the complexity of this
process, but also the argument as to why they should be having this imposition
on their rates as well. In paragraph 25, Madam Chair, where it states around that
the land should contribute rates commensurable to the services and facilities it
enjoys, and it lists the services. Well the CityCats are a long, long way from
Woolloongabba. Woolloongabba is not a riverside suburb.
Then it mentions the CityGlider and I acknowledge the Maroon Glider. The Go
Between Bridge—well you've got to go past one bridge being Story Bridge. It's
well used by the Woolloongabba traders. There is James Cook Bridge, the
Victoria Bridge, Grey Street Bridge. Actually the Go Between Bridge is five
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 73 bridges away, so I would again reject that that is a facility that is helping them at
all.
Then the CLEM7 is itemised in that paragraph. The people who wish to get into
CLEM7 have to travel backwards all the way to the Princess Alexandra Hospital
if they're on the western side or if not to Juliette Street, with all the problems at
Juliette Street in Annerley just to get into the tunnel. So, Madam Chair, I
completely reject that that is a facility and benefit that they've had.
Significant water and sewerage infrastructure changes—yes that is why there has
been a construction site for two years and that infrastructure was for the Mater
Hospital and the Children's Hospital, predominantly in an area that was
underserviced as well.
So, Madam Chair, these comments are just not accurate and it belies the fact that
the footpaths, the streets, have been a workstation for that period of time.
Paragraph 29 is absolutely edifying. It says Council actually “collaborated with
the Queensland Government to solve the planning and transport issues in the
Woolloongabba area particularly the Goprint site.” That plan, that project being
the BaT (Bus and Train) Tunnel, is still being finalised and changed frequently
and all that means is that the businesses in Woolloongabba will be yet another
construction site for many, many years while the Woolloongabba Railway
Station, as part of the BaT Tunnel is constructed.
So, Madam Chair, there is a point where businesses cannot hang on, hang on,
hang on waiting for the day when they just have some peace not being a
construction site so that they can bring back the customers to their businesses.
They cannot yet see that time with the BaT Tunnel not in place.
So if the LORD MAYOR is listening I would urge him to take away, for the area
of Woolloongabba, the impost he's done in this CBD rating until the BaT Tunnel
is finished and done, and that is not unreasonable when you look at just how
much construction has been taken on. People are not coming to this area as yet.
It then talks about urban renewal in this project. Well, Madam Chair, there is one
building only that has been constructed in that time and I would suggest to you
that it'll be another two years before we get any significant development, and yet
these businesses have to pay this increased rate impost.
It is not fair. I know those businesses are finding it cruel, I know they're finding
it very difficult for their business and they have my total respect. What is an
administration doing where they're not supporting the businesses of our city?
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, just to sum up. Look I found the councillors'
debate on this particular matter quite disingenuous. Madam Chairman, imagine
for a moment that you are Councillor ABRAHAMS. I understand that you may
not have enough self-respect to do the work to get your argument right, but at
least have the respect for the people who elected you to bother to do the research
about the issue if it really does concern them, because she has it entirely wrong.
This furphy that we're charging in the CBD frame CBD rates is incorrect. Go
into—you did say that—go into your Budget book—through you, Madam
Chairman—Councillor ABRAHAMS go into your Budget book and look at the
ratings resolution, look at the amounts on the dollar and you will see quite
clearly that it is nowhere near the CBD rate in the dollar, nowhere near it.
Madam Chairman, then we have this perverse argument. I should say the
argument all along has been that there should be a differentiation—have I got
that right, thank you—between the suburbs, the city frame and the CBD.
It was Labor who first pioneered this concept when they put into place the CBD
rating category, Madam Chairman. It was them who pioneered it. They see the
merit in the argument about the differences between the services that were
received and now they will try and use it for their political gain.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 74 It's quite—I find it incredulous when Councillor ABRAHAMS attacks the five
per cent cap when it is less than what every person in the suburbs gets. They
only get a 7.5 per cent cap. So here you have your residents who are more
protected than those in the suburbs, more protected than those in Richlands,
more protected than those in my suburbs, more protected than those in your
suburbs, Madam Chairman, out in Pullenvale, and you have the temerity to stand
up in this place and attack us like we are putting a larger impost on them when
it's not true. These figures of 19 per cent and all the rest of it are made up, are
made up. They are hypotheticals because the cap has been put in place by this
Administration and exists at a lower rate than every single other person in this
city.
Councillor ABRAHAMS should be standing up and lauding the fact that there is
only a five per cent cap, she absolutely should be. If she is interested in her
residents then that's what she should be doing and this idea that Woolloongabba
has not got additional services than those that she might find out at Chapel Hill
or out at Karana Downs is a ridiculous argument. You only have to drive over
there to see it. How much infrastructure investment do the ratepayers of Brisbane
need to make in inner-frame suburbs before Councillor ABRAHAMS will admit
that they have additional services. How much money do we have to put into
CityCats and to new CityCat terminals, into the CityGlider, into the free
CityHopper, into the CLEM7, and I reject the assertion that there isn't a benefit
for the residents of Woolloongabba on the CLEM7 Tunnel. That is a facility that
is keeping traffic off the service routes, including the major roads within
Woolloongabba.
Councillor ABRAHAMS if she is going to continue to prosecute this argument, I
know that I have met with residents and representatives from Woolloongabba
and that we had a good conversation. I would also comment on the fact that it
was after the Budget last year this petition was presented, last November, last
November.
So I have to say, Madam Chairman, the only person who continues in my
view—continues to prosecute this argument, incorrectly because of an incorrect
understanding that she has, that somehow these businesses are being charged
CBD rates, is Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Millions. millions have been spent in the Logan Road precinct, Madam
Chairman, which is all part of the urban renewal of this precinct which this
Council is supporting which is councillors working with the State Government to
support, and it's quite appropriate that in recognition of these additional services
that there is a differentiation in their rates on the dollar.
I think if you went out to Richlands Councillor ABRAHAMS and you tried to
prosecute that argument you would get laughed out of the joint, and I suspect,
Madam Chairman, Councillor ABRAHAMS is close to getting laughed out of
this joint. She continues to prosecute the argument that they are being charged
CBD rates because it simply isn't true and a very quick reading of the Budget
book will show that to be the case.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Items A, B and C.
Clauses A, B and C put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B and C of the report of the
Finance, Economic Development and Administration Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chairman:
I'll put the motion for Item D.
Clause D put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause D of the report of the Finance,
Economic Development and Administration Committee was declared carried on the voices.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 75 Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Milton DICK immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 17 -
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 5 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON and Shayne SUTTON.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 -
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor (Deputy Chairman); and
Councillors Kim Flesser, Fiona King, Ryan Murphy and Shayne Sutton.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION AND REPORT – NET BORROWINGS,
CASH INVESTMENTS AND FUNDING (JUNE 2014 QUARTER)
109/800/148/1
42/2014-15
1.
Jiri Arnost, Corporate Treasurer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services Division,
presented a report to the Committee on Council’s net borrowings for the quarter ended
June 2014. The report details the corporate cash holdings invested and the status of Council’s
funding activities.
2.
The presentation provided a market and economic review, and a summary of the following
issues in relation to Council’s investments:
cash position
cash activity review
earnings on investments
funding capability
borrowings
facility performance
leasing exposure.
3.
The Chairman thanked the Corporate Treasurer for his informative presentation. The report is
presented for noting by Council.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
B
BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 2 MAY 2014
134/695/317/3-02
43/2014-15
5.
The Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 76 -
the monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as
at 2 May 2014.
6.
During the April period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per
general ledger) decreased by $65.6 million to $206.3 million, excluding trusts. The net
decrease is mainly due to repayment of Queensland Treasury Corporation working capital
borrowings and payments for the Legacy Way project.
7.
Council funds as at 2 May 2014 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements)
totalled $217.9 million. The variance relates to timing differences between transactions
recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.
8.
Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the
period. The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.
9.
Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.
10.
The Chairman and Committee noted the report.
11.
The Bank and Investment Report for the period ended 2 May 2014 is presented for noting by
Council.
12.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
C
BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 30 MAY 2014
134/695/317/3-02
44/2014-15
13.
The Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with
the monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as
at 30 May 2014.
14.
During the May period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per
general ledger) increased by $79 million to $285.3 million, excluding trusts. The net decrease
is mainly due to repayment of Queensland Treasury Corporation working capital borrowings
and payments for the Legacy Way project.
15.
Council funds as at 30 May 2014 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements)
totalled $288 million. The variance relates to timing differences between transactions
recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.
16.
Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the
period. The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.
17.
Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.
18.
The Chairman and Committee noted the report.
19.
The Bank and Investment Report for the period ended 30 May 2014 is presented for noting by
Council.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 77 -
20.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
D
PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF A CBD FRAME
RATING CATEGORY AFFECTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN
WOOLLOONGABBA AND CHANGES TO THE DEMOLITION CONTROL
POLICY
CA13/761334
45/2014-15
21.
An ePetition from residents of the Brisbane’s south-eastern suburbs, objecting to the
introduction of a CBD frame rating category affecting commercial properties in
Woolloongabba and changes to the demolition control policy (DCP), was presented to the
meeting of Council held on 19 November 2013, by Councillor Helen Abrahams, and
received.
