€¦ · web viewnow, i was a bit shocked when he basically said that he doesn’t support it...

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4575 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 13 November 2018at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4575 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,ON TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2018

AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________2

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:___________________________________________15ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE__________________________________________15

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE TERMINAL ROADS UPGRADE PROJECT____________________________38

B MINOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE F_________________________44C STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE INFRINGEMENT

PROCESSING AND ISSUING SOLUTION________________________________________________45D COORPAROO AND DISTRICTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN___________________________________51

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________53A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PATRICK LANE INTERSECTION UPGRADE AND LAND STREET

UNDERPASS SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS________________________________________________56INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE___________________________________________________________57

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL UPDATE_____60B PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO GREENWOOD STREET, WISHART, AS PART

OF THE SUBURBAN CORRIDOR MODERNISATION OF KAVANAGH ROAD_____________________61C PETITION – REQUESTING TRAFFIC CALMING SPEED HUMPS ON REDWOOD STREET, STAFFORD

HEIGHTS________________________________________________________________________62CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________65

A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER THE PLANNING ACT 2016 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 163-165 RICHMOND ROAD, MORNINGSIDE___________________________________________________________________71

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT THE CORSO, SEVEN HILLS, BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19__________________________________________73

C PETITIONS – REQUESTING GRACEVILLE FIVEWAYS SHOPPING PRECINCT, GRACEVILLE, BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19_____________74

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE____________________________________75A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – INTERNATIONAL RIVERSYMPOSIUM_________________________76

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________77A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – RECREATE EVENT_______________________________________77

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE__________________________________________78A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CUSTOMER SERVICES ACROSS OUR CITY_____________________79

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE_______________________________________81A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE’S TOURISM FUTURE_____________________________83

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:_____________________________________________________84

GENERAL BUSINESS:______________________________________________________________85

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:___________________________________92

[4575 (Ordinary) Meeting – 13 November 2018]




AT 2PM





AT 2PM

PRESENT:The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNPThe Chairman of Council, Councillor Angela OWEN (Calamvale Ward) – LNP

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards)Krista ADAMS (Holland Park)Adam ALLAN (Northgate)Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)Vicki HOWARD (Central) Steven HUANG (MacGregor)Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy) (Deputy Chairman of Council)Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale)Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Andrew WINES (Enoggera)Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) (The Leader of the Opposition)Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)Kara COOK (Morningside)Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake)

Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward)Jonathan SRI (The Gabba)

Independent Councillor (and Ward)Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)

OPENING OF MEETING:The Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.

Chairman: I remind all Councillors of your obligations to declare material personal interests and conflicts of interest, where relevant, and the requirement of such to remove yourself from the Council Chamber for debate and voting, where applicable.

Are there any apologies?

There being no apologies, Minutes, please.

MINUTES:321/2018-19

The Minutes of the 4574 meeting of Council held on 6 November 2018, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the Standing Committees?


QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Councillor RICHARDS.

Question 1

Councillor RICHARDS: My question is to the LORD MAYOR. The revitalisation of Howard Smith Wharves is shaping up to be a game-changing leisure and lifestyle precinct for Brisbane. Can you please give an update on this project, including how this Administration is delivering more to see and do for our residents?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank the Councillor for the question, Councillor Kate RICHARDS. The Howard Smith Wharves today or, indeed tonight, will see its first event. This important site, what I’ve often called the missing link in the river corridor, will today see, as I say, the opening event, and it has been a long journey but, Madam Chairman, it will, I believe, be a very important new placemaking experience for not only residents of this city but, indeed, visitors to Brisbane.

It’s a $110 million revitalisation project. Of course, this site has a wonderful history ranging back to being an active wharf. It’s been the home to the Queensland Water Police, but importantly it has several heritage buildings, which have been restored as a part of this process. The key to the site is that when you take in all of the various aspects of it, it will be able to hold around 5,300 people at any given time; 3.4 hectares is the size of the precinct, with 2.7 hectares remaining in public open space and parkland.

Part of it will be the five-star hotel, Madam Chairman. They’ve topped out in terms of that hotel, and have commenced the fit-out. So there will be progressive openings to Howard Smith Wharves. The hotel is expected to be completed around March/April of next year. It will be the final stage to the progressive opening of the site.

Importantly, when we talk about hotels, Madam Chairman, there has been now some 18 new four and five-star hotels that have opened in Brisbane in the last three years. Those hotels, most of them, overwhelmingly in fact, have come off the back of an incentive that this Council created. The occupancy rate, in spite of that quantity of hotels in our city, is at five per cent above the national average for hotels.

The reality is that we have seen in this city growth in the number of visitors, from 7 million two years ago to now 8.4 million visitors to Brisbane. That’s why they have got such a good occupancy rate, given the growth in hotels. So this new five-star hotel will be another welcome addition, another 166 rooms with a great outlook to the city.

Another feature of the Howard Smith Wharves site is the 1,100 square metre exhibition space, Howard’s Hall. It will provide a capacity for around 1,200 people and it will be, of course, blended with a whole range of restaurants within the heritage buildings, a craft brewery, and many other attractions. There will be two elevators operating, which will go from the Howard Smith Wharves site to the top of the cliff face. Councillor HOWARD and I had a ride in one of those today, in fact. They are glassed so that people can take into account the views of the river, and back across the Story Bridge and the city.

Madam Chairman, the progress in terms of opening is expected that the river shed, as I say, on 13 November—that’s today; the Howard’s Hall will be ready for opening on 15 November; Felons Brewing Co—that’s the craft brewery—which was the subject of a special application, will be open on 23 November, and come 29 November, Mr Percival’s Overwater Bar will be open. A lot of those will be open. Certainly, all the restaurants will be open for Christmas, and bookings are extremely strong.

There are plenty of aspects to this site which are important public features. The linkages through the site link up with Riverwalk and the CBD. Importantly, the riverfront amphitheatre seating area, there will be a kayak ramp, cycle racks, and


- 2 -

public toilets. Of course, the DEPUTY MAYOR last week announced also that there will be a ferry terminal that will be established as part of this, and that will be, I think, ready to go around 2020 as I understand it, DEPUTY MAYOR, is the expected completion time for that facility. So, Madam Chairman, a great site; an opportunity again for residents of Brisbane to enjoy another part of our city.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

Further questions?

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Question 2

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. I refer to the financial year 2018 reports of the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) and LGIAsuper. The reports show that Councillor Matthew BOURKE, who is a Director of LGIAsuper and the LGAQ as a direct result of his position as a Brisbane City Councillor, received a total of approximately $114,000 in remuneration from these bodies. Councillor BOURKE is also the full time Chair of the City Planning Committee, for which he receives a package of more than $250,000. Does Councillor BOURKE relinquish the extra money from LGIAsuper and the LGAQ to the Council, or is it his to keep?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks for the question, Councillor CUMMING. My understanding is that this is an additional role that Councillor BOURKE has, and it is his to keep. It is a payment that he receives for those additional responsibilities. There are many local government entities and representatives that are in that same—

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: —situation.

Chairman: Order!


LORD MAYOR: There are many elected—

Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON!

LORD MAYOR: —many elected representatives in this State that are in exactly the same situation. So that is my understanding, Councillor CUMMING. It always has been the situation. You’ve had other representatives from this Council that have been on those in the past. There’s been no change in terms of the arrangements to the best of my knowledge, Madam Chairman, from right through the years, when there have been representatives.

It used to be a time when there were a lot more paid representative positions within this Council on a whole range of entities, Madam Chairman. There were positions when I first entered Council, there were positions on electricity boards, there was a whole range of additional payments that Councillors had received. A lot of those have dwindled over the years; that’s the nature of things, Madam Chairman. But the reality is that there are still, in this particular case, one in place. As I say, other local representatives around the State also are the recipient of payments based on particular roles that they have within the LGAQ.


Chairman: Order!

Further questions—


Chairman: —Councillor JOHNSTON! Stop yelling out across the Chamber floor please.

Councillor WYNDHAM, you have a question.


- 3 -

Question 3

Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to Councillor McLACHLAN, the Chair of Environment, Parks and Sustainability. During the budget this year, the LORD MAYOR announced Council would introduce a Flood Resilient Homes program to give assistance to residents in areas that regularly flood during storm events. Can you please give the Chamber an update on the rollout of this program?

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you Madam Chairman, and thank you to Councillor WYNDHAM for the question—a very relevant one that was the subject of our Committee presentation this morning. The Flood Resilient Homes program is an innovation that the LORD MAYOR announced to help residents affected by frequent overland flow flooding to recover quickly. The storm season is upon us, and with it comes the anxiety when the BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) radar shows lots of black or dark red moving across the city, events that we know can cause localised flooding.

Overland flow flooding is water that runs across the land after rain, either before it enters a creek or stream, or rising to the surface from overwhelmed drains. It tends to affect localised areas rather than being a whole of city event. So, flood resilience is providing the ability to prepare for, live through, and then return to normal household routines following an overland flow flood event with the least amount of disruption possible.

There are many steps that residents can take personally to prepare for flood events, but damage to homes is depressing and costly to fix. So we’re helping homeowners to build flood resilience through the Flood Resilient Homes program as well as through ongoing community education and awareness. So this is in addition to the other stormwater management and drainage expenditures, as announced in the last budget.

The addition this year is Flood Resilient Homes program, a pilot program helping residents affected by frequent overland flow flooding as demonstrated through flood mapping. Council’s sustainability agency CitySmart is project managing the program on behalf of Council. The Flood Resilient Homes program consists of three major elements: the FloodWise Home Service, which is a free in-home assessment of the property’s flood resilience; the FloodWise Home Service Resident’s Report, which is a tailored property report providing flood resilience information and recommendations for that particular property; and FloodWise Resilience Incentive Scheme, in eligible cases, the provision of financial assistance for flood resilient property modifications.

The first part of the pilot program was run in Paddington. Since July 2018, approximately 67 properties have completed the FloodWise Home Service in Paddington which assessed the properties’ flood resilience. The next stage there will see 43 properties progressing to the FloodWise Resilience Incentive Scheme, which may include retrofitting properties with improved flood resilient designs and materials.

Madam Chairman, residents have been overwhelmingly positive about the program and their ability to improve the flood resilience of their homes and to stay in their homes or get back to their homes quickly after an event. Costs of up to $50,000 are covered for retrofitting houses, or up to $100,000 for raising a house if absolutely necessary.

Given the strong focus on infrastructure, it’s been vital to develop clear messaging and program benefits, and to be able to provide detailed and technical information as to why other infrastructure solutions, such as drainage, may not be the best option in particular circumstances.

Madam Chairman, the second pilot area, as has already been announced, is Inala. While Inala may not get the same media attention as some other flood affected areas of our city, it is one of the hardest hit by overland flow flooding. The program there will assess these homes and advise residents about the overland flow risk to their properties. This is an area—and I thank Councillor


- 4 -

STRUNK for his assistance in helping us develop this program in Inala—this is an area that has a high population of Vietnamese speaking residents.

There has been a lot of care in developing and translating information correctly, and we now have the right team to discuss options with those residents. So, in the next fortnight, the Flood Resilient Homes program will launch in Inala with the owners of 50 properties affected by one in two-year flooding in storms selected to participate in the program. The program will also provide recommendations to improve flood resilience and, for eligible properties, provide access to financial support to undertake flood resilience building work.

One of the ways to inform residents about flood resilient materials is via our mobile trailer built entirely with flood resilient materials, dubbed the Flood Hub. For those of you who didn’t get to see it today in King George Square, it’s an innovative five-metre by three-metre mobile display unit, some call it a mini-house, designed and fitted out with flood resilient materials to demonstrate how to achieve flood resilience in homes. This is available to anybody who may not be in the program.

Anybody has the opportunity to have a look at the materials that are being used to provide for flood resilience, and we encourage everyone to have a look at it. It’s been at things like the Home Show, and it is available if Councillors have—

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN, your time has expired.

Further questions?

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 4

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. I refer to the LGIAsuper website where Councillor Matthew BOURKE is listed as an employer representative director, a member of the Investment Committee, and member of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. Further, Councillor BOURKE’s Register of Interests lists him as Director of LGIA CE Foods Pty Ltd and LGIA Services Pty Ltd. This is on top of his roles as both Director and Policy Executive Member of the Local Government Association of Queensland.

Councillor BOURKE receives a salary and benefits package of more than $250,000 per annum for being the Chair of the powerful City Planning Committee, not to mention representing the Jamboree Ward. Are you confident Councillor BOURKE can fulfil his critical Council role while spreading himself this thin?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. It’s interesting that they ask these questions when their own history is very much riddled with Councillors in this place having positions of significance within this Council, also having roles within not only the Queensland Local Government Association, but the Australian Local Government Association. The answer to the question is yes, I am very confident that he can fulfil both roles. The reason for that, quite simply, Councillor CUMMING, is that it has been demonstrated before.

Councillor BOURKE is not the first person to be in this situation. I remind you of your own Deputy Mayor that you served under, Councillor John Campbell. John Campbell was in this place, and was also not just a representative on boards of the Queensland Local Government Association; indeed, he wasn’t just President of the Queensland Local Government Association—he was President of the Australian Local Government Association—the Australian Local Government Association, the head entity of all local authorities around this country.

Now, do you think he did that for nought? Of course not. Of course not, Madam Chairman. They have been paid roles for many, many years, significantly paid roles. They are roles, obviously, as an Australian Local Government head, you can imagine the responsibilities of travel involved in


- 5 -

that. But, Madam Chairman, those roles have to be fulfilled by an elected representative, and you didn’t see us in Opposition up criticising Councillor John Campbell as he was, at the time, for being the Australian President. In fact, we saw that as a mark of respect, that somebody from Brisbane City Council would be—


Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: It was an elected position. He was an elected office bearer. So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that this entity didn’t elect him to stand for President. That didn’t occur, Councillor JOHNSTON, which is what you’re trying to infer. That was a decision that he took to nominate as a Councillor.


LORD MAYOR: Now, Madam Chairman, the reality is—you can interrupt all you like, Councillor, and defend the Labor Party, but I am simply—

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —I am simply here today—

Chairman: Order!


Chairman: Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON, cease interjecting!

Councillor SIMMONDS, also cease interjecting. There is too much noise in this Chamber.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, again I wouldn’t mind if Councillor CUMMING was at that time critical of his Deputy Mayor for taking on the role of the Australian Presidency of the Local Government Association, but he wasn’t. Of course he wasn’t. That’s the very point that I make. Neither was the Opposition, because, Madam Chairman, the reality is that somebody has to take on that role, somebody has to take on all of these roles on our behalf.

Madam Chairman, I am absolutely confident with the job that Councillor Matthew BOURKE is doing in his current positions, because the LGAQ—and I was only making comment about this when I opened the LGAQ conference recently in Brisbane, where I said that all elected representatives in this State ought to be very grateful for the stewardship that not only the current President and Executive, but previous presidents and executives, and the CEO, Mr Greg Hallam, and his team have performed in terms of the financial sustainability of the LGAQ here in Queensland.

They have done that through the development of businesses and entities much the sort of which Councillor Matthew BOURKE is involved with today. I congratulate him, and I thank him for the role that he is playing in that regard. The LGAQ is a very professional organisation that represents us all, and there have been and will be in the future people from both sides of this Chamber that will be involved in roles within the LGAQ. Those people ought to be supported rather than hung out to dry as is the attempt by the Opposition Leader here today in relation to Matthew BOURKE.

I find it quite shameful, actually, Madam Chairman. At local government level, we have by way of tradition supported each other in terms of LGAQ or ALGA—Australian Local Government Association roles. That departure, I think, today is a very sad one.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor MURPHY.


- 6 -

Question 5

Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair, the very competent Chair of the City Planning Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Last week you provided a number of updates in regards to the implementation of Brisbane’s Future Blueprint. I understand that, in the very short space of just a week, Council continues to make amazing ground in delivering on the document’s eight principles and 40 actions. Can you please update the Chamber on the latest action items that you have delivered as City Planning Chair?

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MURPHY for the question, because it is right, Councillor MURPHY, just in the space of one short week since we were here last week for Question Time, the City Planning Committee and the wonderful Council officers in both Development Services and the City Planning section of my branch have been feverishly working away to continue to deliver those outcomes from the Plan your Brisbane exercise, and therefore also from the Brisbane Future Blueprint.

So, as I outlined last week in great detail, we have already delivered a number of those outcomes, those 40 action items along those key eight themes that were the result of Brisbane’s Future Blueprint. We continue to deliver. It was great, Madam Chairman, on the weekend to be joined by Councillor HOWARD down at the Powerhouse for our first Character Design Forum. This, of course, was a key outcome of the Plan your Brisbane exercise, where we want to empower and engage residents, where we want to help residents in the city understand development, help them understand planning, so that they can be empowered to make decisions in their local communities.

So, action item number five was to create a specific Character Design Forum for residents to guide the preservation of our city’s Queenslanders and other traditional designs. Of course, it was great to see over 80 people at the Powerhouse on Saturday as part of this Character Design Forum. It was quite a good day. We went through a number of different elements, talking about not only Queenslanders but other traditional designs. We noted through a couple of speakers that the Queenslander itself was an innovative design to respond to Queensland’s climatic conditions and the lifestyle that we enjoyed here in the early days after settlement.