22.
The Acting Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, supplied the following information.
23.
This submission has been prepared to:
address the rationale for the creation of the CBD frame rating category and the
inclusion of Woolloongabba within its boundaries; and
provide further information on changes to Council’s demolition control policy as it
affects the Woolloongabba area.
24.
The 2013-14 budget saw the introduction of new differential rating categories on
non-residential properties within the CBD frame. The underlying rationale for the
introduction was that the area enjoys higher levels of service than outlying parts of Brisbane.
This is consistent with the same rationale that supported the introduction of CBD differential
rating categories by the previous Labor administration.
25.
On the basis that land should contribute rates commensurate with the services and facilities it
enjoys, it was determined that the CBD frame area was demonstrably better serviced as a
commercial precinct than areas further from the CBD and major transport corridors,
benefitting from CityCats, CityGliders, the Go Between Bridge, Clem7, and significant water
and sewerage infrastructure.
26.
Financial impacts were mitigated by the introduction of a rates cap which limited
year-on-year increases in general rates to five per cent. This cap is below the 7.5 per cent cap
for residential properties.
27.
The 2014-15 budget continued the general rates cap of five per cent for the CBD frame rating
categories; however, the average net rates increase for these properties was only 3.85 per cent
from 2013-14.
28.
Over the past five years Council has prepared two neighbourhood plans for the
Woolloongabba area as part of a coordinated approach to inner-city planning. Both plans
facilitate substantial growth in appropriate parts of Woolloongabba. The Woolloongabba
Centre Neighbourhood Plan facilitates substantial change in and around the intersection of
Logan and Ipswich Roads, contemplating development of up to twenty storeys in height.
Council supported the neighbourhood plan with the implementation of substantial streetscape
improvements to the Woolloongabba antiques precinct on Logan Road. The Eastern Corridor
Neighbourhood Plan also facilitates substantial change, particularly in the Buranda locality of
Woolloongabba. Again, Council has supported development in the area through initiatives
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 78 -
such as the acquisition of additional parkland at the intersection of Carl and Tottenham
Streets, Woolloongabba.
29.
Council has also actively collaborated with the Queensland Government to resolve planning
and transport issues in the Woolloongabba area particularly concerning the development of
the Goprint site.
30.
The new Brisbane City Plan 2014 commenced on 30 June 2014. The new plan includes
provisions that manage development of sites that have houses built on them prior to 1911,
protecting more than 400 additional sites. There are also a number of remedies available to
property owners under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 to address concerns about the
impact of planning changes on development potential.
Funding
31.
Not applicable
Consultation
32.
Councillor Helen Abrahams, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, is opposed to the
recommendation.
Customer impact
33.
Based on the recommended response there will be no change in customer impact from current
practice.
Preferred option
34.
It is the preferred option to note the objections raised in the petition and provide the
petitioners with a response accordingly.
35.
Accordingly, the Acting Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee
agrees, with Councillors Kim Flesser and Shayne Sutton dissenting.
36.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT
RESPONSE BELOW.
Draft Response
Thank you for your petition requesting changes to the rating formula for Woolloongabba and
calling for the restoration of the former demolition control policy for Woolloongabba. Council
apologises for the delay in responding to you.
Council’s City Planning and Sustainability and Organisational Services Divisions have
investigated your petition, and offer the following advice.
The 2013-14 budget saw the introduction of new differential rating categories on
non-residential properties within the CBD frame. The underlying rationale for the
introduction was that the area enjoys higher levels of service than outlying parts of Brisbane.
This is consistent with the same rationale that supported the introduction of CBD differential
rating categories by the previous Labor administration.
On the basis that land should contribute rates commensurate with the services and facilities it
enjoys, it was determined that the CBD frame area was demonstrably better serviced as a
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 79 -
commercial precinct than areas further from the CBD and major transport corridors,
benefitting from CityCats, CityGliders, the Go Between Bridge, Clem7, and significant water
and sewerage infrastructure.
Financial impacts were mitigated by the introduction of a rates cap which limited
year-on-year increases in general rates to five per cent. This cap is below the 7.5 per cent cap
for residential properties. The 2014-15 budget continued the general rates cap of five per cent
for the CBD frame rating categories. However, the average net rates increase for these
properties was only 3.85 per cent from 2013-14.
In relation to the former demolition-control policy, you may be aware that Council has
prepared two neighbourhood plans for the Woolloongabba area over the past five years. Both
plans facilitate substantial growth in appropriate parts of Woolloongabba. The
Woolloongabba Centre Neighbourhood Plan facilitates substantial change in and around the
intersection of Logan and Ipswich Roads, contemplating development of up to twenty storeys
in height. Council supported the neighbourhood plan with the implementation of substantial
streetscape improvements to the Woolloongabba antiques precinct on Logan Road. The
Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan also facilitates substantial change, particularly in the
Buranda locality of Woolloongabba. Again, Council has supported development in the area
through initiatives such as the acquisition of additional parkland at the intersection of Carl
and Tottenham Streets, Woolloongabba. By focusing growth in the inner city, Council is able
to limit areas impacted by developmental change to just seven per cent of the Brisbane local
government area.
Council has also actively collaborated with the Queensland Government to resolve planning
and transport issues in the Woolloongabba area, particularly concerning the development of
the Goprint site.
On 30 November 2012, Council proposed the draft new Brisbane City Plan 2014 to replace
the existing Brisbane City Plan 2000. The draft new city plan contains provisions that control
the demolition of residential buildings constructed prior to 1911 unless they are structurally
unsound. This protects more than 400 sites, in addition to those currently protected by
existing controls and Council’s Heritage Register.
On 7 May 2013, Council adopted Temporary Local Planning Instrument 01/13, Protection of
Residential Buildings Constructed Prior to 1911 (TLPI 01/13). The purpose of TLPI 01/13
was to ensure that residential buildings constructed prior to 1911 are not demolished before
the draft new City Plan came into effect.
Council received more than 2700 submissions about the draft plan, including comments about
the protection of pre-1911 buildings, to the extent that Council decided the draft plan was to
be amended. Added to the plan was the potential for pre-1911 houses to be relocated when in
certain zones. The new City Plan has now commenced and is available for viewing on
Council’s website, including all associated mapping.
Thank you for taking the time to contact Council with your concerns.
Yours sincerely
ADOPTED
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION
Development Application A003905687:
-
Cedar
Woods
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
46/2014-15
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 80 The Chairman of Council (Councillor Margaret de WIT) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified
motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Shayne SUTTON to move the motion. Accordingly,
Councillor SUTTON moved, seconded by Councillor Helen ABRAHAMS, that—
This Council:
Notes the significant concerns expressed by residents of Upper Kedron and The Gap in relation to the
Cedar Woods Development Application A003905687 located at 390 Levitt Road Upper Kedron and
113 Ross Road Upper Kedron and its potential impact on Brisbane’s Koala habitat.
-
Expresses its concern about the Lord Mayor’s comments included in the ASX Announcement and
Media Release issued by Cedar Woods on 6 May 2014 calling for investors for its development located
at 390 Levitt Road Upper Kedron and 113 Ross Road Upper Kedron in which the Lord Mayor is
quoted as saying “the development is a significant project for the city” and that “Brisbane City
Council looks forward to working with Cedar Woods in the next phase of the project and with the aim
of creating a high quality master planned community for the City”.
-
Considers these comments by the Lord Mayor in relation to the Cedar Woods Development have the
potential to create a conflict or perceived conflict of interest for Council in assessing this Development
Application.
Therefore, in order to ensure the highest ethical standards, transparency and accountability in the development
assessment for the Cedar Woods Development Application A003905687 located at 390 Levitt Road Upper
Kedron and 113 Ross Road Upper Kedron, this Council moves this application be independently assessed by a
qualified 3rd party assessor, separate from Council Officers and political representatives elected to Brisbane
City Council.
Chairman:
Is there any debate? Councillor SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. Fundamentally, this motion is about ensuring there is
integrity in our development assessment processes. That is why I have moved
this motion today. I am concerned that the LORD MAYOR of this city would
allow for comments attributed to him to be part of a three page Australian Stock
Exchange announcement and media release issued by a developer about a
significant development application that this Council has to assess.
That is my key concern. There is a whole issue, real or perceived, about the
LORD MAYOR making such early comments about such a significant
development application and a development application that does not comply
with Council's local plan.
I want to say that again really clearly, this development application does not
comply with Council's Ferny Grove Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan and yet
the LORD MAYOR of this city has somewhere along the line agreed to allow
his comments in support of the development application to be included in an
announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange where this developer is calling
for significant investment in the development application.
That presents an integrity question. It also I believe sets up a conflict or a
perceived conflict of interest and I believe this Council, if it is to maintain a
position of integrity, of the highest ethical standards, of transparency and of
accountability, it now has no option, no option, but to refer this development
application out to independent assessment so that the residents who are
expressing concerns about it can have confidence that there has been no undue
influence, that this Council has taken every step within its power to ensure that
the application is thoroughly assessed, without fear or favour before a
recommendation is put forward for approval.
Now I heard the LORD MAYOR in answer to Councillor DICK's question
earlier today saying that the development application will come to the
Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee and to this
Council for a decision. That is great, but the assessment needs to be undertaken
by an independent assessment agency.
We have done this before. I am not asking for something to be done that has
never been done before. It has been done before. It has been done in my time in
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 81 this Council. It was done for the development assessment for the Cannon Hill
Community Links development application which is in Councillor MURPHY's
ward. I know, I remember, I was the deputy chair of urban planning and
development at the time.
We had a three hour committee meeting about this development application that
went over two days. It was thoroughly assessed and the concerns of residents
were interrogated and we made sure where Council had a conflict or a perceived
conflict of interest, there could be no doubt in anyone's mind that an independent
assessment had taken place. That independent assessment was taken place by
Urbis in conjunction with Cardno, so it has been done before, I am not asking for
anything new.
Madam Chair, there are more than 800 people who have gone online and liked
the Save the Gap Facebook page to express their concerns about this
development. More than 500 signatures have been collected. That is since this
development application was lodged on 26 June this year. There is significant
community concern about the content of this development application and my
concern is that the two local councillors for where these residents live appear to
be unconcerned about the residents' fears about this development application.
When I raised this matter in the Neighbourhood Planning and Development
Assessment Committee on behalf of those residents last week, Councillor
KNAPP was very quick to tell me it wasn't in her ward and had nothing to do
with her. Despite the fact that the proposed road connection, the extension of
Ross Road connecting to Mt Nebo Road, will significantly impact her local
residents, she said it had nothing to do with her.
Councillor WINES seemed to be oblivious to any of the concerns raised in his
area. He simply said no one's raising it with him. Well there are significant
issues, particularly with regards to stormwater and potential flooding issues and I
would say to both of them, that both of them need to get their heads around the
detail of this development application and do the job that they have been elected
to do on behalf of their residents, because quite clearly from what I have seen to
date that is not being done.
Madam Chair, this is a concern and another reason why I'm advocating for
independent assessment, because as we know, Councillor KNAPP and
Councillor WINES they're part of team Quirk. Team Quirk has already given the
tick to this development application, the public tick development application, so
why aren't they standing up for their local residents when their boss Councillor
QUIRK has already said quite publicly that he looks forward to Brisbane City
Council working with this developer.
Now I also said that this development significantly departs from the Ferny Grove
Upper Kedron local plan. It does so on a range of fronts which again is why it's
so concerning that the LORD MAYOR has given such early public support to
this development.
Madam Chair, this is a picture of this site in the local plan. This is where they
say development might be able to occur, this little brown piece here, emerging
community. This area is rural, zoned rural, and this area is zoned environmental
management. Compare the pair, Madam Chair. The pink is where this developer
wants to build. There is a significant difference, a significant difference, in the
development footprint proposed in the local area plan and the development
footprint proposed by the developer.
The neighbourhood plan also refers to not just low density residential or low
medium density residential, it actually refers to very low density residential
which is actually a term I'd not seen before I went over to that neighbourhood
plan. We never got very low density zoning anywhere in Morningside Ward.
So the local plan actually refers to very low density. Well there are parts of this
development application that is proposing 25 dwellings per hectare. That is not
very low development and a total of 1,350 dwellings on this site.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 82 Madam Chair, another significant departure, as I've previously alluded to is the
significant concern of residents about the extension of Ross Road to connect to
Mt Nebo Road proposed by this developer.
But this is what the neighbourhood plan says. This is section 2.3.1 in the local
plan. It says and I quote: “very low density residential development south of
Cedar Creek will be accessed through the potential development area to the
north and not from Mt Nebo Road, Brompton Road or the unconstructed part of
Ross Road.”
The plan is very specific when it comes to those road connections. I will read
that again. It says, and not from Mt Nebo Road, Brompton Road or the
unconstructed part of Ross Road.
So you can imagine the residents—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON your time has expired, thank you. Further debate?
Councillor SCHRINNER?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak on this
motion. I wanted to go through the different points in this motion one by one and
specifically some of the claims that Councillor SUTTON has made that I just
don't believe are accurate. There are certain things that have been stated already,
both in the motion and in this Chamber, that are just not true and are quite
concerning.
Now Councillor SUTTON said that the fundamental problem or the issue that
she wants to ensure is the integrity of the DA (development assessment) process
and that's a concern for all of us at all times. The reality is the DA process that
we have in place right now has been in operation, largely unchanged because it's
regulated by State legislation as well as our own procedures, for many, many
years under successive administrations.
So for any councillor to suggest that the integrity of the DA assessment process
is somehow flawed, is making a general statement that is just not accurate and
doesn't sit well with the facts.
The reality is we come in here—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair?
Chairman:
Point of order, DEPUTY MAYOR. Yes, Councillor SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:
I claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:
Thank you. DEPUTY MAYOR?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
We come in here week after week and we decide development applications that
have been through this exact same process. So other development applications
are okay apparently, but for some reason this one is flawed. It's the same
process, exactly the same process, and what is being suggested here is that not
just the process but the officers involved in the assessment process, by
implication and the way this motion is written, that those officers do not have the
highest ethical standards, transparency and accountability—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman?
Chairman:
Point of order against you. Yes Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, the DEPUTY MAYOR is imputing motive. That is an
outrageous statement to make and I believe it should be withdrawn.
Councillor SUTTON:
Madam Chair, I'd like to second that as well.
Chairman:
No you don't second it, resume your seat.
Councillor SUTTON:
Well, Madam Chair—
Chairman:
Resume your seat.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR?
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 83 DEPUTY MAYOR:
Look I agree that that is an outrageous statement and that is exactly what I was—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman?
Chairman:
I'm dealing with the DEPUTY MAYOR. Resume your seat both of you.
DEPUTY MAYOR?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
If it causes offence please withdraw it.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, if it causes offence I will withdraw it. I simply wanted
to make the point that I find this motion offensive, because the way I read it it
implies that our officers aren't using the highest ethical standards, transparency
and accountability when they assess development applications. That's the way
most people I think would read that motion, so I do find it offensive.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman?
Chairman:
Point of order against you DEPUTY MAYOR. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Again the DEPUTY MAYOR is implying motive in that statement and I would
ask that you ask him to withdraw it.
Chairman:
I do not uphold your point of order. The DEPUTY MAYOR has indicated he
finds the wording of the motion offensive. That is not imputing motive, it is
providing his opinion as you do very often. DEPUTY MAYOR?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. So without labouring on this particular point, I
would just say that the process to assess this particular application is the same as
any other comparable application. So I can't see how any question can be raised
about either the process or the officers involved in that process. It's the same
process that we use for all development applications of this nature.
But the other issue in this motion which is concerning is that it suggests the
potential to create a conflict or a perceived conflict of interest. Now that's some
very loose and not accurate use of the concept of conflict of interest because
there is a very specific definition of conflict of interest. I know we've debated
this issue in the Chamber in the past, what is a conflict of interest? It's something
that we all take a great deal of interest in because it's something that we all need
to ensure that we're aware of as a concept.
Now a conflict of interest, whether it's perceived or otherwise, is a conflict
between a personal interest of a person and the public interest. Council is
assessing this development application as an entity and there are no personal
interests to be conflicted with, so I don't understand why there's any claim of
suggestion of a conflict of interest.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Whose interests? Whose interests are conflicted? What is the suggestion there?
As I said, the DA (development application) is being assessed in the same way
that we would assess all DAs.
Now, Councillor SUTTON was very clear to point out that there's precedent for
having a third party assess a development application. That's their precedent.
That was done when they held the majority in Council—the Cannon Hill
Community Links—and Councillor SUTTON mentioned she was the Deputy
Chair at the time. So unless she was the Deputy Chair of an LNP committee, it
must have been under the Labor administration or the Labor majority, during
that period.
Now, my personal view is that is a process that would be shirking our
responsibility as a Council. It's the easy way out. It's a cop out.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
This decision's all too hard. Let's get someone else to make it and if we took this
approach to every DA, we would outsource the entire process to third parties.
Now, we've heard what certain councillors think about that, with things like
RiskSMART. Very opposed to that sort of approach, very opposed to
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 84 outsourcing any aspects of the development application process but suddenly
this one comes up and they're all for it. So there's a big inconsistency in the
approach here.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
We are elected to make decisions in the end on this, and we make those
decisions based on the recommendations of the Council officers who are
experienced, professional officers with the appropriate qualifications to make
these recommendations and we take those recommendations very seriously.
As I said, we don’t consider that process to be flawed. It's served us well as a
city and it served both sides of this Chamber well in the past as well. So to
suggest that suddenly the process if broken is incorrect.
The other fundamental with Councillor SUTTON's argument is that under
various planning instruments, both the local plan that she referred to—or the
neighbourhood plan—and the South-East Queensland Regional Plan,
development is envisaged on this site.
The owner of this site has development rights. Now we can argue about what the
extent of those development rights are and essentially what the ultimate outcome
will be, and that's a process that will be determined through the assessment with
Council officers. But in the end, the owner has development rights so there will,
at some stage in the future, be a development on this site, because they have the
right under State and Council planning instruments—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, DEPUTY MAYOR. Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
I claim to be misrepresented on this point as well.
Chairman:
Well—
Councillor SUTTON:
The DEPUTY MAYOR is claiming that I said that the developers don’t have
development rights, and that there was no development.