So, how do we protect the Queenslanders? What elements make those buildings unique and distinct and part of our streetscape and something we want to preserve, but also, how do we help facilitate changes when we see development happening on those Queenslanders so that they don’t fall into disrepair, so that they don’t become these ruined buildings in our streets where the owners don’t want to take care of them, and then ultimately we lose them through the neglect of individuals? So how do we facilitate and help enhance and preserve those?

So it was quite an engaging forum. It had a number of different elements to it. Obviously, there was a lot of positive feedback on the actual day to the forum. It doesn’t end there, though. While we had the physical forum on Saturday, the forum is continuing on in an online form until 31 December, so residents and individuals still have their chance to have their say on how they’d like to see Queenslanders and, as I said, those other traditional building designs that we’ve seen built over the generations here in Brisbane, protected and preserved into the future.

But it doesn’t just stop there, Madam Chairman. Of course, as part of our empowering and engage element that Council is undertaking as part of Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, we are continuing to look for new ways to help residents stay informed about development that’s happening in their local community, and also to understand development and planning in the city, as I said.

One of those, of course, is how people actually use some of the existing tools that are made available to them. When we brought in City Plan 2000, we took a monumental step forward when it comes to planning. For the first time ever, all of our planning maps were available online in a digital form and interactive.


- 7 -

That was, as I said, a monumental step forward. I remember as a Councillor getting the City Plan, the blue City Plan 2000 folders—there were two or three of them—and every quarter or so you would get the printed updates in the internal mail to your ward office, and you would have to put them into the right page and keep it up to date.

Well, all of that information is available online, fully interactive, and people are able to go into their property or their next door neighbour’s property and look across the city and see waterway corridors, biodiversity, zoning maps, historical pictures, Madam Chairman—completely interactive. Well, it’s my pleasure to announce today, Madam Chairman, that we’ve taken the next step with our interactive mapping, and it is now in a mobile friendly format. So everyone using their iPad or their mobile phone, as of today, this afternoon, if you log on to the interactive mapping, you are able to go in and it will resize and reshape to use your particular device.

It actually will make it easier for people who are using this at home to engage in their planning choices, to have a look, and look up their property, to look up their next door neighbour’s property, to look at the full report that you can download through our interactive mapping, Madam Chairman, for your particular property. It will provide you with all of the information about your zoning, your lot size, your overlays and—

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, your time has expired.

Further questions?

Councillor SRI.

Question 6

Councillor SRI: Thanks Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Climate change related extreme weather events will have increasingly severe impacts on many of the regions which supply Brisbane with fresh food, threatening our city’s food security. Other councils around Australia, including Melbourne and Byron Bay, have developed comprehensive food strategies to ensure more food is grown within the city footprint, that high quality farmland is preserved on the city fringes, and that food supply chains connecting to regional food bowls are climate change resilient and economically sustainable. Why doesn’t Brisbane have a food security strategy, and what steps are you taking to ensure residents will continue to have access to affordable, locally grown fresh produce in future decades?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, what Brisbane has, in responding to Councillor SRI’s question, is one of the 10 most fertile salad bowls within an hour of our doorstep. So, Madam Chairman, when the Councillor talks about security of food, I would say to you that we have got the luxury, if you like, of having some very, very secure food resources on our doorstep and throughout our State, so much so that, of course, we are in a very strong position in relation to exports around those.

But I would say this to you, Councillor SRI—one of the eight pillars for our growing economy in Brisbane is that of the food and agri sector. We think that there are even more opportunities that we can utilise to grow jobs and to grow the productivity and the production of food within South East Queensland.

In terms of an urban built environment like Brisbane, we don’t stand in the way. If people want to have their own veggie patch, we welcome that. In fact, we’ve handed out some tomato and basil seeds on occasions. These things are things that we obviously encourage people to do, but we don’t create any compulsion, and we don’t believe the need for a full-blown food security measure in terms of our local authority.

We have a number of community farms that produce food crops. They are sprinkled around the city, and we provide some financial support to those local organisations, Madam Chairman, around the community involvement associated with it. But are they ever going to be a chance of feeding the city? Well, I don’t like my chances of that one.


- 8 -

So, Madam Chairman, for Councillor SRI’s proposition that he is putting forward to take off, it would require a great deal of exuberance on the part of people if they’re going to have their own little food requirements in their backyards or on their rooftops or in some form of pot plant growth. Well, I certainly don’t stand in the way of people doing it. I encourage people to do it, but I don’t see any great revolution of desire to do it within the Brisbane community. So, Madam Chairman, we will always encourage people to get involved in their local areas, in local community groups that have an urban-based farm.


Councillor MARX.

Question 7

Councillor MARX: Thank you Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of Field Services Committee, Councillor HOWARD. This Administration is committed to getting residents home quicker and safer. Can you please update the Chamber on this Administration’s $360 million Smoother Suburban Streets election commitment to resurface Brisbane’s suburban streets?

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I’d like to thank Councillor MARX for the question. Of course, Councillor MARX, you’re quite right; this Administration is committed to getting residents home quicker and safer by delivering smoother suburban streets. As you are aware, Madam Chairman, this Administration has already delivered a record number of smoother suburban streets, with $290 million invested into road rebuilding last term between 2012 and 2016. But we want to do more to keep Brisbane on the right track.

That is why in 2016 the LORD MAYOR committed to spending $360 million this term for resurfacing our roads, $90 million of which will be delivered this financial year. This means that 2,000 streets and roads will be resurfaced over this term, Madam Chairman. Road resurfacing projects are under way across every ward across the city, delivering an unprecedented number of resurfacing projects for the City of Brisbane.

In 2016, the LORD MAYOR made a commitment to invest a minimum of $5 million into resurfacing works in each of the city’s 26 wards. We’re already on track to exceed this. Already more than 1,300 of these streets have been resurfaced, and as you are aware, Madam Chairman, this Administration’s $360 million Smoother Suburban Streets program is the largest resurfacing commitment in the history of this city. This historic investment is all about making suburban streets smoother, safer and more enjoyable to use every day, and tackling traffic congestion to help our residents get home quicker and safer.

This week Brisbane is joining the nation in celebrating National Recycling Week, and what’s important, but never gets highlighted enough, is that we are doing this in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner as well. Council’s commitment to a clean, green and sustainable city continues with tens of thousands of tonnes of materials being recycled to create new and improved roads across the city every year. Council’s award-winning asphalt recycling program is leading the industry, with 20% of material used in Council road resurfacing projects being recycled from old asphalt, old kerbs and footpaths, and glass.

When a road is being resurfaced, the existing asphalt is removed and sent to Council’s Pine Mountain recycling facility. The Pine Mountain facility re-crushes and grades the old asphalt materials into a uniform product, and delivers it back to Council’s Eagle Farm and Riverview asphalt plants. A third party removes the glass that can’t be recycled into new glass products from our Council yellow bin collections, and sends this to Council for reuse in road resurfacing products.

So, as part of this award-winning program, Council has recycled more than 63,000 tonnes of asphalt from our road network in the last financial year alone, which was re-crushed and graded before being delivered to Council’s Eagle


- 9 -

Farm and Riverview asphalt plants for reuse. This is delivering a significant benefit to ratepayers, with $3.6 million saved through asphalt recycling, and an additional $500,000 saved by using recycled road gravel as capping material at our landfill sites.

Council’s asphalt plant not only delivers value for money for ratepayers, but is an industry leader in asphalt recycling, producing 450,000 tonnes of asphalt each year. The Eagle Farm plant was originally commissioned in 1991 in its current configuration, although Brisbane City Council has been producing asphalt on this site at Eagle Farm since the Second World War.

Council’s asphalt plant in Eagle Farm is a $9 million asset that makes a profit for Brisbane City Council ratepayers through external sales. Council’s plant sells asphalt onto entities such as Ipswich City Council and the Transport and Main Roads Department. It is estimated these sales bring in approximately $5.4 million for Council per annum.

Madam Chairman, only this Administration has a positive plan for the residents of Brisbane to ensure that we tackle traffic congestion, that we deliver smoother suburban streets and, most importantly, Madam Chairman, only this Administration can be trusted to deliver value for money for the ratepayers of Brisbane. Only this Administration has a clear plan to keep Brisbane on the right track, and we will continue to deliver on that plan and our commitment to building smoother suburban streets.


Councillor JOHNSTON.

Question 8

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes thank you. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. You recently announced changes to major roads in Greenslopes, Sunnybank and Corinda to reduce the speed to 40 kilometres per hour as part of your response to the number of pedestrian deaths in Brisbane, which I don’t believe there are any Coroner’s reports for. Yet, you will not consider 40 kilometres on Ipswich Road, Annerley, where it is strongly supported by the local community, shopkeepers and the school following years of terrible, terrible pedestrian accidents at the Dudley Street crossing. Why is your Council ignoring the genuine requests of Annerley residents who want to make pedestrian safety better and safer for everyone?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor JOHNSTON for the question. The Move Safe report, and the work done around the issue of pedestrian safety and cycling safety in our city, was considered, and it is an ongoing piece of work. The suburbs that Councillor JOHNSTON has mentioned have been sort of announced for very good reason. There was significant statistical evidence around the reason why those were selected.


LORD MAYOR: So we are talking here about police records, Madam Chairman. Those records obviously were shared with the Administration in relation to the Move Safe inquiry or report that was worked upon to look at safety generally. Now, we’re not discounting any area of the city.


Chairman: Just a moment please, LORD MAYOR.

Councillor JOHNSTON, for the third time, do not interject and call out across the Chamber. If you continue to do so, you will be formally warned.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, there’s been a number of announcements that have been made to date. They started, you might recall, with some announcements around the CBD in relation to Ann Street, in relation to Albert Street where we announced that there would be two scrambled


- 10 -

crossings that would be undertaken in that—from memory, Charlotte Street and Mary Street, if I’m correct.

Then, Madam Chairman, beyond that, we said that there were three priority locations that were in the suburbs of Brisbane. One of those, in fact, was in Councillor JOHNSTON’s ward, and there were two others—one out around the Sunnybank area, the Sunnybank Hills area, around Mains Road, and a further one which was in Coorparoo Ward, in Stones Corner.

So, Councillor JOHNSTON, she’s up there, she got one of the three of the first suburban announcements around the Move Safe program. But we have said that this will be a progressive piece of work. Councillor JOHNSTON, today in her question, is almost implying by the nature of the question that this is the end of the road; what we have announced is it, and that is not the case. We will be continuing—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, my issue is relevance. My question was: why is Council ignoring the genuine requests of Annerley residents—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —who want to make pedestrian safety better.

Chairman: We know—we know what the question is, and the LORD MAYOR is providing a comprehensive answer.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, there are many requests that we receive across the city, and each of those requests have to be properly analysed, and a proper traffic engineering response has to be made to those. We don’t make unilateral decisions ourselves in relation to these issues. They are far too important for that. We rely very much upon the traffic engineering advice in relation to issues.

There are, Madam Chairman, a range of rollouts that we will expect over time as a result of the Move Safe program. We are very grateful to all of those residents, some 6,000 if you like pinpoints that were presented to us during that period of public engagement, and we are grateful for that. But that has to then of course be mixed with the evidence based by the Queensland Police Service, their statistical notifications, and also then the traffic engineering overlay.

So, Councillor JOHNSTON, I wouldn’t be despairing for your residents of Annerley just yet. What I am saying to all Councillors is that there will be progressive announcements around these matters, but they will be done properly. They’re not going to be done just on a whim or on a bit of pressure or through a Question Time. They will be done in a proper and methodical way, but I again point out, Councillor JOHNSTON, that of the three announcements, one area in your ward has already been announced as one part of the first three suburban announcements. So, Madam Chairman, again I am pleased to say that there will be more over the time to come.


Councillor WINES.

Question 9

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to Councillor MATIC, the Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee. This time of the year is a busy one on the city’s social calendar, with Council sponsoring a range of festivals and events around the upcoming festive season. Can you please outline for the Chamber just some of the events on offer and how Council is offering our residents more to see and do?

Councillor MATIC: Well, ho, ho, ho, Madam Chairman—I thank Councillor WINES for the question and the opportunity to talk about the most amazing time of the year,


- 11 -

Madam Chairman, which is Christmas, and all the celebrations that the LORD MAYOR has organised in regards to those events throughout our city, but importantly, also, through the suburbs.

Madam Chairman, of course, this time of the year the officers are busy working on a number of different programs for the festive season throughout the city, and we saw the LORD MAYOR recently launch this celebration period for Christmas with a huge array of events across our city—Roma Street, South Bank—there is so much to see and do within that space, Madam Chairman, and a lot of it for free for people to enjoy of all ages.

As part of that, our Creative Communities branch are an integral part of being able to deliver on those programs as well. There are so many popular annual traditions that invite our seniors, for example, to celebrate the festival season with a program of Christmas shows by local entertainers and a high tea, and as all Councillors know, this is one of the most popular events that we run in City Hall. The Christmas festivities, through those Lord Mayor’s Seniors Christmas Parties, are highly embraced by our community, and greatly valued. Those tickets quite often are snapped up quite quickly by local residents.

On top of that, we’ve also got Creative Communities programming within SunPAC—SunPAC Summer Fest, a Christmas celebration at our terrific SunPAC venue at Sunnybank, starting on Saturday 1 December. It’s a free event for the whole family, and will showcase a range of multicultural music performances, carols, sport, food trucks and Christmas activities. I want to thank Councillor HUANG for his strong work on the board as part of that commitment to being able to deliver those projects out to the suburbs.

This Administration of course is once again delivering the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols which are a much-loved family free event, in support of the Children’s Hospital Foundation. Each year we bring together some of Australia’s most celebrated singers and entertainers to perform festive songs and traditional carols at Riverstage for residents to enjoy. This year, the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols are going to be held on Saturday 8 December. The carols are of course free, and it’s a question of first in, first served in regards to space. But we try and get in as many people as we possibly can. It’s something that’s always embraced wholeheartedly.

There are a number of free shows for the children to enjoy as pre-show entertainment, and then the actual carols themselves will be starting at 7 o’clock at night. So I hope that all Councillors will be able to attend, and that they’ll be able to get the message out to all of their residents as well. As I said, the carols go towards supporting the amazing work of the Children’s Hospital Foundation, so all donations received on the night go directly to them.

On top of that, of course, the LORD MAYOR will be lighting our wonderful Christmas tree in King George Square on 30 November. That’s a great event. The lighting of the 22-metre tall Christmas tree is always very popular. The square is always packed out. The tree is decorated with a custom-built star and 8,600 LED lights that will flash in colourful and festive patterns until Christmas. The Chamber will be interested to know that this year the tree will be sustainably powered through a solar power source in the form of Santa’s workshop. This is a new addition which will contain solar panels and a battery pack—part of Team Quirk’s commitment to a clean, green and sustainable Brisbane.

On top of that, we’ve got our City Hall lighting project starting on 7 December, running through to the 24th. As all Councillors know, something that is highly popular, highly engaging. I think it is one of the highlights of Christmas, being able to see that laser light show across City Hall. On 19 December there is the annual Christmas parade in the heart of Brisbane, commencing outside David Jones, and the parade will proceed up the Queen Street Mall, and delight onlookers with a spectacular show through the mall to King George Square. So full of music and merriment, this Christmas parade will also feature new exciting elements and hundreds of performances.


- 12 -

Madam Chairman, that’s just in the city alone, let alone the works that all Councillors are running in conjunction with their community groups within our wards, bringing various Christmas celebrations—

Chairman: Councillor MATIC, that ends Question Time.

LORD MAYOR, Establishment and Coordination Committee, please.


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

322/2018-19At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jonathan SRI, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following urgency motion

Calling on Brisbane City Council to implement a 40-kilometre an hour zone through Ipswich Road, Annerley, through Annerley Junction.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, three minutes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. Let’s be clear that the reason I am calling on this Council to take action on Ipswich Road, Annerley, through Annerley Junction, is that it is one of the most dangerous pedestrian hotspots in our city. Ipswich Road is an arterial road carrying 55,000 vehicles a day, and we are seeing sadly, on a regular basis, pedestrians being hit at the main crossing point at Dudley Street.

Now, it’s only a few weeks ago that the Annerley residents brought a petition to this place, which I was not even consulted about, calling for a 40-kilometre an hour school zone on Ipswich Road, Annerley. This Council, and Councillor McKenzie, refused to consider a 40-kilometre an hour school zone. Now, less than a week later, the LORD MAYOR came out and announced unilaterally that he would install 40-kilometres an hour on arterial roads in suburban areas, including Greenslopes, Sunnybank and Corinda.

Now, I am very happy that Corinda is being considered. That is good news. There is an accident hotspot there where I think we are seeing accidents that should not be happening, and slowing the traffic through that area will be important. However, this LORD MAYOR continues to refuse to support Annerley residents who for years, through petitions, through public meetings, through letters to the LORD MAYOR—and he knows; I’ve seen the letter he wrote to Cath Chown just a couple of weeks ago. He knows that there is community support, there is residents’ support, there is school support at Junction Park State School; the traders want this. I mean, there’s been a huge debate on ABC Radio, and I thank Steve Austin and Kelly Higgins-Devine over the past few weeks for publicising this issue.