Chairman:
I didn't hear the DEPUTY MAYOR say that.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes. He said that my argument was flawed because—
Chairman:
Alright, alright, misrepresentation. DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you. Yes, so the point I was making was that essentially, whether you
look at the South East Queensland Regional Plan or Council zone plan, some
development will occur on this site. So it's not unreasonable therefore for the
LORD MAYOR to talk about working with the applicant to get a good outcome
in terms of the Master Plan community. That's not unreasonable.
If the site was outside the urban footprint and zoned a completely different way,
you could successfully make a case that, well, there's a question over whether
there will be some development here or not. But this site contains development
rights for the owner and development opportunities, and that's not something
that's occurred overnight. It's been the case for a significant period of time.
So the question for Council is not whether there will be a development but how
to get the best outcome, how to make sure the application process is done
thoroughly; all issues and angles are investigated. That's certainly what we'll be
doing and that's the approach that we’ll be taking and the approach that we
always take with developments of this nature.
So this side of the Chamber will not be supporting this motion. As I said, there is
no conflict of interest. The statement has been used very loosely and it's been
used in a way that sort of I suppose attempts to throw a bit of mud but really has
no substance.
But secondly, the suggestion that the process and the officers involved in that
process aren't able to make an objective assessment of this development
application is just plain wrong and as I said we won't be supporting it.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 85 Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair. The DEPUTY MAYOR—
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
The DEPUTY MAYOR has just made that offensive statement again that I was
claiming, because I'm the only one who has spoken, that I am saying that the
officers aren't able to make that assessment. That has never been what I have
said and I would ask that you ask Councillor SCHRINNER to withdraw that
comment again, because it's never been—
Chairman:
No, I would not—
Councillor SUTTON:
—about the officers.
Chairman:
I do not uphold your point of order, Councillor SUTTON. Let's get real about
this. You've got a motion here that the DEPUTY MAYOR has indicated he finds
offensive in the tone of it, so let's just not be so precious about it because the
DEPUTY MAYOR is putting his points against the motion that you have put
forward.
Now, what was your other point of misrepresentation?
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair, I have two. The DEPUTY MAYOR in his speech claimed
that I said that the DA process was flawed or fundamentally flawed. At no time
did I make that comment. This was never about the development application
process as it stands for each and every individual DA in this city. It is about the
impact—it has always been about the impact of the LORD MAYOR's statement
in creating a conflict or potential conflict of interest for that assessment.
The second point, the DEPUTY MAYOR was saying that I said that there was
no development rights so this shouldn't be developed. Again, I never said that. I
clearly showed a map of the Neighbourhood Plan—of the local plan indicating
the development footprint as it appears—
Chairman:
Briefly.
Councillor SUTTON:
—in the local plan and compared that to the development footprint.
Chairman:
Thank you. Further debate. Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I enter the debate. The core of this
motion is this document, and this document is a press release of the Australian
Stock Exchange that quotes, in inverted italics, “the words of the Lord Mayor”.
It isn't a general statement, it is a specific press release, words from the LORD
MAYOR's mouth, that is in this Australian Stock Exchange press release
document.
Madam Chair, that's what makes it different from other developments, as
Councillor SCHRINNER was trying to say, this is no different from the rest. To
have the Brisbane City LORD MAYOR, Graham QUIRK said, in italics,
“Brisbane City Council welcomes the entry”, and then continues on with another
paragraph. Straight after the ending of that quote, we go into share placement
and that this company has successfully placed 3.7 million new shares. That is
why this application is compromised through this statement.
Madam Chair, I'm very aware of conflict of interest because I had lodged a
submission on an application that this Administration tried to stop me talking
about, and as unsuccessfully as it was.
But, Madam Chair, why we know this is a concern because Councillor
SCHRINNER, after going through the furphy of an argument that we were
casting aspersions at the start then said, and I quote: “working with the LORD
MAYOR to get a good outcome”, that is what a developer would do according to
Councillor SCHRINNER. Not working with the staff, working with the LORD
MAYOR who is compromised through his public statement on the Stock
Exchange media, and then he is going to be working towards that outcome.
Well, Madam Chair, this site for development has been around for a long time. I
have walked this site when it was being considered and what the Neighbourhood
Plan does, which is give a huge buffer, a core of bushland of sufficient integrity
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 86 on the northern side of Mount Nebo Road, so that there is room for the
biodiversity and fauna to stay in that area has disappeared. What we see instead
is corridors.
Now we’re told if we're really lucky that that corridor might be 50 metres wide,
or if we're lucky in another area probably here it grows to 100 metres wide.
Corridors 50 metre wide has an intrusion of at least 10 to 15 metres on both sides
of weed infestation and gives no protection or habitat for the animals unless they
are simply passing through.
This one gives that core area, and that is why Labor councillors, having been out
onsite, seeing the natural biodiversity, attempted to purchase the land under the
bushland because it was of such significance. Such significance that it has also
been confirmed by representatives of the State National Park, D'Aguilar National
Park and how significant this site is.
Madam Chair, there is no significant biodiversity protected in these little
corridors. All it does it give one or two houses a gum tree, removed in the
distance to have a look at and they'll call that amenity and nature.
Madam Chair, too, looking at this development it talks about outlook precinct
and hill top precinct. When Labor looked at those areas, they were areas that
were so steep, falling away on either side, with erosion risk and major
construction to be undertaken for any development, they were no-go areas and
that is why the neighbourhood plan was actually created.
It has completely, already with this preliminary plan and the statement by the
LORD MAYOR saying he's welcoming it, compromised all of the biodiversity
aspects on this area.
One thousand three hundred and fifty homes coming through onto Mount Nebo
Road, which was always deemed absolutely irresponsible for any wildlife going
across in Mount Nebo Road but all of the existing fauna and flora in the
vegetation that is onsite.
So, Madam Chair, it is just appalling, that this Administration is going out
already and supporting comments that biodiversity be protected, all miserable 90
hectares of it, as little corridors achieving no real integrity. We need to have an
external person assess this application. They need to have a strong
environmental team on the external assessment team as well. They need to look
at all of the engineering issues so that we get a proper bushland design.
That is very unique skills and it is skills that Council has but would often
contract out some of those skills anyway, so it is not the issue of Council staff
being supported. It is the issue, of the LORD MAYOR compromising the
Council officers before they've even properly assessed this application.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I rise to speak to this motion put forward
by the former Deputy Chair of Planning, Councillor SUTTON, and the Labor
spokesman for Planning, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Well, Madam Chair, this is clearly a political stunt from those opposite. This is
not about the facts of the matter, this is about the political fabrication. Councillor
SUTTON and Councillor ABRAHAMS have both neglected to mention the fact
that it was their own party that specifically earmarked Upper Kedron for
development.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:
So page 18 of the South-East Queensland Regional Plan notes that, quote:
“although Brisbane broad hectare land supply is becoming exhausted, new areas
are located at Rochedale, Lower Oxley Creek and Upper Kedron”, Madam
Chair. So it is there and it is forecast for approximately 30,000 dwellings in the
short and medium-term.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 87 Councillor COOPER:
So indeed, Madam Chair, they have form and it's clear that they've actually
ignored their own party's largest piece of planning reform in 20 years. Not just
for this Council but for the entire South East Queensland region.
Now they were well aware of this plan because they were the ones that voted for
increased heights and densities but also for a fast-tracked neighbourhood
planning process in the Council Chamber on 20 May 2008.
Now Councillor SUTTON just last week at Committee, she asked if this
application was coming—she wondered that it was in perhaps The Gap Ward
when that is incorrect. She wondered if it was coming to full Council. So she did
not know what ward it was actually in.
Well, it is in Enoggera Ward but she didn't even check any of her facts, Madam
Chair, because if she looked at PD Online—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor COOPER:
—that was a transparent, a clear, a transparent accountable process implemented
by the previous LORD MAYOR in 2007, where all the information about this
application is clearly and transparently located. There's a letter on there that's
been there since 30 June this year confirming this application is coming to full
Council for decision.
I think if we look at the way to read this motion it says that Councillor SUTTON
and Councillor ABRAHAMS have no confidence in the integrity,
professionalism and impartiality of Council officers.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:
Let's look at the facts of this application. Fact: under the Sustainable Plan Act
2009, the Labor Party's own planning legislation, Council cannot refuse to assess
an application. Fact: the application to master plan the area of 226.6 hectares was
lodged on 26 June of this year, less than six weeks ago, and triggered the highest
level of assessment under City Plan 2000.
Fact: this application is required to undertake a minimum of 30 business days,
almost two months of formal public notification. Fact: Council officers have
made no recommendation. In fact, they're in the early stages of their assessment
of this application. Fact: the Council officers will make a recommendation to the
committee, of which both councillors are a member, which will then come to full
Council for decision. Very, very transparent, Madam Chair, and I would suggest
if those two councillors are unwilling to accept their responsibilities as members
of this committee then I anticipate their resignation at committee next Tuesday
morning, Madam Chair.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor COOPER:
I think the point made by Councillor SCHRINNER is absolutely right, Madam
Chair. They seek to outsource an application. They seek to take a RiskSMART
process, apparently it seems, which is not normally a process that is held in great
esteem by those opposite.