Are you that tone deaf, LORD MAYOR, through you, Madam Chairman, that you don’t see the urgency of including Annerley in this initiative? If it’s good enough for Greenslopes, it’s good enough for Sunnybank, it’s good enough for Corinda, it absolutely must include Annerley. Council has the data. Council has done the traffic reviews. That information was available to this Council just weeks ago. Council knows that it’s supported by this community.

Why on earth are you not acting? How many more people have to die or be seriously injured in Annerley before you will do something? It is a dangerously unsafe pedestrian area, and into that environment we have the catchment of Junction Park State School whose children live on both sides of Ipswich Road and they have to cross—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

I will now put the motion for urgency.

The Chairman submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.


- 13 -

Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

Chairman: Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order.

323/2018-19At that juncture, Councillor Jonathan SRI moved, seconded by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following urgency motion

That this Council will trial a 40-kilometre speed limit on Montague Road, West End, between Jane Street and Orleigh Street.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, three minutes to urgency, please.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. The proposal to trial a 40-kilometre zone in Montague Road has been pushed by residents for at least two years now. This is an increasingly urgent issue due to the significant increase in population along the Montague Road precinct of West End. We’ve seen thousands of residents move into that area over the last couple of years, and yet there still hasn’t been any meaningful improvements to pedestrian safety, particularly around the notorious intersection of Victoria Street and Montague Road, near the West End Aldi Supermarket.

This is a location where literally thousands of pedestrians cross each day to access the CityGlider bus stops, the supermarket, the neighbouring childcare centre, and on their way into the centre of West End and West End Primary School. So this is a high pedestrian traffic area. It also experiences particularly high volumes of cyclists, and obviously high volumes of public transport. Yet cars continue to be prioritised along this road corridor in a way that is completely at odds with all common sense and well established principles of sustainable traffic management and transport planning.

The residents of my ward are extremely frustrated about the dangers associated with this stretch of Montague Road, and a 40-kilometre zone will help somewhat towards addressing that. We obviously need more significant changes, including traffic lights at the intersection of Victoria and Montague, and also traffic lights at Vulture and Montague, which were promised a couple of years ago but still haven’t actually been delivered in practical terms.

So this is an increasingly serious issue. We’ve seen a lot of people getting hit at that intersection. We’ve also seen crashes between cars and crashes between cars and bikes, and cars and motorbikes. It’s roughly once a month that residents send me through photos of an ambulance attending at that intersection. My concern is that this Council has the power to make this area safer immediately. It would not take much to install a couple of 40-kilometre-an-hour signs down


- 14 -

there and put the trial into practice. See how it goes for a couple of months. Model the behaviour changes; model what happens to traffic flow, and learn from that.

I’m not calling for a permanent change. I’m just calling for a short-term trial in order to address residents’ urgent safety concerns about this corridor.

Chairman: I will now put the motion for urgency.

The Chairman submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.


AYES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

Chairman: So, LORD MAYOR, we’ll try again for the third time. Establishment and Coordination Committee please.

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 5 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Before coming to the report items, I just want to comment on a few other quick matters if I can. Just in relation to the issues of pedestrian safety generally, Madam Chairman, we will continue to listen as an Administration and continue to consider the propositions that are put forward, both by Councillors and the communities of Brisbane. But, Madam Chairman, we also have to, as I said earlier, do that in an orderly way, seeking the best of traffic engineering advice along the way in doing that. We will, through Councillor COOPER and her division and area of responsibility through the Committee, be continuing to do that.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Green Heart Schools SELN group—the Student Environment Leadership Network, and also the Lord Mayor’s Youth Advisory Committee, a group of school students that engage with our city through a process of meeting fairly regularly during the course of the year. It involves a fair bit of time on their part. This is a program that’s been going now for some years. I do want to thank them.

Obviously they get some experiences out of it. They learn about city government; they learn about programs; they learn also through some personal development about leadership. So there are certainly some upsides for them. But


- 15 -

they do invest a lot of time engaging in our city, and I thank them for that very much, and for their parents and their schools that cooperate and assist in terms of the program.

Madam Chairman, also during the week the DEPUTY MAYOR was able to be engaged in the opening of the new Westin Hotel in the city. This hotel, of course, is one that was built off the back of the incentive scheme, and it will be another welcome addition, 299 rooms, in the city. This is, again, another of the groups that I have met with over time on business missions that we undertake overseas, that we take in terms of Sydney and Melbourne once a year where we do roadshows to present the Brisbane story.

With the latest business mission, one of the delegates on that mission, since returning, has now created 170 jobs for Brisbane people. We have now reached in the time that I have been Lord Mayor on the international business missions, of which there’s only been one a year, we have reached a $1 billion return for the city, and $700 million of that has been in the last four years. But for a very small investment on the part of the city, we have generated some real outcomes and real jobs in our city.

Madam Chairman, the other thing I wanted to announce is that we launched during the course of the week, together with the Inclusive Brisbane Board Chairman, Greg Goebel, the launch of the Inclusive Brisbane Plan. This is number two iteration. Back in 2012 we had the first Brisbane Access and Inclusion Plan. That has seen a number of very significant milestone achievements in our city, to make our city a welcoming one in terms of inclusiveness. The draft plan looks at the next 10-year horizon.

I invite all Councillors to have a look at the 2019-29 Inclusive Brisbane Plan. There will be a period of time for people to give their submissions, and that will go through until 15 February. So there is plenty of time for people to have a look at it and to engage. We’ve put it out in a number of languages—in English, traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese, Korean and Arabic. It’s obviously in Auslan. It’s on the website. It’s in a video form, obviously, in Auslan. There is a number of ways in which people can access the information within that next phase of the plan.

Councillor MATIC has covered everything about Christmas that needs to be covered—150 events, and we certainly encourage all of you to advise your constituents and residents about the many opportunities, free opportunities, to engage in Christmas in the city.

Madam Chairman, the items before us today, we go to item 1, item A, this is the Brisbane International Cruise Terminal. This is a very important facility from Council’s point of view. It is one which we have supported. It was the subject of a market-led proposal to the State Government. Whilst the State are claiming it as their own, we have actually invested in this. We believe that, to have a cruise ship terminal which is away from grain silos, which is set up in an area which will take the biggest cruise ships in the world, is a very, very important step for Brisbane and its future.

We have been prepared to invest to make sure that this business case that went forward was one which would stack up, was sustainable and achievable commercially, and for that reason we assisted the project in terms of some commitments around that of the road network. We also, through that process—and I thank them very much for their cooperation—had an engagement with QUU (Queensland Urban Utilities). We brokered some arrangements in respect of the QUU site, Luggage Point, and that of the cruise ship terminal, and again my thanks to all of those involved with QUU for their assistance.

But this proposal before us today is one which provides, as I say, some assistance. It provides a 50:50 funding agreement with the Port of Brisbane to deliver an upgrade to the local road network, the area being a long-standing industrial precinct. The submission before us is the next step to that agreement, with Council to release to the market this Friday a tender to widen sections of the road network to allow for increased traffic, including buses and heavy


- 16 -

vehicles, and improve road safety access and flood immunity. The tender is anticipated to be out in the market for four weeks, and once submissions are received, they will be assessed and a recommendation made for awarding of the contract.

It is anticipated that the road works will be away in March next year, with the upgrade to be completed at the end of 2019 or early 2020 in time for the next cruise season. The cruise market—the expectation is that our city sees around 149 ships docking each year, generating about $345 million in investment in our city and the region.

Item B is the Minor Amendment Package F to Brisbane City Plan 2014. This amendment package before us today has a number of changes relating to zoning as a result of development approvals, overlay mapping and Brisbane standard drawings. Brisbane standard drawings are guidelines for the development of public infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters, drinking fountains and bike lane widths, for example. Minor amendments are being proposed to ensure that these guidelines are up to date.

Importantly the amendment package ensures that local development fits within its surrounds by rezoning properties from emerging community to low density residential, a key outcome of Brisbane’s Future Blueprint.

Item C is the Infringements Processing and Issuing, Significant Contracting Plan. Council’s existing infringement software solutions comes in two parts, both of which are approaching the end of their current term. They are the electronic infringement system. This system issues infringement notices using mobile or desktop devices, and the infringement notice management process, and this manages the whole lifecycle of all infringement notices, which includes mailing notices when required.

It will be advantageous to Council to replace the current systems with a modern integrated end to end solution that contributes to Brisbane Vision 2031. This also aligns with Council’s parking management solutions road map, with the infringement processing to commence in 2018-19, followed by the new solution implementation by June 2020. The key benefits of aligning and issuing—

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

324/2018-19At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Council.

The key benefits of aligning the issuing and lifecycle management of the infringement process include the following: the opportunity to improve customer service; the opportunity to simplify integration between two parts of the infringement cycle; improving enforcement management activities for Council. They are the key ones. The procurement approach will be by taking the following: early market engagement following a request for proposal; early market engagement will commence on 19 November 2018, with the anticipated industry briefing on 29 November 2018.

Vendors will then have access to a secure a data room within Council’s supplier portal to gain access to information around Council’s process, standards and also the requirements for this solution. Council will then issue a request for proposal.

Item D is the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan. The Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan is coming to Council today so it can be sent to the State Government for a second State interest review. Following public consultation on 16 April to 8 June, Council received hundreds of interactions, submissions and pieces of feedback from residents. Between newsletters,


- 17 -

newspaper ads, Talk to a Planner sessions, and social media updates—there were 421 submissions made on the draft plan, and these submissions have informed the plan before us today.

Key features of the plan include the addition of 13 new Pre-1911 houses to the overlay and 10 new heritage listed sites. Also included is the rezoning of Stephens Mountain from special purposes to conservation, and area of some 4.8 hectares. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to item A, we’re supportive of this item. I think the new cruise terminal is a really important project for the City of Brisbane, and it’s great that the Port of Brisbane Corporation is actually going to undertake the project. In my experience of dealing with them, as they’re situated in my ward, they’re a very well run organisation, and any projects they’ve been involved with are done in a timely manner and very well done. They recently did some upgrades to the roads leading to the port, and they did it ahead of time because they thought it was important for their operations, and they did a very good job there as well, and I’m satisfied they’ll be doing a good job here as well.

It’s good for Council to be involved and contribute as well. This is an important aspect of the tourism market. My understanding is that one of the great booming areas of the tourism market is cruising. It is much better to have a dedicated terminal than the big ships having to pull up at the grain terminal at the port and discharge their passengers there, and anyone trying to get from there into Brisbane to go around and do some touring while the liner was in port.

Just a few little questions, though. Perhaps someone with a more technical mind could explain this to me. On paragraph 7, there’s a reference to road drainage, and it just says, ‘flood immunity of five per cent of Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) as adopted within the Pinkenba neighbourhood plan.’ So just for technical reasons, I’d like an explanation of that.

The other thing that is a bit—again, I’m sure there’s a basic explanation of the fact that Council apparently has been asked to upgrade the water main. Just why QUU wouldn’t do that themselves, Madam Chairman? The other thing is, I don’t like to be picky, but I think Council’s announcement was we’re going to do half the cost of the project. The figures on page 6 of the report, which are not Commercial-in-Confidence figures—these are figures that are in the non-Commercial-in-Confidence part of the report, shows that the expenditure totalled $10.945 million, and revenue will be $5 million. So that’s a little bit under half.

I just wonder whether we are in fact getting half or that the $10.945 includes contingencies or whatever. I just seek some confirmation that we’re definitely getting half the money back from the Port of Brisbane.

In relation to item B, the minor package, well, you’ve just got to wonder when these amendments are ever going to end, Madam Chair. We’ve had a City Plan introduced in 2014, and on a regular basis we’re getting these massive numbers of minor amendments to the City Plan being introduced. This is a City Plan in terms of like proofreading—it’s a proven failure of a City Plan, Madam Chair. It’s got so many errors in it, and I just wonder now, its four years since the plan was first introduced, and we’re getting these minor amendment packages coming through all the time. I just wonder when it’s going to stop. You know, will it stop after 14 years, 10 years, 14 years—when will it be? When will it be, Madam Chair?

Councillor BOURKE is mumbling over there as usual. The types of changes being made—and I refer to some of them—it’s ‘to correct a cross-reference’, and ‘to correct inconsistent numbering of provisions in the planning scheme’, ‘to correct a spelling, grammatical or mapping’. It says, ‘to correct a spelling,


- 18 -

grammatical or mapping, in the planning scheme’. So even the reason for the corrections are grammatically incorrect. I mean, you know, fair dinkum.

I suppose whoever—Councillor BOURKE’s been responsible for this. I suppose he’s been lumbered with what Councillor COOPER left him, but it wasn’t checked in the first place, and even now it’s not being checked properly, Madam Chair. ‘To correct the format or presentation of the planning scheme’. It just goes on and on and on. I’ve got a couple more here. I think the range of corrections just needs to be commented upon. ‘To correct a factual matter incorrectly stated in the planning scheme’.

Finally, does not—it’s a revision, but it says, ‘does not significantly change a technical matter contained in the existing planning scheme policy’, but it’s needed to be revised because there was an error in it. There’s hundreds and hundreds of these errors and these things needing correction in this document. As I said, we just wonder when it’s all going to end. I expect it will be many years before that’s the case.

In relation to item C, the Stores Board submission, this is obviously an important part of Council’s operations, to have a good system in place where, if people get fined, then the fines are issued appropriately, that people are chased up to get payment of the fine and everything is recorded properly and the like. But reading this document, it’s some eight pages, and if you read it, and you re-read it again and you look it through, it doesn’t give you a great deal of confidence, Madam Chair, that anything particularly good is going to come out of it.

You’d think this was an area that would be quite common—and it must be—local government throughout Queensland, throughout Australia, and other levels of government that issue fines, and across the world. But reading through this document, the Council seems to be really struggling to be able to get a decent set of tenderers who are likely to know what to do and provide a good system for the Council.

I am not encouraged, as I said, by some of the wording in the document. I refer to paragraph 62. I will just quote what it says, ‘Council also engaged Gartner Australasia Pty Ltd (Gartner) to provide independent advice on smart parking strategies and to explore the possibility of using Gartner to identify a shortlist of market leaders for a select source Request for Proposal (RFP) approach. The outcome of the analysis activities is summarised below.’ Anyhow, ‘Globally, the market for the required services is mature and well established.’

Well, that’s what I said. You’d think it would be everywhere—‘with a competitive number of suitably capable suppliers and solutions offerings to meet Council’s needs.’ But then the downer, ‘Gartner lacks the necessary depth of knowledge in this industry to provide a shortlist of market leaders to justify a select source RFP approach.’

So they’ve employed this consultant and one of the things they hoped they’d be able to do, they couldn’t do it. They couldn’t do it. They just weren’t up to the job. So, as I said, that doesn’t give a great encouragement that anything good or anything is going to come out of this process, Madam Chair. We end up with a list of groups, and it says, It is anticipated the following suppliers could provide a compliant response to all parts of the RFP. Well, hopefully more than one of them will, so there’d be some competition. The costs, of course, of this process seem very high as well.

I turn to page 15, paragraph 74, project funding for this project, for parking management solutions, it’s this financial year: $17,588,000; next financial year: $11,770,000; 2021: $6,094,000; and 2021-22: $3,823,000. So the expenses are considerable, and they’re stretching out into the future. The operational funding for 2018-19 is some $55.75 million. That’s a lot of money, Madam Chair.

The other thing, of course that we’ve picked up previously in this area with one of the existing operators—

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your time has expired.


- 19 -

325/2018-19At that point, Councillor Peter CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Kara COOK.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you to the Chamber. The fact that Tenix uses a firm of solicitors down in Melbourne to send letters of demand to people who haven’t paid their fine in Brisbane, which I think is just pretty ridiculous, Madam Chair. You’d think they could at least get a Brisbane firm of solicitors to send the letters out. A bit of work for the local people and the local industry, or else—it’s not a really tough task. If they’re basic letters of demand, you’d think perhaps City Legal could do that, Madam Chair. We’ve got solicitors employed here in the Brisbane City Council; why can’t we send out our own letters of demand. Anyhow, hopefully something a bit better than that will come out of the process eventually.

The other item is—sorry, item C, as I said, to sum up, it takes eight pages of this E&C Report, and provides no confidence that anything worthwhile will be forthcoming out of the process.

In relation to item D, I’ll defer to Councillor CASSIDY, our spokesman on City Planning. He’ll speak on that matter. But we’re not particularly impressed by that report either.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item C, which is the Infringements Processing and Issuing Significant Contracting Plan. I’m reading the same documents that Councillor CUMMING is, but I see it in a totally different way. These two existing software solutions come in two parts, both of which are approaching the end of their current term. As a Council, I agree with Councillor CUMMING, this is important work that Council needs to undertake. In order to do that, we need to be able to undertake this process and go to the market to get the best outcome for ratepayers.

As Councillor CUMMING also said, there are a significant number of players within this space. There are a number of existing companies that provide software solutions. As a Council, because of our size and scope of the work we do, the work is complex, and we want to ensure that we undertake the work to get the best outcome for all Brisbane residents so that we provide ultimately a streamlined process in regards to that.

So those two parts which are approaching the end of their current term are firstly the electronic infringement system. This system issues infringement notices using mobile or desktop devices, and the infringement notice management process manages the whole lifecycle of all infringement notices, which includes mailing notices when required. It will be advantageous to Council to replace the current systems with a modern integrated end to end solution that contributes to the broader vision of being able to provide an efficient service. This also aligns with Council’s parking management solutions road map with infringement processes to commence in 2018-19, followed by the new solution implemented in June 2020.

The key benefits of aligning the issuing and lifecycle management of the infringement process includes the opportunity to improve the customer service, the opportunity to simplify the integration between two parts of the infringement lifecycle, improving the enforcement management activities for Council. And the procurement approach that we’ve undertaken will be as follows: firstly, the early market engagement followed by a request for proposal; then the early market engagement which will commence on 19 November, with an anticipated industry briefing on 29 November. Next, the vendors will then have access to a secure data room within Council’s supplier portal to gain access to information around Council’s processes, standards and requirements, and then Council will then issue a request for proposal.


- 20 -

So this is a clear indication of how this Administration is not standing on our heels but looking always to continually improve some of Council’s core activities. Madam Chairman, the process that we’re undertaking is a systematic approach to be able to provide the best outcome, to go to the market without any kind of expectation around those outcomes, but we have done the preliminary work in order to understand what is available out there, and in having that, we’ve then gone to the broader market to get those kind of outcomes, because with different software products comes different solutions, but also comes different processes.

So the best outcome for Council is to find a product that best aligns with our existing process or, if they have to be amended in some way, that the changes are minor so that there isn’t a disruption in that transition to the new software package. But the two points that Councillor CUMMING clearly missed in reviewing these documents is about providing that link between the infringement system itself, so the mobile devices that are used by officers, and then that clear transition to the management of that infringement, either through payment or, if it is ultimately challenged, being able to know what place it’s at and being able to systematically monitor and manage that.

I think that ultimately provides that end to end service that will provide greater efficiencies in the process, but also be able to streamline any questions or concerns residents may have when disputing a notice or otherwise, Madam Chairman. Thank you.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item D, the Coorparoo neighbourhood plan, but also just briefly on item A. I’ll make the comment that I don’t support the cruise ship terminal development for two main reasons. The first is that the cruise ship industry itself is incredibly environmentally unsustainable and exploitative of its workers. Many cruise ship workers are not paid minimum wage, and are subjected to unreasonable working conditions.

But cruise ships themselves are extremely unsustainable. It’s not a form of tourism we should necessarily be encouraging or supporting. We should be supporting environmentally sustainable and less destructive forms of tourism. But more specifically, this port development appears to have quite negative impacts for Moreton Bay and the surrounding riparian ecosystem. So the concerns about developments in the bay are fairly well understood in this Chamber. It’s a shame no one else seems to care about them, but the impacts on dugongs and turtles, seagrass beds, et cetera, encouraging more shipping and particularly these large cruise ships to use that part of the bay is going to have significant downstream negative environmental impacts.

It seems that the environmental impact assessment that was conducted as part of this port expansion, or this terminal development, was quite narrow in its scope and focused only on the immediate footprint of the terminal rather than understanding and modelling the impacts of attracting more large ships into that area. But I’ll leave it at that for now.

There are quite a few concerns with the Coorparoo neighbourhood plan, and in some respects they’re the same concerns I have about most of the neighbourhood plans in this Chamber, which is that they don’t give residents a meaningful democratic say in how their neighbourhoods change and evolve. They tend to favour the interests of large, profit motivated private developers rather than the long-term interests of ordinary residents. They tend to encourage what I would describe as unsustainable forms of development.

But more specifically, one of the strongest concerns I have about this neighbourhood plan is the environmental vandalism embodied in the rezoning of part of Stephens Mountain as emerging community. We’ve obviously had a lot of pushback from residents against allowing development on that site, and Council has quite correctly preserved some of the site as land for conservation, and I congratulate the Administration on that.


- 21 -

But almost half the site, over 20,000 square metres, is being rezoned for emerging community, which will allow development that will pretty much clear that entire vegetated area. So the Council has incorrectly, in my view, identified that the higher ground of Stephens Mountain is ecologically valuable and should therefore be preserved, while the flatter ground, which was previously part of the quarry site, is of little value and can therefore be developed as residential. I think that’s wrong.

I think the evidence presented by local environmental groups and community groups shows very clearly that that area provides important roles in terms of habitat and wildlife corridor for a range of native species—birds, reptiles, mammals, et cetera. I think the frustration from residents here is that we’re losing so many green spaces across our city. We’re losing so much established vegetation, so many big trees, so much green space is being swallowed up by big new developments, and here we have an area of bushland that has gradually recovered from former destruction.

It’s been healing itself. The various species are slowly recolonising that space. The understory has regrown; larger trees are starting to get established. Rather than supporting that revegetation process and preserving that crucial wildlife corridor link and that crucial habitat area, the Council is rezoning it for development, and I don’t think it’s hyperbole to describe that as environmental vandalism. I think that 20,000 square metres of green space should be protected for the benefit of the public going forward.

I think it’s interesting to reflect on the broader conversations about how our city develops and what land uses we think are appropriate along that transport corridor. This might not be of interest to the LORD MAYOR, but maybe to some of the other Councillors in this Chamber and to anyone reading the transcript later on. But the conventional argument that some planners might present in favour of that rezoning is that it’s right next to the Greenslopes bus station—it makes sense to have higher density residential next to a high frequency public transport corridor. We should just rezone that land to allow density there. That’s better than having more suburban sprawl.

I understand that argument, but I don’t think it engages meaningfully with what’s happening along that broader corridor, and particularly what’s happening a few suburbs north in places like Woolloongabba. Much of the inner city has been rezoned for extremely high density development with a severe shortage of both usable public green spaces like sports fields and recreation areas, but also bush reserves and more heavily vegetated public green spaces.

As a result, what we’re going to see increasingly—and this has been borne out in other developing cities around the world—is that those residents of those high density areas are going to want to travel to green spaces in order to seek the amenity they offer. Now, that means that residents of Woolloongabba, residents of Dutton Park, residents of Kangaroo Point and West End, et cetera, are going to want to be travelling out to places like Greenslopes to access those sports fields, maybe to go for a bush walk, to use some of that ample green space out there.

So although considered in isolation it might make sense for that one site to be rezoned for development because it’s adjacent to the busway, actually we need green spaces that are accessible by public transport as well. The flipside of densification, which we don’t often talk about, is that the amenities that people don’t have access to in the inner city, they do then have to drive to in order to get to.

Here we have a rare opportunity to create a hub for bushwalking and native vegetated green space amenity that’s in reasonably close proximity to the city centre and also accessible via public transport. Stephens Mountain could and should be a tourist destination for people across Brisbane to come and see what native bushland looks like within a city environment. I think it’s quite special that that vegetated area has been preserved and protected for so long. It’s really only a historical accident that, after the quarry use shut down, that it didn’t get


- 22 -

developed at the time, and we’re lucky that it’s still there. We’re very lucky that a lot of it has been preserved.

But the fact that 20,000 square metres of publicly owned green space is being rezoned for residential development is, to my mind, absolutely shocking, and completely at odds with this Administration’s stated commitment to preserving and increasing canopy cover and to preserving native habitat. I would like to know very much whether this rezoning has been factored into the Council’s claims that it is increasing canopy cover and green space, but I strongly reject the suggestion that this area is of low value from an environmental perspective.

Spend a bit of time on the ground there and you will see that it’s dense vegetation; it’s got an abundance of different native animals; it feels vibrant and alive in a way that many Council parks and green spaces do not, because it’s been largely left alone and hasn’t had as much invasive activity by humans. In that sense, it’s I think quite a special place. There aren’t many places in the inner city where you can go and sit under trees and feel like you’re a long way from the city, but this is one of those spaces.

To develop half of it as residential I think would be a grave error. I think in a couple years’ time, residents are going to be up in arms saying: why are you bulldozing all those trees? Why are you clearing this whole area? Why are you turning this into a residential development? We weren’t consulted; we didn’t know this was happening. It’s because of the decision that Council is making here today.

People are going to be looking back through the Council Minutes and saying: when was this rezoned? We weren’t told; I don’t understand why they did this. So hopefully I won’t be the only Councillor voting against this plan. But to the future residents of that area who, when eventually that site does come up for development and the Council tries to sell off the land or the State Government wants to sell off the land and make money off it, I’m very sorry but we did try and we did vote against it.

So hopefully the Administration will recognise that the loss of this green space means we need to invest more significantly in other public green spaces around the inner south side in order to compensate. This could have been a public park. This could have been native bush food trails. It could have been bushwalking tracks. It could have even been playgrounds and other forms of active recreation green space, but instead it’s presumably going to be sold off for profit to private developers, and I think that’s a very sad thing.


Councillor McKENZIE.

Councillor McKENZIE: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item D, the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan. Council resolved to amend the Brisbane City Plan on 3 November 2015 by including a Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan. The resolution was submitted to the then Deputy Premier who approved the commencement of public notification.

This plan has been prepared to guide the future development of Coorparoo and districts. It has been developed as a result of extensive public consultation, and designed to achieve the following objectives: to plan future growth nodes at Greenslopes, Greenslopes Mall and Holland Park centres; enhance public vibrancy and improve built-form outcomes across the plan area; provide housing diversity while continuing to protect character and housing; and integrate land use, planning and existing and future public and active transport.

As a starting point, public consultation has been fundamental in determining the wishes of the public and interested organisations. The Administration has considered over 1,500 submissions, with 400 being made during the most recent consultations. This is in stark contrast to the ongoing political posturing of the ALP Opposition who are continually and deceitfully misstating the objectives of the QUIRK Administration with regard to development in general.


- 23 -

Councillor CUMMING apparently considers this a minor operation with no significance. It’s been going for nearly three years, Councillor. We’ve had all these submissions; we’ve had multiple meetings, and I can tell you now, Councillor, the residents of Coorparoo and districts do not consider this minor. They consider this plan very important, and they wish to participate in it.

One of the reasons why neighbourhood plans are so important is because communities are evolving. We had the Brisbane Plan in 2014, and this is a fine-tuning of that plan. If the Councillor wished to participate in this plan, it would be quite useful. I don’t believe there’s been any input from the ALP in this process. In contrast, this Administration is particularly cognisant of public opinion concerning low-medium density and the retention and the addition of traditional building character overlay.

Under the plan, Council will almost double the number of properties in the Character residential zone, protecting houses with traditional building character from demolition, as well as including an extra 13 properties in the Pre-1911 building overlay, and adding 10 heritage places to the Council’s Heritage Register. Hillside character precincts and heritage listed places are of high importance to the residents in this plan. That’s why the plan includes new provision for properties adjoining heritage places to ensure development respects the neighbouring heritage place and its traditional character values.

I also listened to residents and members of the Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee (N4C) regarding the protection and the biodiversity of Stephens Mountain and the neighbouring areas. I took residents’ feedback to Councillor BOURKE, outlining their concerns about the future of Stephens Mountain, and strongly supported residents’ wishes to have this area preserved for future generations of public reserve.

Councillor SRI made a big continued statement. Sometimes I wonder whether he was talking about the same area, with the knocking down of all these trees and this sort of thing. The area that we’re looking at here is mainly rubble from the freeway. There are trees there, but it’s not being preserved for residential, Councillor SRI; this is being zoned as emerging communities. If you look at the landscape, it’s unlikely—and I can’t say this for a fact—that residential will ever, ever be built on that site—


Councillor McKENZIE: —as a result of N4C’s submission—

Chairman: Point of order; Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Will Councillor McKENZIE take a question?

Councillor McKENZIE: No.

Chairman: No, thank you, Councillor SRI.

Councillor McKENZIE.

Councillor McKENZIE: As a result of N4C’s submission and those of the public, I am very pleased that the final plan will protect the valued green space of Stephens Mountain at Coorparoo totally, a point that was skimmed over by Councillor SRI. The final plan will be a rezoning of this 4.8 hectares to conservation. There are also several site specific requests from residents which were sympathetically considered by Council, and they were acted on where possible.

In summary, the plan achieves a balance between growth in the right locations and protecting the character of Coorparoo and adjacent suburbs. For example, the neighbourhood plan supports growth and activity around Greenslopes Mall and Holland Park centres to create exciting new or improved shopping hubs. The revised plan also includes additional provisions to ensure development protects and replaces vegetation. It includes high quality design that does not impact on neighbouring properties.

Madam Chairman, Council is creating a city of neighbourhoods as part of Brisbane’s Future Blueprint. This can be achieved by protecting the character of


- 24 -

our suburbs which can make this vision a reality. I thank the residents and officers who brought their passion and expertise to bear in this complex exercise, and I commend this plan to Council.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Seriatim - Clause ACouncillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE TERMINAL ROADS UPGRADE PROJECT, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor CASSIDY: I am rising to speak on item D, the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, and perhaps on item B as well. The Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan—and any neighbourhood plan, neighbourhood planning in general—should be about engaging with local communities and listening to them, Madam Chair.

But what we see in reality, whether it’s in this neighbourhood plan or any other around this city, is that for local communities who are most affected by these neighbourhood plans, to get any meaningful change to draft neighbourhood plans, is for them to turn to activism, to protest, to organise mass community meetings and community action, which is great that they are able to do it. It was great that the community in and around the Coorparoo and districts area was able to do that and organise themselves, but it shouldn’t be the norm. That shouldn’t be the only way in which communities are heard through the neighbourhood planning process.

We hear the rhetoric from the Administration about empowering and engaging local residents in the blueprint document, but we see in reality, time and time again, that for the community to get any meaningful change, even if it’s very, very small and very incremental change as was the case in the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, is to get organised and demand a change from their elected politicians. Again, that should not be the norm.

It is not a good way to run planning in this city or any city for that matter. It’s not in line with the principles of the blueprint that we hear over and over again, that Brisbane has the new Future Blueprint, which we supported because, in good faith, we thought the elements in there could be a good thing for this city. But what we are seeing is those communities being let down by this Administration.

Despite the blueprint saying emerging communities zoned land should be rezoned for low density housing, we’re not seeing that here. We’re seeing land around the Stephens Mountain area being zoned for emerging communities rather than for low density housing, for instance. But it also talks about—the blueprint also talks about protecting and creating green space. Some of that bushland, as we talked about through the activism of the local community, has been protected and won’t be bulldozed as originally planned. There was an opportunity throughout this process to protect more of that open and green space, and that opportunity has been squandered by the Administration.

Talking of missed opportunities, of course, Madam Chair, many local residents thought—and they went into this process for this neighbourhood plan thinking—it would be an opportunity to really plan for the future of their community, plan for new public transport infrastructure, new parks, new green space, new bike lanes, new bikeways, and the other sort of infrastructure that gets people moving in and around communities like this and connecting them to the city, which isn’t too far away. But alas, that is not the case with this Administration, Madam Chair.

More backyards will be lost through development of character homes in the CR2 (Character residential infill housing) zones which will be expanded in direct contravention of the new blueprint, the new planning blueprint. We will see the loss of intact character housing in the Earl Street precinct which again is in direct defiance of the blueprint which was passed through this Chamber not


- 25 -

that long ago. The plan gives a little with one hand but it takes more with the other, Madam Chair.

We’re seeing intact character housing thrown to the bulldozers. We’re going to see more high density housing at the quarry site. We’re going to see the loss of more backyards in this community. But we won’t see the services and the infrastructure that will be required going forward as a result of all this increased density. So while I commend the community for standing up and making their voices heard throughout this process, and getting some small changes made throughout the process, that shouldn’t be the norm throughout planning, but it also hasn’t gone far enough.

We’ve seen, since the start of the neighbourhood plan, the document, the Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, come out and there are so many elements, so many elements within this neighbourhood plan that are in direct defiance of the principles, the eight principles and the 40 action points within the blueprint. We were to believe that this Administration, in good faith, would work with the community, to empower the community, to protect green and open space and create more green and open space, and actually protect character streets, intact character streets like we have here in Coorparoo that are now being thrown to the bulldozers.

So to say that this plan and this process for the local community has been disappointing I think would be an understatement, and we won’t be voting in favour of this neighbourhood plan.

Just on item B, I noted the LORD MAYOR mentioned—yes, item B, the minor amendments, the LORD MAYOR mentioned that there is a number of properties being rezoned in the table, Table 9, properties being rezoned from emerging community to low density residential, and he said that was a result of the Brisbane’s Future Blueprint document, which is not correct. Maybe he was mistaken, and maybe he will correct that.

But as you read through the table there, the zoning changes from emerging communities to low density residential, or in fact any other zoning changes in those tables, are a direct result of either a development approval given by this Council or orders by the Planning and Environment Court. So to say that somehow in these zoning changes Council is listening through the blueprint to the local community is completely and utterly wrong. It’s normal par for the course. So I hope he didn’t intentionally mislead the Chamber and the people of Brisbane just now—and I’m sure he will tidy that up when he sums up, Madam Chair.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak briefly to the item about the Brisbane Cruise Terminal, which is item A. I think there were some questions that Councillor CUMMING raised with respect to this one. This is a Stores Board submission that is of course before us today. It was actually a presentation at Infrastructure Committee last week. So we had some good debate about it, and we’ll be able to chat about it later on as part of the report to the Infrastructure Committee.