So they don’t think that Council officers have the ability to do the job. They
seem to have no faith in due process. They want the people that I think we pay
significant—who are paid to do the job, who are impartial, they want to
outsource them, Madam Chair. They want to spend ratepayers' money on getting
other people to do the job that Council officers are paid for.
These are the people who have created a lengthy and detailed 13 page
information request. It is obvious that this is a political game and I wonder why
it is that the ALP persist in lavishing more attention in this particular area than in
their own ward.
We note Councillor DICK was very keen to hold a political event in this area,
rather than joining his own residents when we had a planning session for the
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 88 Lower Oxley Creek North Neighbourhood Plan. Certainly, Madam Chair, we
can draw our own conclusions from that.
There is of course an opportunity for all residents to make a submission during
public consultation, unlike the way that the Labor Party like to plan under the
ULDA, where there's no rights to make a submission. In fact, they impose all
sorts of planning requirements in our city in both Woolloongabba and
Fitzgibbon, where there's no comment that is able to be made by the community.
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor COOPER. Yes, Councillor DICK?
Councillor DICK:
Look, I've given Councillor COOPER a long bow on this but the ULDA,
Fitzgibbon, Woolloongabba aren't mentioned in the motion. Could you just—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
—or whether I'm attending meetings, Madam Chair. Could you just ask
Councillor COOPER to come back to the motion before her?
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Well Councillor DICK, you know, it's a matter of debate and I think what
Councillor COOPER is raising is relevant in the context—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
—in the context of what is in this motion and what has been said in the Chamber
by the Opposition side. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that there is actually a letter that's gone out to
10,000 members of the community seeking feedback on this application. So
there will be extensive community consultation undertaken as part of this
process. I also note that the Labor Party's got form when it comes to supporting
development, even before the community has seen it, even before it's been
lodged with Council.
We had Councillor FLESSER six months ago, February this year, gave his
unequivocal support for a Woolworths development. I quote: Local Councillor
Kim FLESSER welcomed the application, Madam Chair, saying it would spare
Banyo and Nudgee residents a trip to the local supermarket. So he made a
decision about an application. He welcomed that application and, in fact, he gave
some suggestions about how it should be conditioned—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:
—when Council was to approve it.
So not only do they want to get rid of a whole discipline of Council planning
officers but they think that they can actually condition development applications
themselves.
So, Madam Chair, I totally reject the comments made by those opposite. I think
it is absolutely a job of Council officers to impartially assess this application. I
note it will come to committee. There are all sorts of processes in place.
We note Councillor ABRAHAMS. She seems to be confused about what a
conflict of interest is, because she herself was caught in a tricky situation in our
committee.
Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR welcomes this application. He says it should
be a high quality outcome. That is entirely appropriate for him as LORD
MAYOR to have a high expectation of what we should see in our city. Our
LORD MAYOR has a vision for what our city should be, unlike the ALP who
have absolutely nothing to offer on this issue.
The LORD MAYOR does not make the decision. No single councillor makes the
decision. It is a delegated decision. It will come through a process, a very clear
process, under the Sustainable Planning Act. It is on PD Online. It's open and
transparent for all residents to understand, to track this process as it moves
through.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 89 Madam Chair, I say to the Australian Labor Party do not come into this place
and claim that officers, our hard working professionals, cannot undertake the
assessment of this and every other application against the provisions and the
requirements of City Plan. This application will go through extensive scrutiny in
an open and transparent process. I have total faith in the officers that they will
carefully and diligently assess this application against all relevant legislation as
they are obliged to under their code of conduct.
47/2014-15
Motion be now put
Councillor Amanda COOPER moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the motion be now put and
upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Nicole JOHNSTON immediately rose and called for a
division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 18 -
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES
and
Norm WYNDHAM.
NOES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON,
Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and what we've just seen from the LNP councillors
opposite is a breathtaking display of arrogance and contempt for the 800-plus
residents in The Gap and the Enoggera Wards who are expressing concerns
about that.
We have also seen a breathtaking lack of representation from the councillors of
those two wards, demanding to be allowed to get to their feet to speak on behalf
of their residents. They have chosen not to do that, let the record show.
Councillor COOPER's and Councillor SCHRINNER's contributions to this
debate were nothing short of desperate.
Councillor interjecting
Councillor SUTTON:
For them to try to create an argument that we were somehow besmirching
officers is quite frankly the lowest of the low. The point of this motion is about
Graham QUIRK. LORD MAYOR, Graham QUIRK, allowing his comments to
be part of an announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange.
He was not just welcoming this development application, he was encouraging
investors to buy shares in it. That is what he has done. He has not just welcomed
the development.
I know councillors on both sides of the Chamber have probably done that about
development applications in a range of areas. Seldom, if ever, do we see—
Chairman:
Order. Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor SUTTON:
—a LORD MAYOR of this city not just welcome a development, be part of
encouraging investors to buy shares in it because, and I quote: it will provide
well located housing supply within a short distance of the CBD”. He is part of
the marketing pitch.
Councillor interjecting.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 90 Councillor SUTTON:
The marketing pitch for this development application has got the LORD
MAYOR's brand written all over it. That is your conflict of interest, or at least
your perceived conflict of interest. That is where you went wrong.
Don't come in here and try to tell me—
Chairman:
Through the Chair, thank you Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
That I, Madam Chair, that I'm saying the Council officers aren't capable of doing
their job. I know they are. We've got to let them do it. We've got to let them
assess this development application without fear or favour.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
The fact that the LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK has allowed these comments
to be part of an investment pitch means that they are compromised. This Council
is compromised. So don’t come and try to wash it off as a political stunt. There
is a reason why the LNP has a reputation in this town on developments. There is
a reason for that and this is part of it.
These types of decisions are part of it, and I take the DEPUTY MAYOR's
comments. He won't hold the same standards that the Labor administration held
when we were in office. Where we saw that there was a development that had
the potential to create a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest,
Labor took the high ground.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
We sent it out to independent assessment so that we could never be accused of
not allowing a development application to be thoroughly investigated and
thoroughly scrutinised and thoroughly assessed. This LNP has refused to adopt
those high standards of accountability.
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
That is what has happened in this place today. I have said time and time and time
again in this place, it does not hurt for developers to hear no once in a while. But
they seldom hear no from the LNP in this Council.
The City Plan has developer interests written all over it, so has the LORD
MAYOR's—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—comments—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—on—
Chairman:
When I speak you stop.
Councillor SUTTON:
Sorry.
Chairman:
How long does it take you to learn? Now please resume your seat while I speak.
Councillor SUTTON you have gone far enough in your offensive comments and
I'd bring you back to the motion, to your summing up.
Order that the Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON leave the meeting under section 186A of the City of
Brisbane Act 2010
[At that point Councillor JOHNSTON made an interjection.]
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, under section 186A you have continued to interrupt the
process of this meeting. Your conduct has been disorderly and in accordance
with section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act I order that you leave the meeting
place and stay out for the rest of the meeting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Hardly done a single thing. A single thing. You are a joke. Yes, I'm leaving. That
is deliberate and outrageous. Geraldine's interrupting. Everyone's interrupting,
something’s wrong, Margaret.
Chairman:
Leave.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 91 Councillor JOHNSTON:
Well Margaret, guess what? I think your chairing with me today has been
absolutely pathetic. You allowed the DEPUTY MAYOR to absolutely impute
motive and Councillor COOPER and then when Councillor SUTTON—
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR, I'll have the motion put—
ADJOURNMENT:
48/2014-15
At that point, it was resolved on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, seconded by Councillor Ryan
MURPHY, that the meeting adjourn until Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON has left the Chamber.
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, you have one minute, 30. That's adding a few more on.
Councillor SUTTON:
Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the fact is all of the benign arguments
that the LNP have put today doesn’t change the fact that this is a significant
development application that is well outside the provisions of the Ferny Grove
Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan, and that the LORD MAYOR has allowed
his comments to be used in an investment pitch for this development application
before it has been appropriately assessed.
I believe this compromises Council's position, that it creates a conflict or a
perceived conflict of interest for Council to assess the development application. I
believe that if we are going to maintain high ethical standards, if we are to
maintain high standards of transparency and accountability, the only option—the
only option—is to refer this at a third party independent assessment.
It is not about shirking a responsibility. It is about the highest standards of
accountability, which we should always strive to adhere to.
Chairman:
Thank you Councillor SUTTON. I will put the motion.
As there was no further debate, the Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared lost on
the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Victoria NEWTON and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 6 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON and
Shayne SUTTON.
NOES: 18 -
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,
Julian SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES
and
Norm WYNDHAM.
Order under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 that disorderly conduct by Councillor
Nicole JOHNSTON be noted in the minutes
Chairman:
Councillors, before we continue under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act
2010 I intend to make a statement, to be recorded in the minutes, in relation to
the behaviour of Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON in relation to not only her
behaviour during the meeting but when she was asked to leave this Chamber, her
total disrespect and abuse of the Chairman is entirely inappropriate and
unacceptable.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 92 -
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chairman:
Councillors, are there any petitions? DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I have a petition from residents of Sandgate, Brighton
Beach area, asking for Council to enforce the laws on unleashed dogs.
Chairman:
Further petitions? Councillor MURPHY. There are too many microphones on.
Councillor MURPHY:
Madam Chairman, I have a petition from the residents of Carina about a night
truck curfew on Fursden Road.