But just to remind this Chamber, this was actually something that was an outcome of the neighbourhood plan. So we did the Pinkenba Eagle Farm neighbourhood plan. Councillor McLACHLAN and I remember it well. In that neighbourhood plan we actually specifically nominated this location as suitable for a cruise ship terminal because we knew that the cruise ship terminal at Hamilton Northshore was one that would be only essentially a temporary arrangement due to changes that were occurring, particularly noting the increase in dimensions of cruise ships, and that’s particularly what we are seeing today.

So we really do look forward to this being able to be delivered. It was something that, as I said earlier, Council specifically forecast it in the neighbourhood plan, and we have been doing all in our power since then to facilitate this, and this


- 26 -

arrangement, this 50:50 funding agreement with the Port of Brisbane, is about delivering an upgrade to the existing local road network. So now we will be going out to market for getting expressions of interest.

I think that Councillor CUMMING was asking about the actual arrangements with respect to the funding. So 50:50 with respect to that arrangement between Council and the Port of Brisbane, but Council also has to account for corporate overheads. So the majority of the difference between those two amounts is Council’s cost that we incur as a part of our work. With all of our road projects, or all of our projects, we incur some corporate overheads which must be accounted for, and that is the majority of the sum that I think Councillor CUMMING was curious about.

With respect to this particular location, anyone that’s been out there—and I’ve been out there on multiple occasions—knows that it’s extremely low lying. It does get inundated on a fairly regular basis when you’ve got a high tide. These sorts of events sees water actually coming onto a lot of the road network down there. It is extremely flat, as you’d expect. For those who understand how drainage works, we actually have to try to improve the road infrastructure; we have to try to deliver a higher level to allow us to deliver increased flood immunity for those works to be undertaken and to improve the situation.

At the moment the flood immunity is about—so it’s an annual exceedance probability of about two per cent or less. In some cases it’s extremely low, and this is improving it up to five per cent, so that equates to, in the older kind of terminology people have used in the past, to about a one in 20-year flood immunity. To allow drainage improvements, we’ve got to reset the levels as part of this project. So that was I think another question that Councillor CUMMING posed.

I think he had some questions about what is happening with stage 4. This is QUU who have undertaken works for stages 1, 2 and 3, and at this point in time they’ve advised us they don’t have the capacity to complete stage 4, but we certainly know that they are very supportive of this particular proposal, and will be working through to attempt to get that stage 4 facilitated to allow that to happen.

So this is a great project, a project that delivers some fantastic benefits for our community. I know that the cruise ship industry is one of the most exciting parts of the tourism industry in terms of the growth that it experiences, and certainly it is another way that we can showcase what our wonderful city has to offer. So we’re very supportive. We have been doing everything we can to make this happen, and we’ll continue to support this initiative. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise to speak on items A, B, C and D. Hopefully I’ll have time to do all four. Firstly with respect to the Stores Board submission for the Brisbane International Cruise Terminal, I would like the LORD MAYOR to confirm that, as it says in the Infrastructure Committee report, the cost of this project is being shared equally between the Port of Brisbane and Brisbane City Council. The amount of restrictions about the debate we can have on this because of the Commercial-in-Confidence requirements limits my ability to discuss these numbers, but I am unclear based on the E&C Report before us today exactly how much money the Port of Brisbane is putting in versus Brisbane City Council.

I am not even allowed to talk about the amount of money that they’ve proposed to increase the scope of the project. So I would just like the LORD MAYOR to confirm that this project cost will be shared equally between the Port of Brisbane and Brisbane City Council.

Now, I have some further concerns about this project. The Port of Brisbane Corporation is a Queensland Government owned company. It is a huge operation, and they undertake about $600 million worth of infrastructure works every year. The LORD MAYOR stands up in this place and criticises the State Government at every opportunity when there is an agreement for funding for


- 27 -

things like road, rail crossings and other projects with the State Government, and goes, ‘No, no, the State’s going to have to put in 85% and we’re going to put in 15%.’

Now, okay, these are Council roads, but this is a State Government initiative; this is a State Government owned, Queensland Government owned corporation, why on earth are Brisbane ratepayers being asked to subsidise this project and to expend quite a significant amount of money, millions and millions of dollars? I don’t think its right. I don’t think its right. If the State is doing this project, if the Port of Brisbane Corporation has a major project it wants to do, it should be investing in this project. In line with every other time the LORD MAYOR stands up and says the funding allocation should be X percentage and Y percentage, he’s got to be equally fair.

Now, I know he supports this project. He’s out there regularly talking about it. I have no idea if upgrading these roads will actually help anybody else other than people going out to the Port of Brisbane. But my job is to make sure that residents, ratepayers’ funds are being used fairly. When I see roads in my ward that look like they are in a third world country, like Fairfield Road, Fairfield, which seriously is not that far-off what I saw in Kathmandu in Nepal a few years ago with the size of the potholes, I don’t understand why this Administration has—


Councillor JOHNSTON: I don’t know why this Administration—

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS!

Councillor JOHNSTON: —has millions of dollars to subsidise a State Government corporation when it does not have money to fix roads that ratepayers drive on every day and need to be safe. So this is about priorities.


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: That’s not the first time I’ve heard Councillor SIMMONDS—

Chairman: And, Councillor SRI, I pulled Councillor SIMMONDS up. He has been cautioned twice.


Chairman: Councillor CUMMING! You do not sit up the back bench and say, ‘Throw him out.’ I have cautioned people appropriately. You’re sitting there calling out at this point in time, so that’s not appropriate either.

Councillor JOHNSTON, would you like to continue.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, yes, I’m quite used to Councillor SIMMONDS’ interjections now, but it won’t be long before he’s possibly off to Canberra to sit on the Opposition benches, or perhaps not, depending on who runs against him at the next election.


Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS!

Councillor JOHNSTON: I know, he’s a little bit worried.

Chairman: Don’t respond.

Councillor JOHNSTON: He’s a little bit worried. He’s not sure what’s going on. He wants to deflect attention.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes.

Chairman: Order! Order! When the Chamber is silent.



- 28 -

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING! Councillor COOK! When the Chamber is silent.

Councillor JOHNSTON, would you care to continue, please.

Councillor JOHNSTON: No problems. So, look, I’m not opposed necessarily to putting in a small amount of money towards this project, but I am concerned that the State Government’s initiative here, and the Port of Brisbane Corporation, which is a State owned control entity, is getting a rails run from this Administration.

The minor amendments in package F, look, I mean, this Administration has stuffed up City Plan beyond anything, and 2014 was the watershed moment when things went pear-shaped. We are still cleaning up their problems. Still cleaning them up. I do not trust them when it comes to City Plan changes. Certainly I’m aware that they’ve changed things like park sizes. Minimum park size standard now has gone from 5,000 metres to 9,000 metres, so that means that if you have a smaller parcel of land that you want to see converted to open space or parks, it does not meet this Administration’s desired levels of service for parks, and it won’t happen. Let me tell you, the developers are well aware of this.

So this Administration cannot be trusted on planning. They have demonstrated for too many years since I’ve been in this Chamber that they get it wrong. City Plan 2014 is a diabolical document that they forced on this Council and did not listen to residents. So, I’m not even sure this will fix up the problems.

The infringement notices, that seems pretty straightforward, I would think. It will depend obviously on the outcome of the request for proposals, and hopefully there is a competitive marketplace out there to deliver this service. It’s just a shame that Council doesn’t have the capacity to do this—that we have to contract it out. Obviously the technology is quite complicated, but we’ve spent billions of dollars in my time here in this Council apparently upgrading Council’s IT, but we still can’t handle processing an infringement notice internally. That seems problematic.

Finally, just on the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, this neighbourhood plan I think, honestly, it reflects the hypocrisy of this Administration. I think that’s the only thing that I can say about it. They’ve tried to do two things here. One, they’ve recognised that there is a very angry community out there in that Coorparoo area, and they’ve tried to change a few things, there’s no question about that.

But let’s be clear, the intent of the planning scheme for this area was to create a growth node. So when the zoning and the future planning for how this city would be shaped was discussed, this area was designated as a growth node. Now, this neighbourhood plan actually undoes that, and it’s now just going to be a future growth node.

Now, I suspect that, along with a lot of the other changes in here, like some areas that were originally proposed to be medium density are now going back to low to medium density or character infill, which is just diabolical anyway; your backyard gets filled up with units, modern units, tacked onto the back of your pre-46 house, which is the legacy of this Administration, which is just horrific for our backyards in Brisbane.

So they’ve tried to make a few little changes, but the only reason I can see that they would do this is to try and save the furniture in Coorparoo Ward. I mean, those residents are furious about development approvals undertaken by this Administration, and angry with their local Councillor about his failure to stand up for them with respect to the huge number of high rise units or units going through this area. I don’t think this will be enough to save them, based on the feedback that I have seen.

There is still a high level of concern about the failure to protect character houses in significant areas. The Norman Creek Catchment Association, N4C, are very angry about the Stephens Mountain’s changes. I just cannot believe Councillor McKENZIE’s view that it’s not for residential development, it’s for emerging communities. I mean, does he know what that means, that zoning? It’s


- 29 -

to convert a non-urban area into an urban area. I can tell you now, the people with their dollars in their hands are residential developers.

So, you know, I feel very sad for the catchment association and those residents who fought hard to preserve this green space which has only been partially degraded through the loss of vegetation, and easily restorable, that it hasn’t done so. It would have been very easy to limit the future Emerging communities zone to the footprint of the—is it Energex or QUU—Energex site, and protect the rest of the bushland. It would have been real easy to do that, but no, they didn’t.

It is because this Administration, the best friends they have in this place are developers, absolutely. The donation laws haven’t stopped them. They’re still out there trying to find ways to make it easier for development to happen right around this city at the expense of communities who want to see green spaces and backyards preserved.

So, look, this neighbourhood plan, I wish there were things in here that could have happened in my area in Sherwood. I mean, we had hundreds of residents speak up, and—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT:326/2018-19

At that time, 4.03pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, 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 4.07pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Further speakers?

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item D today, the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, and what seems to be forgotten in the debate we’ve heard this afternoon that there are districts in the neighbourhood plan, and of course that is the Holland Park suburb, and some part of Tarragindi that is in the Holland Park Ward.

I’d like to start by absolutely refuting the hyperbole we heard from Councillor CASSIDY that the changes in this district plan were made because of the activists and because of the protests. What a crock! What activists? What protests? We had an extremely proactive community reference group that met on many occasions bringing with them the ideas and the information that they had gleaned from people they work and live and recreate with in the local area.

We had many Meet the Planners meetings at East Leagues, at the Greenslopes Mall, and at the local shopping centres—shopping districts as we were setting it up, and we also had—I had meetings in my office; I’m sure Councillor McKENZIE had meetings in his office as well. Do you know what? There are some residents that weren’t happy with the draft plan that went out, but that’s the exact point. It is a draft plan, and the idea is to get everybody’s feedback. Just because somebody is not happy with the suggested draft plan does not make them an activist. It makes them somebody who is not happy with the draft plan.

Guess what? Goodness forbid, we have complaints now from those in the Opposition, or Independents, complaining that we listened to them, because we changed the plan, and this is all about making changes. No, it was not. It was about going out and speaking to the residents on what they wanted in their local area, in a very important corridor within eight kilometres from the CBD.


- 30 -

I think the most important part of this is to note what is actually mentioned in paragraph 90 on page 18 of the report today. ‘Some support it, while others opposed the proposed inclusions of properties in the Low medium density residential zone, with the removal of Traditional character overlay, or in the Character residential zone with the retention or addition of the Traditional building character overlay’. I have to say that is exactly my experience in the Holland Park road corridor. Half of them wanted the Traditional character overlay on; half of them didn’t. Half of them wanted it taken off; half of them wanted it put on. They were absolutely adamant.

If Councillor CASSIDY believes we did not listen, and it was the activists, he did not read the submissions, because what we see in those submissions very clearly documented in the report today is concerned, proactive, interested in their local community residents who have had their say and been listened to—been absolutely listened to. There are many comments regarding protection of character through the proposed rezonings, and there were also concerns raised about the transport network and what they would like to see. Those issues were addressed in this neighbourhood plan.

I recognise and thank the Council officers for the work, particularly in the Holland Park area, where it was very, very contentious, with very different and opposing views around the character. We removed character out of Victor Street, Crump, Crown, Navy to Birdwood, where there are already units, where it didn’t see character residential as a whole across that part of the suburb. But we added the character residential infill in Burlington, Peasant and Harold Street. Again, the 50-50 result, and if you read the submissions, the actual residents asked for that, and we responded to those submissions as well.

The Holland Park Districts Centre—I hear some mumbling and interjections. Councillor CASSIDY has had his say, and he didn’t mention the submissions once. He talked about something about activists, and I still don’t even understand who he was talking about. Maybe—

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: I wrote it down here. He claimed that the changes were made by activists. I don’t know if he means the 20 red shirts that met down at the Coorparoo Bowls Club where the claim was, ‘hundreds came to see them in their ALP shirts.’ Maybe that’s who he’s talking about.

But the Holland Park Districts Centre, what we see is a move from the current four storeys to a mix of three to six storeys. Now, my experience—this is my second neighbourhood plan that I’ve been through with the Mt Gravatt Corridor neighbourhood plan, this doesn’t happen overnight, and this was something that we need to work through as a community to realise all of a sudden there was not going to be a huge development at the Holland Park Districts Centre. This will come as the market wants it to come. That shopping precinct is being greatly upgraded at the moment, just with shopping, retail and infill in the shops there, so we probably won’t see anything happen to businesses, but this is a plan for growth in the future, and the opportunity along this very main corridor into the CBD can’t be missed.

We also have the hillside character precincts, and there were a few submissions about that. We actually added 10 heritage sites within the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, and a lot of them were in the area of the Holland Park up on the hillside precinct. The residents, again in their submissions, stated that they wanted some changes kept—some things kept in the hillside precinct, but we’ve come to a very good revision about the rezoning of the additional areas, with traditional streetscape character, with traditional building character, but making sure it was sympathetic if you were aligned with a heritage place, so a development assessment proposal would be needed as well.


- 31 -

I am conscious of time, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the officers for the neighbourhood precinct in Kuring Gai Avenue in Tarragindi. Again, starting to get busier as little shops come into that precinct, but the beautiful streetscape plans that we can look at through our Village Precincts project is now recognised in this neighbourhood plan so that we can use that as well.

When it comes to transport network services in infrastructure, this is Logan Road, a major corridor. One of the best service roads when it comes to BUZZ routes and buses into the CBD, which runs parallel with the Pacific Motorway Busway. If you are talking about transport infrastructure, there is no better transport infrastructure for this exact area but the Metro. When they can get to the Cultural Centre in less than 20 minutes in peak hour, they will definitely see why this is an important corridor for growth along that Logan Road. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, you had misrepresentation.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. Councillor ADAMS said that I didn’t talk about the submissions. Well, I called the file for the submissions on Friday, signed for them this morning, and I’ve still been denied access to those submissions, Madam Chair.



Chairman: Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I wasn’t going to speak on any of the E&C items, but—


Chairman: Just a minute.

Councillor CASSIDY, can you please show your colleague a little bit of respect, please, and stop yelling out.

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, I wasn’t going to speak on any of the items in the E&C, and then, through you, Madam Chair, I heard Councillor SRI talk about the Stores Board submission of course for the cruise ship terminal, which will be constructed here in Brisbane. Now, I was a bit shocked when he basically said that he doesn’t support it because of environmental issues in regards to wildlife or fauna and flora, I suppose, to a certain extent as well, which he didn’t use that word, but I’ve used it, in regards to the impact that cruise ships would have when docking in Brisbane.

So, I didn’t know this was a Greens policy that cruise ships shouldn’t dock in Brisbane. I would think that a lot of his constituents, through you, Madam Chair, a lot of his constituents undertake this form of travel on many occasions over the years. I know I can’t go to any gathering of my constituents or my friends of all ages that cruising doesn’t come up in the subject of conversation. They all wax lyrical about the last cruise they took and how much they enjoyed themselves. So—



Councillor SRI: Will Councillor STRUNK take a question?

Chairman: Councillor STRUNK?

Councillor STRUNK: No, I will not, thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Sorry, Councillor SRI.

Councillor STRUNK: Anyway, so he says that we shouldn’t because of environmental issues. Well, gee whiz, you know, all the ships that have ever come to Australia I am sure had some impact on the environment, and the First Fleet being the first one I


- 32 -

suppose, and if that was the case, of course, Councillor SRI wouldn’t be with us today. Anyways, I know that’s a little bit jovial, but I think there is some truth in that. But I also wanted to say that—



Councillor SRI: I claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor STRUNK: But I also want to say that the other point he made was in regards to wages that are paid to crew members on board these ships. Now, I have a very good friend of mine who has undertaken this work for various cruise lines and shipping lines over the years, and I can assure you that she has benefited greatly from the arrangements that she came to with her employers.

She has many investment homes right around Australia, and probably one of the most lucrative in regards to this was with the mining companies where they have these floating accommodation ships off Western Australia. She works very hard for her money, but she has been able to eke out a very reasonable wage for her time in this industry.

So I just thought, well, I just wanted first to rise up and just sort of defend the fact that most of my constituents, or a lot of my constituents, actually undertake this low cost travel, and it’s a very efficient travel as well in regards to—



Councillor SRI: Will Councillor STRUNK take a question?

Councillor STRUNK: No thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Not again, sorry.

Councillor STRUNK: Also the efficiency of scale of some of these large cruise ships now, and the cost of running them for their size, has over the years of course improved greatly. So I don’t think from an environmental point of view in that aspect that there is any credibility in what Councillor SRI said.

I’ll just leave it at that. I just wanted to stand up for my constituents and this fantastic type of travel that they undertake. We are very appreciative, of course, of the Queensland State Government for undertaking this cruise ship terminal upgrade or construction of this cruise ship terminal so that the very large ships that are plying the waters around Australia are able to dock, so that a lot of my constituents won’t have to fly off to Sydney or other ports to be able to avail themselves of some of these ships. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you had two points of misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: No, I think I only had the one, but anyway—

Chairman: Sorry.

Councillor SRI: —Councillor STRUNK seemed to assert the majority of my constituents would be utilising cruise ship cruises. I don’t know anyone who can afford a cruise ship holiday in my demographic, and I’d be really interested to know how much one costs.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to enter the debate on item B and item D. Just turning to item B, obviously this is a minor amendment package where we’re doing a number of things. The LORD MAYOR outlined a range of those. So we are changing some of the standard drawings that are used as part of our development approval process. We are changing the zoning of some blocks of land.


- 33 -

I have to just be really clear, here, Madam Chairman. There is no statutory process that we have to undertake to rezone a block of land from emerging communities to the approved development use. We don’t actually have to go through that. You do have in the city a number of existing developments that sit on land that don’t actually match the approved use.

But we are, as the LORD MAYOR said, in line with the Brisbane’s Future Blueprint, going through the process of actually providing certainty to residents that land that has an approved use, or land that is zoned emerging communities where it is next to low density residential will be rezoned to fit into the built surrounds of those areas. You cannot get much more clearer than what we are doing, our intent in this package and a previous package in terms of a minor amendment around that.

There is a number of other changes in here to waterway corridors, to the Pre-1911 overlays. We also pick up the Oxley PDA (Priority Development Area) and the Yeronga PDA as part of this minor amendment package. Then to Councillor CUMMING’s point, because I think this is a great spot to just reflect on Councillor CUMMING’s contribution to the debate here, where he stood up and said, all of these changes—you are constantly changing the City Plan. How could you have got it so wrong? You’re always changing it.

Well, I said a bit earlier in my answer to the question that I remember the frequency and number of changes that came to City Plan 2000, in hard copy, to the office, Madam Chairman. Every couple of weeks there seemed to be another package of changes coming to City Plan 2000, because a planning document is a living, breathing document. You cannot implement a planning scheme and then just stop and leave it for a period of 10 or 15 years before you actually start making changes to it.

There’s a few reasons why. One, because you do have developments that are happening; you do have changes to circumstances relating to court decisions; you have a State Government that goes and declares PDAs. You have changes to the State planning policy as well, Madam Chairman. So just because Councillor CUMMING hasn’t done his homework and hasn’t read the document, I’ll just highlight some of the reasons why we’ve actually had to make changes to the planning scheme as part of this minor amendment.

In the major sections of it, the bulk of it in places is actually starting to reflect changes to the State planning scheme. So, for example, 1.2 Planning scheme components. The Herston Quarter Priority Development Area has been amended from the Interim Land Use Plan to the Herston Quarter PDA Development Scheme. So we’ve had to change the planning scheme: thank you, State Government.

The Oxley PDA Interim Land Use Plan and the Yeronga Interim Land Use Plan have also been added to reflect the declaration of the PDA sites. Thank you—


Councillor BOURKE: —State Government. Part 5, table 5.3.4 Prescribed accepted development has been amended to correct outdated Sustainable Planning Act terminology: thank you, State Government. We go on. We’re going on to the Lower Oxley Creek south neighbourhood plan where we’ve had to correct again State planning scheme terminology. It goes on to part 6, 6.2.6.1 where we’ve had to again reflect the changes with the declaration of the PDAs at Oxley and Yeronga.

Part 7, where we’ve again had to change the Darra Oxley neighbourhood plan to reflect the PDA that’s been declared by the State Government. Then there’s consequential amendments all the way through the document, Madam Chairman. I just highlight these because this is why there is lots of changes. It’s not us necessarily changing parts of the planning scheme; it is changes to State legislation, it is declarations of PDAs that actually drive a lot of these changes.


- 34 -

So, I keep going. Part 7—and Councillor CUMMING is going, no, no. Well, you haven’t read it, Councillor CUMMING. Don’t worry about my work load, Councillor CUMMING, worry about your own as the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Chairman, through you, because you obviously haven’t read the document before you. So Dutton Park—Fairfield neighbourhood plan has to be changed because of the PDA declared by the State Government. Well, Madam Chairman, this is not being driven by Brisbane City Council. A lot of these changes are being driven by changes to the Sustainable Planning Act and changes by the State Government in declaring PDAs.

There’s also changes because of an update to the Electrical Safety Regulations. This is not Council doing these changes by itself. There’s changes because of the AusRoads guides to road design document having its name changed. There’s changes because someone in the State Government, like they decided to change the name of a hospital, decided to change the name of the manual for uniform traffic control devices from the Queensland Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I mean, come on! They took out the word Queensland. But we have to go through and amend our planning scheme, Madam Chairman, to reflect the changes from the State.

So when the Opposition stands up and has those jibes about, oh, you’ve got all these changes—not being driven by us; a lot of the time they’re being driven by agencies outside of our control, Madam Chairman.

Turning to item D, the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, there’s been a fair bit of debate about this already, and I thank the Councillors who have had their say on it. But I just want to read into the record what one person wanted to say about the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan. “I’d like to congratulate the Brisbane City Council for conducting the consultation into the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan.”

That’s one Joe Kelly, State member for Greenslopes, the Australian Labor Party State member for Greenslopes, who is congratulating Brisbane City Council for the way they conducted the consultation into the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, who then went on to say that he’s had multiple representations about people concerned that their unit complexes were being covered by character provisions.

He also went on to say that he didn’t mind high density and infill development happening on the Energex site. A lot of different things. So the local State MP has a very different opinion to the Australian Labor Party Councillors in this place, Madam Chairman. Obviously on the ground he understands, just like Councillor McKENZIE and Councillor ADAMS understand what the feelings are on the ground, obviously Joe Kelly has been talking to his residents—a different story to the one that Councillor CASSIDY tried to paint of doom and gloom down there, Madam Chairman. Obviously not in touch, not talking to the residents.

Mr Kelly went on to say that he’s happy to have infill development. Ideally a mix of social and private units on that Energex site. I’d like to thank the State member for his help and contribution to this debate. But obviously this is now back for its adoption here so that it can go for the second State interest review before it comes back to this place. There has been changes, because this Administration listens to the people of Brisbane as we do our award-winning neighbourhood planning process, as we did when we did our Plan your Brisbane exercise and Brisbane’s Future Blueprint.

We continue to listen and continue to engage with the residents of Brisbane. That is why there’s changes, Madam Chairman, because those changes were put forward in the submissions. Councillor ADAMS went through and she pointed out that there was a lot of submissions, both for and against rezoning of the character houses. Some people wanted them in low-medium density to stay; some people wanted them going to character residential, some people wanted them going to character, character.


- 35 -

So, the officers have had to go through those submissions and look at each individual location. But, Madam Chairman, this neighbourhood plan, a bit like some of our other neighbourhood plans in the close proximity, in the Morningside Ward, has got some of the strictest provisions when it comes to protecting character and heritage.

Not only are the 10 new heritage places being added and the 13 new pre-1911s being added, but there’s also provisions for properties adjoining heritage places and stricter levels of assessment relating to those developments that are adjoining heritage places as well, because this Administration is the best friend of character and heritage in this city. We’ve done more than any other administration to protect the character and the heritage of this city.

On to Stephens Mountain—this is nearly five hectares of open space or green space for the residents of Brisbane that will be opened up and now be able to be utilised. It is a win for the local community. It is a win for the city as a whole, and it is another parcel of land that this Administration is able to deliver for the residents to enjoy. It delivers on our Plan your Brisbane outcomes; it delivers on this Administration’s commitment to creating more green spaces for residents to enjoy.

Yes, there is a small component of emerging community land, but that is the old quarry as we have had much debate. It has busway rubble in it. Let’s be really clear: the old quarry site has busway rubble in it that the State Government put into it when they constructed the South East Busway. It is not, as Councillor SRI tried to paint, this beautiful utopia rainforest that you might find in North Queensland, pristine, untouched space. It does have a lot of challenges environmentally. It was a quarry. It has a lot of introduced plants and, as part of this, obviously we’re going to be investing then into the space around the rest of Stephens Mountain.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, your time has expired.

Further debate?

No further debate?

LORD MAYOR, sum up?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank all Councillors for their contributions to the debate. With regard to firstly the Port of Brisbane, item A, it’s been interesting to hear the number of people that seem to think that somehow this Port of Brisbane is under the ownership of the Queensland Government. Madam Chairman, it is a private entity. It is nothing to do—there was a market-led proposal for a cruise ship terminal which would have never seen the light of day had this Council not had a financial investment in it.

Several approaches were made to the State Government about it to make a financial contribution. They decided, for whatever reason, that they were not going to invest in it, and that the market-led proposal would either stand or fall on its own merits. This Council believed that it was such an important asset to the city and to the future jobs of this city that we were prepared to invest by way of upgrading some of the road network, and we did that by way of a partnership deal with the consortium.

But just for completeness, Madam Chairman, it is PBPL Consortium, or rather the Port of Brisbane Pty Limited is owned by APH Consortium, previously known as Q Port Holdings. So, Madam Chairman, there is a range of entities that are within that consortium that own the port.

Madam Chairman, I noticed there was some credit being taken the other day for somehow doing the airport proposal as well. That’s another one that’s—you know, that’s not a State Government owned entity; that is a privately owned entity. But, Madam Chairman, the important thing with this is that we have an arrangement which whereby $5 million will be put in by the consortium and the amount that we are putting in, you can see there, it is just over $5 million—


- 36 -

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, I just remind you of the Commercial-in-Confidence restrictions on the document.

LORD MAYOR: These aren’t in—thank you for the guidance, Madam Chairman. I always welcome a bit of protection. But in this case these are publicly available figures, and as Councillor COOPER said, the difference there is largely in the corporate charges that this organisation has, which all Councillors would be aware of.

With regard to City Plan, and talk about a lot of amendments coming forward, Madam Chairman, there’s always been a lot of amendments come forward with City Plan. We have major amendments and minor amendments, and they are done on a regular basis. For many years we’ve looked at six-monthly changes to the City Plan by way of major or minor amendments. That’s what I always talk about, of a City Plan being a living, breathing document. You have to amend the City Plan with the times.

But, Madam Chairman, there will be a range of amendments that will come through based around the 40 recommendations contained in the Brisbane’s Future Blueprint document. We have indicated in that document timelines around some of those changes, and we will be reporting back to the Council in line with those commitments. The only thing that will slow us is if we don’t get approvals down the other end of town as fast as we want them. But we will be certainly bringing them here based on our timelines contained in the document. Madam Chairman, I thank Councillors and look forward to their support on the report.

Chairman: I will now put item A.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put items B, C and D.

Clauses B, C and D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B, C and D of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Peter CUMMING and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.

ABSTENTIONS: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:


- 37 -

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, Vicki Howard, Peter Matic, and David McLachlan.

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE TERMINAL ROADS UPGRADE PROJECT165/210/179/3032

327/2018-191. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 23 October 2018.

3.. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.

4. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the words [Commercial-in-Confidence]. The Commercial-in-Confidence information is available at Attachment A (submitted on file).

Purpose

5. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan for the Brisbane International Cruise Terminal Roads Upgrade project.

Background

6. In 2017, the Queensland Government approved the Port of Brisbane’s (PoB) proposal to build a cruise ship terminal at Luggage Point. Vehicles travelling to and from the cruise ship terminal will travel along Main Myrtletown Road, Priors Road, Bancroft Road, Brownlee Street, Main Beach Road, and Marine Road corridor, Pinkenba, connecting to Kingsford Smith Drive, Pinkenba and the CBD.

7. The cruise ship terminal is expected to increase traffic flows along this corridor, including the number of larger vehicles which will need to access and service the terminal. The additional traffic demand and potential safety aspects due to substandard curves and sections of narrow carriageway width through this corridor warrant the upgrading of road infrastructure in this area. The project will also include upgrading road drainage to achieve a flood immunity of five per cent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) as adopted within the Pinkenba Neighbourhood Plan.

8. The project aligns with Brisbane Vision 2031 and the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026 by providing a more efficient and improved route to the new cruise ship terminal that will help build the local economy and boost employment growth. The project also aligns with the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21 – 2017 Update, improving a strategic route in Brisbane’s road network that is an important link for commuters between the cruise ship terminal and the CBD.

9. The project scope includes:- raising road levels to improve overall flood resilience of the route to five per cent AEP flood

immunity- upgrading substandard curves in the road- constructing new road pavement to extend Marine Road, Pinkenba, to the new cruise ship

terminal- widening narrow sections of road to improve safety- installing speed limit signage on approaches to bends and intersections- preliminary work to enable future signalisation of the Pandanus Avenue and Priors Road

intersection, Pinkenba- relocating utility services- road resurfacing works.

Policy and other considerations


- 38 -

10. Is there an existing Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA)/contract for these goods/services/works?Yes, CPA 520202 Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure.

11. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?No, Council does not have the capacity to be the construction contractor on the project.

12. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, Access and Equity, Zero Harm, Quality Assurance (QA) and support for locally produced and Australian products?Yes

13. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?No

Market analysis

14 The civil construction market is currently busy with a number of major construction programs underway for Council and the Queensland Government, which has contributed to a reduction in the number of tenders for projects. The booming construction markets in New South Wales and Victoria has resulted in a number of contractors relocating resources to those states, which has further reduced availability of resources in Queensland to undertake construction works resulting in contractors being more selective in the projects that they are tendering for.

15. The uncertainty regarding the total scope of works within this procurement, as well as the range of commencement dates for each portion, is likely to reduce the market’s interest in tendering. The work requires contractors with Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) prequalification level of R3/F10 or higher. The relevant sub-segment of CPA 52020 includes 10 suppliers with the necessary TMR prequalification. All of these have been contacted and nine have indicated that they will submit an offer for this project.

Procurement strategy and activity plan

16. Procurement objective:To procure the construction of the Brisbane International Cruise Terminal Roads Upgrade project in a way which complies with the Sound Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council.

The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post market submission.

17.Title of contract: Brisbane International Cruise Terminal Roads Upgrade projectType of procurement: Contract under CPA 520202, Construction and Rehabilitation of

Transport and Drainage InfrastructureProcess to be used: Request for Quote (RFQ)RFQ: The RFQ standard will be Council’s corporate standard with no

amendmentsAdvertising/sole or select sourcing:

All 10 members of CPA 520202 Sub-segment – Road Construction and Upgrades.

How RFP is to be distributed and submitted:

Via Council’s supplier portal

How tenders/proposals are to be lodged:


Part offers: Part offers will not be consideredJoint offers: Joint offers will not be consideredContract standard to be used: AS4000 (with Council’s standard amendments) and Special

Conditions to Amended from AS400-1997Period/term of contract: Approximately 34 weeksInsurance requirements: Council’s Principal Arranged Construction Insurance will apply

and motor vehicle insurance of $20 million will be required.


- 39 -

Price basis: Schedule of ratesPrice adjustment: Prices will not be subject to adjustment for rise and fall for the

duration of the contract.Liquidated damages: Capped at $4,750 per daySecurity for the contract: Security in the form of two unconditional bank guarantees each to

the value of $50,000Defects liability period: 12 monthsOther strategy elements: Funding:

Council and PoB have a joint funding agreement to spend $10 million on the project works. Within the funding agreement, both parties have agreed a priority list of road sections to be upgraded to spend the $10 million funding. The funding agreement stipulates project construction completion by December 2019, in line with the cruise ship terminal opening for business for the 2020 cruise season.

Budget and completion date:To achieve the target budget and construction finish date, the scope of works is separated into separable portions, each of which will be commenced only as the relevant preconditions (such as land resumptions and environmental permits) have been achieved.

The existing Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) water main between Main Beach Road and Piped Road, Pinkenba, requires upgrading prior to completion of the cruise ship terminal. Three of the four stages have already been upgraded. PoB anticipates completing the design for the final stage in November 2018. To assist in delivery of the water main upgrade, enhance integration of the road upgrades and minimise disruption, PoB has requested that the QUU water main works be delivered by Council in conjunction with road upgrade works. PoB has committed to increasing its project contribution to cover the cost of the water main works. The size of the contribution increase in revenue and capital budget will be confirmed at the third budget review, with a provisional estimate of [Commercial-in-Confidence] being used for tender purposes.