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair, I have a petition calling for a school safety zone in Annerley
Road, Dutton Park.
Chairman:
Any further petitions? Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Yes, I have an extra page from last week's petition concerning the small dog off
leash area in Sandgate.
Chairman:
Further petitions?
49/2014-15
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Victoria NEWTON, that
the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.
The petitions were summarised as follows:
File No.
Councillor
Topic
CA14/626089
Requesting that Council stop owners walking off-leash dogs on
Brighton Beach, Sandgate
CA14/645872
Deputy Mayor on
behalf of the Lord
Mayor
Ryan Murphy
CA14/645996
Helen Abrahams
CA14/646329
Victoria Newton
Calling on Council to address concerns relating to large trucks
travelling along Kate Street, Ellen Street and Preston Road,
Carina
Requesting that Council allocate funds and work with the
Queensland Government to designate the section of Annerley
Road, adjacent to Dutton park State School in the 2014-15
financial year, as a School Safety Zone
Expressing support for Council to construct a second dog offleash area at Curlew Park, Sandgate, for small dog breeds and
puppies
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chairman:
Councillors, are there any items of general business? Councillor KING.
Councillor KING:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to briefly talk about a couple of issues in my
ward. Firstly, the Golden Boot, and then the Stafford City Kedron Brook Run.
Madam Chair, I am delighted to say that Marchant Ward has its first Golden
Boot and that was awarded to the Geebung State School. So I'm extremely proud
of Geebung State School. It was a delight to walk with them at school. They
have so much pride. They walk up Newman Road with their banner with all the
kids walking behind and the safety vests that the older kids wear to stamp their
books. I'm extremely proud of them and I think they did very well.
But what is so particularly nice about the Geebung State School is that they—
actually, St Kevin's across the road, the catholic primary school, they all meet at
7th Brigade Park, the two different schools, and all walk off. So it's a lovely
environment around Geebung on the Wednesday morning and, again, the school
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 93 was extremely proud of the fact that they won the Golden Boot and I'm very
proud of Geebung State School.
Madam Chair, the other thing is the Stafford City Kedron Brook Run that was
held last week. I will put on the record that I was supposed to run for seven k
(kilometres). I didn't quite make it, Madam Chair, but I did try my best to get
through the run.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor KING:
No, I'm not going to say how far I ran. I'm proud to say that Stafford City, the
shopping centre, are the major supporters of the Kedron Brook Run and it's great
to see businesses and shopping centres around the area getting behind the fitness
of people in the area.
A big thank you should go to Gary McPhee for all his organisation. This is the
second year they've done the Kedron Brook Run and I believe their numbers
were up 700 participants this year.
They also have—which I believe is one of the first, well; the only ones in
Brisbane that have their own separate dog run as well. So you can actually take
your dog out with you as you do the either 2.5 or the seven k run.
So congratulations to Gary McPhee for organising another successful event this
year. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further general business. Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm aware of the time and I'll be brief and
Councillor GRIFFITHS will be brief on this side of the Chamber.
I want to speak on two items tonight, which are the appeal that has been
launched for a local soccer club, the Brisbane Force, in my local community.
Also, the good news around the 18C Racial Discrimination laws which have
finally been put in the bin where—the changes, where they belong.
Madam Chair, I was delighted to join forces with the local Quest paper and
South-West News last week on the front page of the paper to launch an appeal
regarding the Brisbane Force Football Club, which is located in the CJ
Greenfield complex. I have had a long association with this local soccer club and
when they came to me distressed regarding the vandalism and the break-ins that
the club has been suffering over the past 18 months, we joined forces with the
local community to enable the club to keep operating.
This club does a terrific job in our local area, helping disadvantaged kids play
soccer, encourage them in a sport which is—as we all know—growing, but also
particularly from a number of kids from non-English speaking backgrounds.
They do a lot of outreach work with our schools and the local community and
they help disadvantaged clubs get back on their feet.
Well now's the time that we're rallying to get behind the Brisbane Force Football
Club and I'm really pleased to announce that we are getting a number of offers of
support from local businesses, from local residents, who are helping the club get
back on their feet.
There's been a number of break-ins through July 2013, April 2014 and July 17 of
this year. The local police I also want to commend, have joined forces with this
campaign and are doing everything they can to look at increasing patrols and
also working with the club to enhance a police presence in and around the
facility.
Council I've been working with as well to look at lighting improvements and
also any other safety improvements that we can make.
This club does a lot for our community and I'm really pleased to be backing this
local campaign. I know that the Quest paper, the South-West News, have lent
their full forces to this campaign and I know working together we will see the
Brisbane Force Football Club go from strength to strength.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 94 Today's announcement, Madam Chair, by the Federal Government to junk and
water down—junk the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act is unequivocally
good news.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
This back down from the Federal Government is a win for the local community
and local ethnic groups right across Australia. Unlike the shameful AttorneyGeneral, who also believes it's okay to call people bigots, the Labor Party and
the broader community have risen up and acted as one to oppose what was
essentially the watering down of the Racial Discrimination Act.
When it came to this Council Chamber of course those opposite didn't have the
guts, through you, Madam Chair, to oppose those changes. They stood shoulder
to shoulder with their political masters while multicultural groups right across
the city and right across Australia and community, and other local government
authorities who had the guts to take the right decision—to stand up and say what
the Federal Government was proposing was out of line and un-Australian—those
opposite of course supported their political masters.
Well, I'm glad. Not surprising because that's what those opposite always do.
Whatever is good for the LNP is good for those opposite.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Yes, they never stand up for what is right. Madam Chair, today we have seen a
humiliating back down by the Prime Minister, long overdue. It should never
have been put on the table in the first place. It's a victory for common sense but
it's also a victory for decent Australian values.
Chairman:
Further general business. Councillor McKENZIE.
Councillor McKENZIE:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look, I'd like to speak very briefly on a
significant community event that occurred at Holland Park Ward on Sunday.
That is Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Primary School fete.
Now the school is a magnificent school. It's probably not the biggest in the ward
but by gee can they put on a fete. Every year it just pulses, this fete. There were
over 2,000 participants there. There was about 368 families and about 530
students.
I'd just like to recognise a couple of people that really went out of their way
again to do a great job; Mrs Rae Garvey, the P&C President; Mrs Tracy Laidlaw,
the Fete Convenor; and the tireless MC who worked all day there on the
microphone.
I'd also like to make a point of the wonderful musical entertainment that
occurred there during the day. For this I'd like to recognise Principal Peter
Delaney and his musical staff, who did a wonderful job there. They raised very
many tens of thousands of dollars. There were 35 stalls, nine rides. Ian Kaye,
MP for Greenslopes, was there presenting awards, as was I. The whole day was
just a wonderful day, a community event that is very hard to beat in Holland
Park Ward.
Chairman:
Further general business. Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:
Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. I just rise and I'll do my best to get through this
quickly, just to give a report on the public meeting that occurred on the weekend,
regarding the issue of odour affecting residents of Moorooka and Salisbury.
We had approximately 100 residents turn out for a public meeting. It was well
supported by local residents. It was organised by a concerned group of residents
known as SMNOAG (Salisbury Moorooka Noxious Odour Action Group) and
the main organiser of that group is a gentleman by the name of Cec Fox.
At that time, 6.43pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, assumed the Chair.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 95 Councillor GRIFFITHS:
Cec did very well in pulling that group together. Other members of the group
include Helen, Susan, Elyssa and Deb. I congratulate them on their work and
their commitment in representing the community.
Can I say that we had a number of speakers on the day, including Carl Judge, the
State Member for Yeerongpilly; Mark Bailey, who was previously the
Councillor for Moorooka Ward, and who's running for the State Labor Party in
Yeerongpilly; and myself.
It was disappointing that the LORD MAYOR wasn't there and it was noted. It
was also disappointing that Council officers did not attend as well.
There have been 190 complaints from 92 different people in relation to this issue
of a noxious odour, and they’ve been going on all year, since January. Council
has been a gathering point for this information, including pinpointing where the
odour's coming from and gathering data in terms of time of day, the date the
odours noticed, the location and possible sites where the odour may be
originating from.
It's investigated over 20 businesses, particularly in the Salisbury area. They seem
to have narrowed it down to one business in particular, which is EGR. It's a
business that does thermo forming of essentially plastic sheets.
My understanding is Council officers have been working with this business, and
this business on 12 July, this business cleared out its water treatment system.
Since that time we've had only 10 complaints. On 29 July, an environmental
investigation was announced by Council under the EPA Act. This requires the
company to undertake this investigation and report its findings to Council.
I'm glad that that's finally occurred and certainly SMNOAG are taking some
credence in the fact that that has actually happened.
Madam Chair, there were a few outcomes from this meeting and I support them
wholeheartedly and will certainly be writing to the LORD MAYOR in regards to
them. The first one is that residents want to be kept informed, with regular
written briefings with regards what is going on in terms of action by Council.
They would like to get answers to the following questions, including what action
can the Council take if there is a breach of the Environmental Act and what
action can the Council take if there is no breach of the Environmental Act? I'll be
seeking answers to those questions from the LORD MAYOR in writing
tomorrow.
The third point is a select, small group of members of SMNOAG, and myself,
would like to be part of a briefing regarding the air testing that Council did on 3
July. They would like to know what makes up the findings of this investigation.