Table 1 below outlines the separable portions. It is expected that separable portions numbered one to six will be delivered under a single contract, with separable portion four to be awarded on receipt of the [Commercial-in-Confidence] from PoB. Additional separable portions may be added to the contract to meet the requirements of the funding agreement with PoB. The QUU works will be awarded once funding is secured from PoB.

18. Table 1 – Confirmed scope projects:

Description of confirmed scope

Precondition to commence construction

Anticipated date for approval to commence construction

Approx. construction and Public Utility Plant cost estimate

Separable portion no.

Main Beach Road between Lewandowski Drive to Marine Road

Not applicable March 2019 [Commercial-in-Confidence]

1

Bancroft Road and Brownlee Street bendMain Beach Road intersection to formed section of Marine Road


- 40 -

Description of confirmed scope

Precondition to commence construction

Anticipated date for approval to commence construction

Approx. construction and Public Utility Plant cost estimate

Separable portion no.

Unformed section of Marine Road to PoB entrance

Marine plant permit May 2019 [Commercial-in-Confidence]

2

Brownlee Street and Main Beach Road bend

Land acquisition (private)

August 2019 [Commercial-in-Confidence]

3

PoB additional QUU water main upgrade along Main Beach Road and Piped Road (not part of the original funding agreement)

Marine plant permit PoB design for water main to be included in contract documents

May 2019 [Commercial-in-

Confidence]*

4

Priors Road and Bancroft Road bend

Land acquisition (BAC)Marine plant permit

October 2019 [Commercial-in-Confidence]

5

Main Myrtletown Road and Priors Road bend

Land acquisition (BAC)

Brownlee Street between Bancroft Road bend and Main Beach Road bend

Reserve section to meet funding agreement amount with PoB

October 2019 [Commercial-in-Confidence]

6

Project contingency: [Commercial-in-Confidence]Total (confirmed works): [Commercial-in-Confidence]

* To be awarded pending receipt of QUU budget.

19. Alternative strategies considered:Design and construct (D&C):A D&C procurement model was not considered to provide any benefit in terms of earlier project delivery when compared to the adopted construct to design model. Arcadis, the project’s design consultant, possesses the required skills and knowledge of the area and has completed detailed design and documentation for the project.

Alliance contract:An alliance model was not considered to be suitable for this project. The complexity and size of the project did not warrant the cost and time required setting up an alliance contract and the significant costs associated with obtaining a target cost estimate would not deliver value for money (VFM) to Council.

20. Anticipated schedule:Pre-market approval: 13 November 2018Date of release to market: 14 November 2018Tender closing: 11 December 2019Evaluation completion: 31 January 2019Contract prepared: 7 February 2019Post-market approval: 18 March 2019Contract commencement: 25 March 2019

Budget

21. Estimated total expenditure under this contract:The estimated expenditure on separable portions 1 to 6 is [Commercial-in-Confidence] with a contingency of [Commercial-in-Confidence] ([Commercial-in-Confidence] of the contract sum) to be set aside for the contract. This excludes the additional sum of [Commercial-in-Confidence] for the QUU works. Council will only enter into a contract to the approved budget amount. Any procurement


- 41 -

savings are to be returned to the project to award additional separable portions to meet the requirements of the funding agreement with PoB.

22. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA?Yes

23. Anticipated procurement savings:Nil

24. Program budget line item:Program: Program 2 – Infrastructure for BrisbaneOutcome: 2.1 Roads and Transport Network ManagementStrategy: 2.1.1 Plan and Design the NetworkService: 2.1.1.1 Plan and Design the NetworkProject: Brisbane International Cruise Terminal

25. Program budget funding availability:

Financial year2017-18($000)

2018-19($000)

2019-20($000)

2020-21($000)

Total($000)

Capital 549 6,977 3,419 - 10,945Expenses - - - -Revenue# 2,500 2,000 500 - 5,000

#Revenue and capital subject to increase for QUU water main works of [Commercial-in-Confidence].

26. Breakdown of budget spent to date:

Budget for financial year($000)

Amount of budget for financial year spent or committed to

date($000)

Amount of budget for financial year remaining

($000)

6,977 671 6,306

27. Breakdown of budget and identifiable costs:

Line item description Budget estimate($)

Pre-market estimate($)

Professional services 2,469,125 2,469,125QLeave 30,875 30,875Energex service agreement 800,000 800,000Construction (including contingency, risk and Public Utility Plant)

[Commercial-in-Confidence]


Corporate overhead 1,055,000 1,055,000QUU Water main upgrade# [Commercial-in-

Confidence]#[Commercial-in-

Confidence]#

TOTAL: [Commercial-in-Confidence]


#Revenue and capital subject to increase for QUU water main works of [Commercial-in-Confidence].

Procurement risk

28. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:


- 42 -

Procurement risk Risk rating

Risk mitigation strategy Risk allocation

Council fails to meet the target construction completion date of December 2019 as stipulated within the funding agreement with PoB

Medium - Award the contract with contingent separable portions

- Progressively award the separable portions as relevant agencies’ approvals for land, environmental permits etc. are acquired to construct separable portion/s

Council

Overall tender price does not match the allocated budget spend within the funding agreement with PoB

Medium - Increase or reduce the number of contingent separable portions to within the allocated budget

Council

Not enough bids are received for the project due to complexity from number of contingent separable portions or the time gap between award of separable portions

Medium - Arrange a briefing session with the interested tenderers to elaborate on the procurement strategy and to answers any concerns

Council

29. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?No

Evaluation criteria

30. Mandatory/essential criteria:- TMR prequalification level of R3/F10 or higher

31. Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:Submissions will be scored against these criteria as tabled below:

Weighted evaluation criteria Weighting(%)

Project management of the following:- overall project delivery program including

all contingent separable portions - Public Utility Plant staging for all

contingent separable portions - construction methodology for all

contingent separable portions.

60

Demonstrated previous track record and capacity to deliver the project 20

Key personnel experience 20Total: 100

32. Price model:Normalised tendered price.

Evaluation methodology

33. Shortlisting process:Responses will be shortlisted using the VFM index.

34. VFM method:Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.

35. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

36. RECOMMENDATION:


- 43 -

THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE TERMINAL ROADS UPGRADE PROJECT.

ADOPTED

B MINOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE F 152/160/1218/388

328/2018-1937. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

38. Council is committed to facilitating economic growth and maintaining prosperity in Brisbane through sustainable development regulated by Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme). This requires a robust and resilient planning scheme that reflects changes over time in line with community and industry expectations. Administrative, minor and planning scheme policy amendments (the proposed amendments) are proposed to the planning scheme, to maintain its effectiveness and currency.

39. The proposed amendment will achieve the following outcomes.- Improve the effectiveness and useability of the planning scheme through amending

typographical errors, undertaking mapping refinements, enhancing the format and presentation of the planning scheme.

- Maintain the currency of the planning scheme by updating infrastructure standards and reflecting recent development approvals, including zoning changes to reflect current development approvals inclusive of consent orders of the Planning and Environment Court, and supporting updates to overlay maps to reflect zone changes.

40. The schedule of proposed amendments is set out in Attachment B (submitted on file). The proposed amendments are set out in Attachment C (submitted on file).

41. The process for amending the planning scheme is set out in the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules, made under section 17 of the Planning Act 2016.

42. Should Council resolve to approve the proposed amendment, it is proposed that the amended planning scheme will take effect from 23 November 2018.

43. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

44. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO DECIDE TO MAKE MINOR AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014

As:

(i) pursuant to section 5.1 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline) made under the Planning Act 2016, decides to make a minor amendment to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme)

(ii) pursuant to section 2.1 of Part 1 and Section 5.2 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, has prepared the proposed administrative amendment and the proposed minor amendment as set out in Attachment C (the proposed amendment) (submitted on file)

(iii) pursuant to section 2.1 of Part 1 of Chapter 3 of the Guideline, decides to make a


- 44 -

minor and administrative amendment to planning scheme policies contained in Schedule 6 of the planning scheme (the proposed planning scheme policy amendments)

(iv) pursuant to section 2.2 of Part 1 of Chapter 3 of the Guideline, has prepared the proposed planning scheme policy amendment as set out in Attachment C (submitted on file),

then Council:

(i) decides, pursuant to section 3.1 of Part 1 and section 6.1 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, to adopt the proposed amendment

(ii) decides, pursuant to section 5.1 of Part 1 of Chapter 3 of the Guideline, to adopt the proposed planning scheme policy amendment

(iii) directs that notice of the adoption of:

(a) the proposed amendments be given in accordance with section 3.2 and section 3.3 of Part 1 and section 6.2 and section 6.3 of Part 2 of Chapter 2, and Schedule 5 of the Guideline

(b) the proposed planning scheme policy amendment be given in accordance with section 5.2 and section 5.3 of Part 1 of Chapter 3, and Schedule 5 of the Guideline.

ADOPTED

C STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE INFRINGEMENT PROCESSING AND ISSUING SOLUTION165/830/179/573

329/2018-1945. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

46. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file) on 23 October 2018.

47. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.

48. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the words [Commercial-in-Confidence]. The Commercial-in-Confidence information is available at Attachment A (submitted on file).

Purpose

49. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan for the Infringement Processing and Issuing Solution.

Background

50. Council issues infringement notices to uphold the city’s safety and amenity standards. Infringements issued relate to parking, pets, animals, littering, building, environmental and tolls. Although most infringements are parking related, the broad range of infringement types that Council issues adds complexity to the infringement management lifecycle.

51. At present, the existing software, hardware and processes Council uses to manage the infringement lifecycle are fragmented across a number of suppliers and systems. Council’s existing infringement solutions are delivered through two main contracts:


- 45 -

- the Electronic Infringement System (EIS) contract with SARB Management Group Pty Ltd trading as Database Consultants Australia (DCA), which provides the system that issues infringement notices using mobile or desktop devices

- the Infringement Notice Management Process (INMP) contract with Tenix Solutions Pty Ltd (Tenix), which is used to manage the lifecycle of all infringement notices and includes mailing notices when required.

52. Both the EIS and INMP contracts are approaching the end of their current term. The EIS contract is due to expire on 31 January 2019 (excluding optional extensions and transition-out provisions) and the INMP contract is due to expire on 24 January 2020 (excluding optional extensions and transition-out provisions). Approval from the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) has been provided to exercise the final one-year extension period for the EIS contract, bringing the expiry dates of both contracts into alignment by one week. Further transition-out provisions exist in both contracts and will be used during the implementation of any new solution to ensure service continuity.

53. It is considered to be advantageous for Council to replace the current systems with a modern and integrated end-to-end solution to contribute directly to Brisbane Vision 2031. This aligns with Council’s approved Parking Management Solutions portfolio roadmap, which identifies the sourcing activity for infringement processing and issuing to commence in 2018-19, and the new solution to be implemented by a target date of June 2020.

54. The key benefits of aligning the procurement of the solutions currently provided under the EIS and INMP contracts include:- opportunity to improve customer service and customer experience- implementation of various Brisbane Parking Taskforce recommendations- market refresh of two long-term contracts- opportunity to simplify integration between two parts of the infringement lifecycle- improving enforcement management activities for Council.

55. An Information Security and Agility business impact assessment has been completed to assess and capture the severity of adverse ICT impacts to the business for the project. This has returned a major consequence rating for reputational damage.

Policy and other considerations

56. Is there an existing Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) or contract for these goods/services/works?Yes, the following arrangements are currently in place and have been maintained as part of Council’s interim strategy to provide continuity of services while the sourcing activity to procure an integrated solution is undertaken.

57. Electronic Infringement Solution, (080034-000) with DCA:- commencement date – 1 February 2015- expiry date – 31 January 2019- remaining extensions available – one year (excluding indefinite transition-out provisions).

Infringement Notification Management Processing (INMP) Services (080127-000) with Tenix:- commencement date – 20 December 2009- expiry date – 24 January 2020 - remaining extensions available – one year (excluding a 24-month transition-out provision).

58. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?No

59. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, Access and Equity, Zero Harm, Quality Assurance (QA) and support for locally produced and Australian products?Yes

60. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?Yes, the project is classified as Tier 2 under Council’s Project Governance and Assurance Framework.


- 46 -

Market analysis

61. Council has undertaken extensive market analysis activities, including industry engagement and consultation with other government organisations. The research focused on technologies, strategies and best practice in parking solutions globally and within Australia.

62. Council also engaged Gartner Australasia Pty Ltd (Gartner) to provide independent advice on smart parking strategies and to explore the possibility of using Gartner to identify a shortlist of market leaders for a select source Request for Proposal (RFP) approach. The outcome of the analysis activities is summarised below.- Globally, the market for the required services is mature and well established with a

competitive number of suitably capable suppliers and solution offerings to meet Council’s needs.

- Gartner lacks the necessary depth of knowledge in this industry to provide a shortlist of market leaders to justify a select source RFP approach.

63. It is anticipated that the following suppliers could provide a compliant response to all parts of the RFP:- Civica Pty Ltd- DCA- Tenix- Conduent Business Services (Australia) Pty Ltd- ITREE Pty Ltd.

64. Three additional suppliers have been identified that could provide a response for part A of the RFP (Infringement Issuing), and seven additional suppliers have been identified that could provide a response for part B of the RFP (Infringement Processing). These parts are further explained in paragraph 66.

Procurement strategy and activity plan

65. Procurement objective:To procure the Infringement Processing and Issuing Solution in a way which complies with the Sound Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council.

The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market submission.

66.Title of contract: Infringement Processing and Issuing SolutionType of procurement: Establishing a CPAProcess to be used: RFPRFT/P/Q or EOI standard to be used (and any amendments to the standard):

The RFP standard will be Council’s corporate standard with no amendments.

Advertising/sole or select sourcing:

Offers are to be sought publicly via Council’s supplier portal.

The sourcing activity will be undertaken in the following two phases.

Phase 1- An early market engagement (EME) will be undertaken

before requesting proposals from the open market.- Vendors will have the opportunity to request access to a

secure data room in Council’s supplier portal. Once registered, vendors will gain information around Council’s processes, standards, and high-level requirements of the upcoming opportunity.

- An industry briefing will be undertaken as part of this EME. This early engagement will assist the market in planning for the RFP in phase 2 to ensure quality proposals are received and that interested suppliers are informed and prepared to meet Council’s key criteria.


- 47 -

Phase 2- Council will issue an RFP to the open market via Council’s

supplier portal. The RFP will be composed of part A – Infringement Issuing and part B – Infringement Processing.

- Vendors will be permitted to submit an offer for one or both parts of the RFP.

How RFT/P/Q or EOI is to be distributed and submitted:


How tenders/proposals are to be lodged: Via Council’s supplier portal

Part offers: Part offers may be consideredJoint offers: Joint offers may be consideredContract standard to be used (and any amends):

A bespoke contract is under development in consultation with City Legal, City Administration and Governance (CAG).

Period/term of contract: To be determined during the tender and negotiation process but anticipated to be up to a maximum term of 10 years.

Insurance requirements: Public liability of $20 million, product liability of $20 million, professional indemnity of $10 million and cyber insurance of $20 million.

Price basis: Lump sum for implementation with a schedule of rates for ongoing services, subject to negotiations.

Price adjustment: To be established as a result of negotiations and advised in the post-market submission.

Liquidated damages: To be determined during the tender and negotiations process and advised in the post-market submission.

Security for the contract: Not applicable Defects liability period/warranty period:

90 days from actual acceptance date.

Other strategy elements: Aggregating the Infringement Issuing and Infringement Processing contracts into one integrated solution is anticipated to improve accuracy, efficiency and ease of use for Council and customers.

Using an EME phase is expected to assist potential tenderers with their understanding of Council’s infringement requirements ahead of the release of the RFP in early 2019.

The EME is to be facilitated through the following approach.- A public event will be released on Council’s supplier portal to

advertise the industry briefing session and how to access the secured data room.

- An industry briefing session will be held to provide further understanding to the market on Council’s goals for this procurement activity and intended approach

- A restricted access data room will be made available on Council’s supplier portal following the industry briefing. This will require vendors to provide the following before Council provides access:- contact details such as phone, email, business

address- details of area of expertise as related to the in-scope

services- any relevant industry association memberships or

licences held as relevant to the in-scope services- a signed confidentiality agreement.

Transition-out provisions exist in both contracts (as agreed for EIS and 24 months for INMP). Once the implementation program is confirmed, the transition-out provisions will be activated and align to the delivery of the new solution. The duration of the transition-out provisions are expected to be communicated in the post-market submission.


- 48 -

Alternative strategies considered

67. The following alternative strategies were considered for this procurement activity.- Option 1: Go to market separately for each component. This is how Council’s existing

contracts are structured. Due to the end-to-end dependencies and integrations between the components, it was determined that the sourcing activities for each component should be aligned to achieve benefits in systems integration and process streamlining.

- Option 2: Issue an Expression of Interest (EOI) and then an RFP to shortlisted tenderers. It was determined that Council’s scope is already well defined and the market effort and potential benefits of an EOI to assist in defining scope were not justified. Resourcing availability and the additional effort required by Council and the market during the EOI phase were also considered.