They're particularly concerned in the LORD MAYOR's briefing that goes: “the
results of the air testing would indicate that the odour present is not being
created by a volatile organic compound. Council is not in the position to
comment on the health effects related to these compounds, which is outside its
expertise and mandate.”
The group, and certainly the public, feel they have a right to more information in
regards to air testing that Council has undertaken and I would support them on
that.
Finally, the residents would also like to be involved and kept informed in regards
to the health impacts of the odour. This should involve Council working with the
local State Member of Parliament. Their final issue that they'd like myself and
Council to work on is how do we go about preventing this odour occurring again
so that it doesn't impact on residents into the future. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:
Further general business. Councillor de WIT.
Councillor de WIT:
Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. I rise to speak on two issues that are
totally unrelated. The first one is the new Council gavel and the second one
relates to Palm Island. As I said, there's no link between those.
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 96 Now the first item I'd like to speak about is this really beautiful jarrah gavel, and
I'm not sure what you call this bit. This was made for me by the father of a
Council officer, who happened to be in the Chamber one day and I'd made a
comment that the gavel I thought could have been a bit bigger. He said—well,
one has been broken, and I didn't break it. But that was one was bigger.
He said I'll get him to make you one. Now this is beautiful Australian Jarrah and
I'm really quite touched by this because I think it was just a lovely gesture on the
part of the officer and an even lovelier gesture by his father. The interesting
thing is, and I mean this is just immaculately made and finished.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor de WIT:
I have. I've been using it for two weeks. The other interesting part is that I'm not
sure if his father was practising or what but I've actually been delivered six
gavels. So I think we've probably got enough to last the century.
But look, it is a most generous gesture on the part of this officer's father. I am
really quite overwhelmed by it and, of course, I have written him a very nice
letter. But I really felt I should draw it to the Chamber's attention because it's just
one of those special little things that happen.
The second thing I want to raise was I mentioned Palm Island. A couple of
weeks ago, as part of my LGAQ (Local Government Association of Queesnland)
work, I visited Palm Island. We hear a lot of things about Palm Island and Mayor
Alf Lacey and others are working very hard to try to improve their situation.
Some of the things that I found out while I was there. Palm Island really is close
to Ingham and Townsville, however, the only transportation is by ferry, unless
you're flying in, and it goes from Townsville. The ferry fare return is $66, which
is pretty steep. It is quite a distance.
The thing that I found out was that on the island the residents—there's about
3,500 of them—they can't buy clothes. They have access to a government store
and a fabulous bistro, actually. But other than that, they have no access to goods
and services. There are some brand new houses that have been built up there but
have no furniture. The cost of getting furniture across is huge.
But there's a wonderful organisation called the Palm Island Community
Company. I had a meeting with the CEO of that company, a marvellous lady,
and she in conjunction with the Rotary Club of Ingham have started up an OP
Shop. So at least the residents can go somewhere to buy something, rather than
having to go to Townsville at great expense to purchase clothes.
The sort of costs that they incur, there's a $66 fare to go across but that only gets
you to the port at Townsville anyway so there's even greater expense, bearing in
mind these people are mostly on welfare of some kind. I was told if you wanted
to take a car to Palm Island it's $500 each way and they really are in a bad
situation from that point of view.
To see what the council and the mayor and this company are doing to try to
rectify things is really encouraging. This little op shop has only been opened
eight weeks and it was closed that afternoon, because they had a big event with
the Premier unveiling some major projects, infrastructure, over there.
What occurred to me was I wondered whether if, like me, there are other
councillors—and I'm talking male as well as female—who might have things
like for example, I know I've got jewellery in very good condition that sits in a
drawer. The op shop had a couple of bits of jewellery. Also I thought if anybody
wanted to donate some—a small amount of very good basic clothing, probably
underwear, that sort of thing, I'm happy to arrange transportation up to
Townsville so that this lady can get it across to Palm Island.
What I thought I'd do is bring a box or something next week and I'll put it in the
kitchen. If you have anything that you would like to put in I will bundle it up and
it will be a gift from the Councillors of Brisbane City Council. It really is an eye
opener to go into these communities and Palm Island is the most beautiful place
environmentally. But the disadvantage, when you think about it, that you can't
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 97 go into a shop and buy anything because there are no shops—furniture: you've
got a house, brand new house, and no furniture because you can't buy it.
The little op shop has also brought some mattresses across. Now they're charging
$500 for the mattress and they're losing money on it. It's costing them more than
that to purchase and—these are brand new mattresses, to purchase, like an
ensemble bed, and get it transported across to the island.
So they do need a lot of help. In fact, all the Indigenous communities need a lot
of help. But I thought this was one that, given the op shop has started up, I
thought if anyone has anything they'd like to bring in, nothing too big, bulky or
heavy, I'm more than happy to forward it on. So thank you very much, Madam
Deputy Chairman.
Councillor interjecting.
Deputy Chairman:
Further general business? I declare the meeting closed.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (received on 25 July 2014)
Q1.
Would Council please advise the number of traffic related or parking fines issued on Graceville
Avenue, Graceville in the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years?
Q2.
Would Council please advise the total amount of all fines issued on Graceville Avenue, Graceville in
the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years?
Q3.
Would Council please advise the most recent available crash history data for Graceville Avenue,
Graceville?
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (received on 31 July 2014)
Q1.
How many parking permits and visitor permits were issued in 2013/14 in each of the following
residential parking permit areas? Can the response please be provided in the following table:
Tennyson
Residential Parking Permit
Yeronga
Residential Parking Permit
Fairfield
Residential Parking Permit
Yeerongpilly
Residential Parking Permit
Annerley
Residential Parking Permit
Visitor Parking Permit
Visitor Parking Permit
Visitor Parking Permit
Visitor Parking Permit
Visitor Parking Permit
Q2.
How many parking metered spaces are located in Annerley?
Q3.
What is the amount of revenue collected from parking meters in the 2013/14 year in Annerley?
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (received on 31 July 2014)
Q1.
Can information be provided to advise the full breakdown of all the components of the
$2,520,573,000 in the 2013/2014 year (anticipated) for ‘Non-current liabilities - Other financial
liabilities’ shown on page 9 of the 2014/2015 Annual budget?
Q2.
Can information be provided to advise the full breakdown of all the components of the
$1,552,400,000 in the 2014/2015 year (proposed) for ‘Non-current liabilities - Other financial
liabilities’ shown on page 9 of the 2014/2015 Annual budget?
Q3.
Can information be provided to advise the costs per cubic meter for road resurfacing in the categories
for the following financial years:ROAD TYPE
2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 98 Schedule 12: Resurface Streets
Type A&B
Schedule 13: Road Construction
Minor Type ABC & E
Schedule 16: Resurface Bus Route
Type ‘C’
Schedule 18: Resurface Industrial
Streets Type E
Schedule 22: Resurface Major Road
Type D
Schedule 24: Resurface Arterial
Road Type F&G
Q4.
Can information be provided to advise how much was spent on road surface maintenance (including
pothole repairs) in the following financial years (not including road resurfacing as listed in the
Annual Budget schedules):2013/14
Q5.
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
Can information be provided to advise how many kilometres of roads were resurfaced in the
following financial years:2013/14
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN
GIVEN:
(Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from meeting on 29 July 2014)
Q1.
Can information be provided to advise how much Brisbane City Council funding has been allocated
in the 2014/15 financial year for each of the following Festival:
•
Major Brisbane Festival
•
Queensland Music Festival (biennial festival)
•
Brisbane International Film Festival
•
Valley Fiesta
•
Brisbane Writers' Festival.
•
2 High Festival
•
4MBS Festival of Classics
•
Acacia Ridge Party in the Park
•
Ashgrove Carols by Candlelight
•
BABI Wave Youth Festival
•
Backyard Bonanza
•
Bardon Community Carols
•
Brisbane Billycart Championships
•
Brisbane Cabaret Festival
•
Brisbane Cheese Festival
•
Brisbane International Festival
•
Brisbane Kite Festival
•
Brisbane Organic Growers Fair
•
Brookfield Christmas
•
Bulimba Festival
•
Calamvale Carnival
•
Carols on the Range
•
Caxton Street Seafood Festival
•
Centenary Community Christmas Carols
•
Centenary Rocks Festival
•
Christmas in Keperra
•
Christmas in Sandgate
•
Christmas in The Grove
•
Colourise Festival
•
Darra Street Festival
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 99 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Einbunpin
Fair on the Green
Ferny Grove Festival
Goldicott Under the Stars
Grass Roots Music Festival
Hands of Hope
History Alive – A Journey Through Time
Indigo Fair
Jacaranda Festival
Karawatha Family Fun Day
Kelvin Grove Creative Festival
Lanham Park May Fair
Moorooka Laneway Festival
Morningside Festival
Music by the Sea
Manly Harbour Village Halloween Street Party
National Archaeology Week – Toowong Cemetery
Nundah Village Festival
Opera in the Gardens
Out of the Box (biennial festival)
Park Road Festival
Parkinson Neighbourhood Festival
Peaks to Points (biennial festival)
Pride Festival
Queensland Deaf Festival
Queensland Poetry Festival
Racecourse Road Winter Lights Festival (formally Hamilton Festival)
Rainbow Carnival
Rotary Christmas
Sandgate Bluewater Festival
SandCliffe Writers Festivall
Sherwood Community Festival
Spring Hill Fair
Teneriffe Festival
Three Saints Festival
Toowong Hands and Hearts Fair
Wakerley Rotary Christmas Carols
Wilston Winter Magic Fair
Wynnum Manly Jazz Festival
Wynnum Illuminations Festival
West End Block Festival
West End Film Festival
Xmas Twilight Market & Movie Night.
Africa Day Festival
Brisbane Chinese Cultural Festival
Brisbane Chinese Festival
Brisbane Lunar New Year Multicultural Festival
Brisbane French Festival
Buddha's Birthday
Carole Park Multicultural Day
Chanukah in the City
Diwali Festival of Lights
Eidfest
Eritrean Community Multicultural Festival
Fieritalia (formally New Farm Italian Festival)
Indian Bazaar
Indooroopilly State High School United Nations Day
International Tartan Day
Italian Week
Korean Festival Day
Many Stories, One Australia
Milton Community Festival (Polish Festival)
Moorooka Family Fun Day (formally Moorooka Festival)
Multicultural Taste of the World
Nowruz Persian New Year Festival (Iranian New Year Festival)
Paniyiri
Parkinson Multicultural and Dragon Boat Festival
Scandinavian Festival
Serbian Cultural Festival
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 100 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A1.
South Pacific Islander Christmas Celebrations
St Patrick’s Day Parade
Sunnybank Hills State School Multi-Festival
Taiwanese Festival
Taiwanese Moon Festival
Taiwanese Mother’s Day Celebration
Vesak: A Sri Lankan Experience
Vietnamese Children's Moon Festival
Vietnamese Tet New Year Festival
Zillmere Festival – One Place Many Cultures.
Brisbane Eisteddfod
Brisbane Philharmonic Orchestra
Queensland Ballet
Queensland Choir
Queensland Symphony Orchestra
Brisbane Symphony Orchestra
Queensland Opera
Matilda Awards
Metro Arts
Queensland Youth Orchestra
4MBS Shakespeare Festival.
The festivals listed in Council’s 2014/15 budget are primarily on three year contracts to ensure
certainty of funding for festival organisers. The festivals listed below without dollar values next to
them are funded in this year’s budget but subject to contract renewals as part of a rolling program of
festivals contracts. A formal submission to Civic Cabinet has not yet been made as individual
contracts have not been finalised for these festivals, so the amounts cannot be confirmed at this time.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Major Brisbane Festival - $1,605,000
Queensland Music Festival (biennial festival) - $205,000
Brisbane International Film Festival - $30,000
Valley Fiesta - $250,000
Brisbane Writers' Festival - $30,000
2 High Festival - $10,000
4MBS Festival of Classics - $10,000
Acacia Ridge Party in the Park - $9619
Ashgrove Carols by Candlelight - $5000
BABI Wave Youth Festival - $5000
Backyard Bonanza - $31,000
Bardon Community Carols - $5000
Brisbane Billycart Championships - $10,000
Brisbane Cabaret Festival - $10,000
Brisbane Cheese Festival - $10,000
Brisbane International Jazz Festival - $6000
Brisbane Kite Festival
Brisbane Organic Growers Fair - $5000
Brookfield Christmas - $5000
Bulimba Festival - $15,000
Calamvale Carnival – $10,000
Carols on the Range - $5000
Caxton Street Seafood Festival - $7000
Centenary Community Christmas Carols - $5000
Centenary Rocks Festival - $7000
Christmas in Keperra - $5000
Christmas in Sandgate - $5000
Christmas in The Grove
Colourise Festival - $7000
Darra Street Festival - $7000
Einbunpin - $12,000
Fair on the Green - $5000
Ferny Grove Festival - $7000
Goldicott Under the Stars
Grass Roots Music Festival - $6000
Hands of Hope - $5000
History Alive – A Journey Through Time - $5000
Indigo Fair - $5000
Jacaranda Festival - $3000
Karawatha Family Fun Day - $8000
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 101 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kelvin Grove Creative Festival - $5000
Lanham Park May Fair
Moorooka Laneway Festival
Morningside Festival - $10,000
Music by the Sea
Manly Harbour Village Halloween Street Party
National Archaeology Week – Toowong Cemetery - $5000
Nundah Village Festival - $6000
Opera in the Gardens - $6000
Out of the Box (biennial festival) - $25,000
Park Road Festival - $5000
Parkinson Neighbourhood Festival - $7603
Peaks to Points (biennial festival) - $37,000
Pride Festival - $7000
Queensland Deaf Festival - $2500
Queensland Poetry Festival - $6000
Racecourse Road Winter Lights Festival (formally Hamilton Festival) - $16,000
Rainbow Carnival - $5000
Rotary Christmas - $5000
Sandgate Bluewater Festival - $18,195
SandCliffe Writers Festival - $5000
Sherwood Community Festival - $18,000
Spring Hill Fair - $10,000
Teneriffe Festival
Three Saints Festival
Toowong Hands and Hearts Fair - $2500
Wakerley Rotary Christmas Carols
Wilston Winter Magic Fair - $5000
Wynnum Manly Jazz Festival - $10,000
Wynnum Illuminations Festival - $10,000
West End Block Festival - $5000
West End Film Festival
Xmas Twilight Market & Movie Night - $5000
Africa Day Festival - $5000
Brisbane Chinese Cultural Festival - $7000
Brisbane Chinese Festival - $5000
Brisbane Lunar New Year Multicultural Festival - $5000
Brisbane French Festival
Buddha's Birthday - $30,000
Carole Park Multicultural Day - $2000
Chanukah in the City
Diwali Festival of Light
Eidfest - $12,000
Eritrean Community Multicultural Festival - $6000
Fieritalia (formally New Farm Italian Festival) - $20,000
Indian Bazaar - $15,000
Indooroopilly State High School United Nations Day - $6000
International Tartan Day
Italian Week - $20,000
Korean Festival Day - $5000
Many Stories, One Australia - $5000
Milton Community Festival (Polish Festival)
Moorooka Family Fun Day (formally Moorooka Festival) - $10,000
Multicultural Taste of the World - $10,000
Nowruz Persian New Year Festival (Iranian New Year Festival) - $12,900
Paniyiri - $30,000
Parkinson Multicultural and Dragon Boat Festival
Scandinavian Festival - $5000
Serbian Cultural Festival - $5000
South Pacific Islander Christmas Celebrations - $5000
St Patrick’s Day Parade - $15,000
Sunnybank Hills State School Multi-Festival - $5000
Taiwanese Festival - $5000
Taiwanese Moon Festival - $8000
Taiwanese Mother’s Day Celebration - $4000
Vesak: A Sri Lankan Experience - $6000
Vietnamese Children's Moon Festival - $6909
Vietnamese Tet New Year Festival - $12,000
Zillmere Festival – One Place Many Cultures - $20,000
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 102 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brisbane Eisteddfod
Brisbane Philharmonic Orchestra
Queensland Ballet
Queensland Choir
Queensland Symphony Orchestra
Brisbane Symphony Orchestra - $10,000
Queensland Opera - $40,000
Matilda Awards - $10,000
Metro Arts
Queensland Youth Orchestra
4MBS Shakespeare Festival
Q2.
Can information be provided to advise the amount of funding that was allocated in the 2014/2015
Brisbane City Council Annual Budget for the proposed Neighbourhood Plan for the suburbs of
Northgate and Banyo?
A2.
Exact funding for individual neighbourhood plans has not yet been determined from the 2014/15
budget.
Q3.
Can information be provided to advise will (or whether) Council allocate(d) any funds to upgrade the
car parking in Colmslie Recreation Reserve as a consequence of the State Government’s decision to
upgrade the Colmslie boat ramp located in the Colmslie Recreation Reserve this financial year? If so,
how much has been, or is likely to be, allocated for this project?
A3.
No funding has been allocated.
Q4.
In presenting the 2013/14 Brisbane City Council Budget, the Lord Mayor said: “Madam Chairman, I
am delighted to announce an initiative which will provide eligible not for profit community and
sporting groups a 75% subsidy (up to a maximum of $40,000 per project) on Infrastructure Charges
for any expansion projects undertaken. I have allocated $1 million as a pilot program in this year’s
budget. “. Can information be provided to advise which groups received this subsidy and how much
was allocated for each group?
A4.
Help Enterprises Pty Ltd
16,200.00
Anglican Church Grammar School
10,140.00
Wynnum Croquet Club Inc
349.35
St Joachim's Catholic Primary School
14,052.00
Multicap Mt Ommaney Respite Homes
25,834.58
Cannon Hill Community Pre-School and Kindergarten Association
5,614.50
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of Australia Consolidated Trust
40,000.00
Help Enterprises
13,942.50
Note: This list includes all eligible organisations that have finalised their development application
and have received their approved rebate.
RISING OF COUNCIL:
PRESENTED:
6.48pm.
and CONFIRMED
CHAIRMAN
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]
- 103 -
Council officers in attendance:
James Withers (Senior Council and Committee Officer)
Jo Camamile (Council and Committee Officer)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
[4443 (Ordinary) Meeting – 5 August 2014]