- Option 3: Single stage RFP issued to the public market. Due to the complexity of Council’s requirements it was determined that releasing the RFP to market without engaging the market first, could lead to poor quality responses.

68. Anticipated schedule:Pre-market approval: 13 November 2018Early market engagement commences: 16 November 2018Date of industry briefing: 29 November 2019Restricted access data room available: 30 November 2018Date of release to market (RFP): 24 January 2019Tender closing: 1 March 2019Evaluation completion: 15 May 2019Contract prepared: 27 May 2019Post-market approval: 30 July 2019Contract commencement: 7 August 2019Transition complete and services commence: 30 June 2020

69. Estimated total expenditure under this CPA/contract (including any options):The estimated total expenditure under this CPA is [Commercial-in-Confidence] over the potential 10-year term. This includes an estimated lump sum amount of [Commercial-in-Confidence] for implementation, and an estimated [Commercial-in-Confidence] per annum for annual subscription and services fees over a potential 10-year term.

70. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract?Yes, subject to the result of section paragraph 66 (Period/term of contract).

71. Anticipated procurement savings (if any):To be established and reported in the post-market submission.

Program budget line item

72. Project Funding:Program: Program 2 – Infrastructure for BrisbaneOutcome: 2.2 Parking ManagementStrategy: 2.2.1 Enhancing Parking ManagementService: 2.2.1.1 Enhancing Parking Management Project: Parking Management Solutions

73. Operational Funding:Program: Program 2 – Infrastructure for BrisbaneOutcome: 2.1 Roads and Transport Network ManagementStrategy: 2.1.4 Manage the Transport NetworkService: 2.1.4.1 Manage the Network

Program budget funding availability


- 49 -

74. Project Funding – Parking Management Solutions:

Financial year 2018-19($000)

2019-20($000)

2020-21($000)

2021-22($000)

Capital - - - -Expenses 17,588 11,770 6,094 3,823Revenue - - - -

75. Operational Funding:

Operating 2018-19($000)

Expenses 55,759Revenue 49,680

76. Breakdown of budget spent to date:

Budget for 2018-19 ($000)

Amount of budget for 2018-19 spent or committed to date

($000)

Amount of budget for 2018-19 remaining

($000)17,588 4,909 12,679

Procurement risk

77. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:

Procurement risk

Risk rating

Risk mitigation strategy Risk allocation

Limited RFP responses are received

Medium - Early market engagement to encourage wide range of vendors.

Council

Time to source and implement takes longer than expected

High - Transition out provisions in existing contracts will provide adequate coverage of any schedule delays.

Council

Probity challenges as the infringements space is high profile and commercially sensitive

Medium - Engage third party probity auditor to provide assurance.

- Early market engagement to communicate suitable information and allow competitive bids.

Council

78. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?No

Evaluation criteria

79. Mandatory/essential criteria:

Respondents not meeting the following criteria will not be considered.- Solution security capability must be considered to be acceptable within Council’s Corporate

Risk Framework.- The products/services and solution must be compliant with Payment Card Industry Data

Security Standard (PCI DSS) requirements as amended or updated from time to time (currently v3.2) and card brand (e.g. Visa and MasterCard) compliance validation requirements for Service Providers as amended or updated from time to time.

- The tenderer must provide evidence in the form of a PCI Qualified Security Assessment validating any products/services and solution components that the tenderer submits to be out-of-scope to PCI DSS compliance requirements.


- 50 -

- The solution provider and any third-party payment service providers must process all payments to Council via Council’s acquiring bank merchant facility and be a certified provider of Council’s acquiring bank merchant facility.

80. Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:

Weighted evaluation criteria Weighting(%)

Solutions Security [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Solution and service delivery [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Capability and implementation [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Experience and track record [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Legal and commercial factors [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Total: 100

81. Price model:The estimated whole-of-life cost based on a lump sum for project implementation, and a schedule of rates for the subscription to the solution as a service will be used in the determination of the value for money (VFM) index.

Evaluation methodology

82. Shortlisting process:The responses will be shortlisted in the following stages.- Stage 1 – screen all responses for preliminary compliance/conformance with the

mandatory/essential requirements.- Stage 2 – will evaluate responses against solution and service delivery and experience and

track record for each part of the RFP. The shortlist at this stage will be based on these selected non-price criteria only.

- Stage 3 – will shortlist responses based on a full evaluation against all remaining criteria and the resulting VFM for each part of the RFP. This stage will comprehensively evaluate the most advantageous potential combinations of responses for part A and part B to Council, inclusive of integration risks where applicable. The responses with the highest VFMs will proceed to negotiations.

- Stage 4 – will recommend a successful offeror or offerors as a result of negotiations.

83. VFM method:Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.

84. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

85. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE INFRINGEMENT PROCESSING AND ISSUING SOLUTION.

ADOPTED

D COORPAROO AND DISTRICTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN152/160/1218/17

330/2018-1986. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.


- 51 -

87. At its meeting of 3 November 2015, Council resolved to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan (the neighbourhood plan) and to make consequential amendments (the proposed amendment).

88. By letter dated 5 February 2016 (Attachment B, submitted on file), the then Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment confirmed the State interests to be addressed in the proposed amendment. By letter dated 20 February 2018 (Attachment C, submitted on file), the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister) responded to the first State interest review and approved commencement of public notification.

89. The proposed amendment has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending planning instruments (the Guideline) and is set out in Attachment D (submitted on file). The proposed amendment will guide future development in the neighbourhood plan area and advance the following objectives.- Planning for future growth nodes to provide for opportunities for growth in accordance with

the Strategic framework (Greenslopes, Greenslopes Mall and Holland Park centres).- Enhancing vibrancy around the centres and seeking improved public realm and built form

outcomes across the neighbourhood plan area.- Providing for housing diversity while continuing to protect valued character housing.- Integrating land use planning with existing and future public and active transport

infrastructure.

90. Public consultation on the proposed amendment was carried out from 16 April 2018 to 8 June 2018 in accordance with the requirements of the Guideline. Council received 421 submissions including 397 properly-made submissions (the submissions) which raised the following key issues.- Some supported, while others opposed, the proposed inclusion of properties in the Low

medium density residential zone with the removal of the Traditional building character overlay, or in the Character residential zone with the retention or addition of the Traditional building character overlay.

- Comments were made regarding protection of character through proposed rezonings and the removal of the existing Hillside character precinct.

- Concerns were raised about capacity of the transport network and the impact of additional dwellings on car parking.

- Concerns were expressed that including part of Stephens Mountain in the Emerging community zone would impact on the local environment and biodiversity values. Requests were made to include the site in the Conservation zone or the Open space zone.

- Concerns were raised that new development in and around the Greenslopes Private Hospital would impact on the local environment and character of adjacent residential areas.

- Site-specific requests were made for changes to the proposed amendment, including site specific zoning requests, requests to amend planning provisions for specific areas and requests for mapping amendments.

91. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including descriptions of how the matters have been addressed, has been prepared (Attachment E, submitted on file). Having considered the submissions, changes have been made to the proposed amendment. The changes do not make the proposed amendment significantly different to the version on which Council carried out public consultation.

92. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires that the Minister be provided with the summary of matters raised in the submissions and be asked to provide approval to adopt the proposed amendment.

93. Changes to align the proposed amendment with the Planning Act 2016 have been made, and the Minister has confirmed (Attachment C, submitted on file) that the proposed amendment is in a form consistent with the Planning Act 2016.

94. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

95. RECOMMENDATION:


- 52 -

THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE COORPAROO AND DISTRICTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

As:

(i) at its meeting of 3 November 2015, decided to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan and to make consequential amendments (the proposed amendment)

(ii) has undertaken public consultation on the proposed amendment,

then Council:

(i) pursuant to Steps 7.1 and 7.2 of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline), having considered the submissions on the proposed amendment, has prepared a summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including how the matters raised in the submissions have been dealt with (Attachment E, submitted on file), and has made changes to the proposed amendment (Attachment D, submitted on file), which are not considered to be significantly different to the version publicly consulted on

(ii) decides, pursuant to Step 7.5(b) of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, to proceed with the proposed amendment with changes

(iii) directs, pursuant to Step 7.2(c) of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that each person who made a properly-made submission about the proposed amendment be advised in writing about how their submission has been dealt with

(iv) directs, pursuant to Step 7.6 of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the Minister’s approval to adopt the proposed amendment be sought and that notice be given to the Minister in accordance with Step 7.7 of Stage 3 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline

(v) decides, pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 3.3.2 of the Guideline, to make the proposed amendment to planning scheme policies.

ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As always, there’s lots happening in the Public and Active Transport Committee portfolio. As the LORD MAYOR touched on, we last week committed to a new ferry terminal at Howard Smith Wharves. This is going to be an incredibly game changing precinct for the city and providing river transport options is a win for the community right across Brisbane that will be going to this precinct.

Most importantly, however, we’ve had a contribution towards this infrastructure from the Howard Smith Wharves group, and they will be putting in $3 million towards the terminal, which is a fantastic outcome for ratepayers. That’s


- 53 -

$3 million that the ratepayers do not have to fund. So it’s a good outcome and a great example of a partnership that this Council has with the different sections of the community, and in particular Brisbane businesses that are striving to help put Brisbane on the map and provide new and exciting precincts, new things to see and do, new leisure and lifestyle opportunities. It’s going to be a great outcome for the city.

Also last week we confirmed that our newest CityCat is under construction. For the first time we will see a double-decker CityCat, and that will be a great addition to the fleet. The CityCat is a similar length to the existing CityCats, but will see better use of the space inside, and more opportunities inside for people to have a bit more space. That will include a lounge inside the CityCat, so for the first time there will be a lounge provided. Councillor MURPHY, I can see you are interested in this.

There will be opportunities for people with a disability or parents with prams, and also people wanting to take on bikes. So we’re making sure that the new design has space for everyone, because those CityCats are definitely an icon of the city and something that, regardless of wherever you come from in the city, something that everyone appreciates. So whether you live in Carindale or right up on the northside, whether you’re close to the river or not, people do appreciate our CityCats and love our CityCats. I think this double-decker one will be probably the most loved CityCat when it enters the fleet.

It was interesting to see Labor’s response. All they could say was: ooh, you know, 20 years ago—no, more than 20 years ago, you guys voted against the CityCats. You hate the CityCats, neglecting to mention that Labor purchased eight CityCats; this Administration has put 13 CityCats on the river with another one under construction now. So making a total of 14 CityCats. So we have been, just like we’re the best friend of heritage and character in Brisbane, we are the best friend of the CityCats that the city has ever seen.


DEPUTY MAYOR: We have continually fully supported the CityCats and rolled out extra CityCats, extra CityCat terminals, and extra CityCat services. So Labor can try and claim that we don’t support them all they like; our record is very clear that we have consistently supported CityCats and rolled out expansions in the fleet, increased services, increased vessels, and new timetables, to make sure that we take advantage of our great river asset.

Madam Chairman, I also just wanted to mention that today I had the opportunity to test out an e-scooter provided by the company Lime, which is based in San Francisco. Lime is interested in setting up an e-scooter scheme here in Brisbane. They have been talking to the State Government and also to us at the Council level on how that could work. I have to say I’m impressed with their approach. When we had dockless bike share schemes come to Brisbane—and particularly given the issues that these dockless bike share schemes have had in other cities—they basically wanted to replicate what had already proven to be a failed model elsewhere, that had caused major community concern.

Lime, in our initial discussions, is taking a different approach. They want to work with Council, and they want to see what opportunities they can provide to fit in, for example, to our public transport network. So it could be a good opportunity to fill the first mile or last mile of public transport journeys. We know that the State Government’s park ‘n’ ride network is under massive pressure and not coping. So there could be some great opportunities for electric scooters to fit into that mix.

That’s what they’ve done in cities overseas, and there could be some good opportunities here, so we’re looking forward to working with Lime and other companies that offer similar products and services to see how we can add these into the mobility mix for our city. Obviously, they will require cooperation at the State Government level as well making sure that they are facilitated when it comes to State Government laws and regulations. Certainly, there's an


- 54 -

opportunity there and it's something that has had some initial success in cities around the world.

So looking forward to seeing what technology can offer and innovative companies like this can offer to our overall transport and mobility network. So we'll see—we'll watch that space and see how it applies to Brisbane. Obviously, we're interested in making sure that any potential impacts to the city are managed. One of the things that some cities have experienced with dockless bikes is the vandalism of those bikes and those bikes blocking footpaths and causing impacts to the community.

For example, the Lime scooter that I trialled today if it is knocked over or vandalised in any way, a silent alarm goes off so the company is immediately notified that that scooter has been knocked over or has been vandalised and they aim to get out there within 15 minutes to half an hour to pick up and retrieve that scooter.

There's also some great technology in the scooter, it's a handy piece of kit which includes a speedometer, like a speedo so you can tell exactly how fast you're going. So if there is a speed limit in place, you can stick to that speed limit. A problem that obviously would be an issue on certain parts of the bikeway network which have speed limits or the river crossing.

So Kurilpa Bridge is an example. There's a 10 kilometre an hour speed limit on Kurilpa Bridge. We were able to cross that bridge sticking to that speed limit because we could see exactly what speed we're going at. So it's an interesting opportunity for the city and one that we're keen to explore and as I said, there's opportunities to fit into that transport and mobility network.

As you can see, the presentation we had last week was changes to the Land Street Tunnel and Patrick Lane intersection. This is obviously based on feedback from the community we had whilst planning the Land Street Tunnel duplication obviously as we've announced that's not a project we're proceeding with.

We don't believe that that was going to represent value for money for the ratepayers. What we're doing now is introducing some low cost but what we believe will be effective measures to improve safety for all users whether you're a cyclist or a pedestrian to make sure that that section of the bikeway network is as safe as possible and can serve the city well going into the future.


Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just rise in regard to item A and to really echo the words of the DEPUTY MAYOR. It's a great outcome for the community generally through that area, Madam Chairman. It connects directly with Silvan Road which is one of our busiest inner-city bikeways. There was a lot of work that Council did previously around clear ways along Silvan Road in the peak hour in the am and the pm.

This addition will greatly support those traffic movements through there. That particular intersection has a left-hand turn into the carpark of the Wesley Hospital. So there are a number of people coming through there in the morning who are wanting to turn left even as staff or as patients of the Wesley to try and enter that carpark who because of the volume of cyclists through there obviously take great caution being able to make that left-hand turn.

The way that the lights are there currently don't reflect the ability or the flexibility of those drivers to make that turn safely. So this proposal that has been put forward by the branch will provide that outcome in regards to the interchange of lights providing a dedicated turn for motorists to that left-hand lane while at the same time—while at that appropriate interchange provide that green light for cyclists to be able to clearly go through which increases the level of safety for cyclists passing through there as well.

As the DEPUTY MAYOR said, this improvement also extends to the Land Street Tunnel, the existing tunnel and the feedback that I received from a number of residents as pedestrians—as elderly pedestrians because there are a


- 55 -

lot of retirees living there—is that the signage improvements that we're putting in there will actually provide the kind of outcome that they were ultimately seeking. Which is to slow down these cyclists through the tunnel, to provide that awareness that there are also pedestrians there.

I really want to acknowledge the work of the officers in the work—in what they're doing there. They're applying some very unique technology to provide that level of awareness for cyclists approaching the Land Street Tunnel to know that there are actually pedestrians in there. I think that's going to go a long way to being able to address those issues. This work also incorporates some improved signage and sight lines for pedestrians and cyclists around the location of the previous Drift Restaurant.

Overall, it's a really great outcome for cyclists and pedestrians in there in a manner that is affordable and practical ultimately for everyone, so thank you.


DEPUTY MAYOR?

I'll now put the report.

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.


ATTENDANCE:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Kara Cook.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PATRICK LANE INTERSECTION UPGRADE AND LAND STREET UNDERPASS SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

331/2018-191. Graham Nell, Program Director, Civil and Transport, Project Management, City Projects Office,

Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Patrick Lane intersection upgrade and Land Street underpass safety improvements projects (the projects). He provided the information below.

2. The objective of the projects is to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians at the Patrick Lane and Land Street intersection, and in the Land Street underpass. Improvements are being undertaken to remove conflicts and improve safety for motorists and cyclists travelling inbound on Land Street, towards the Wesley Hospital and the Bicentennial Bikeway. Safety improvements are being undertaken to improve user safety and minimise the risk of pedestrian and cyclist conflicts in the Land Street underpass.

3. Images of the projects and the project design were shared with the Committee.

4. The project scope for the Patrick Lane intersection includes the following.- Reconfiguring the two inbound traffic lanes on Land Street to provide a dedicated left-turn

and through traffic lane (the dedicated right-turn lane will remain).- Provision of green pavement treatment and raised yellow separators along 30 metres of the

inbound lane, on-road bicycle lane, to separate cyclists and improve safety.- Installation of a dedicated bicycle traffic light to provide time for inbound cyclists to move

through the intersection at the same time as the through traffic lane.- Traffic signal phasing at the intersection will be changed to provide a dedicated left-turn and

through movement phases for cyclists and road users.


- 56 -

5. The project scope for the Land Street underpass includes the following.- New line marking on approaches to and inside the Land Street underpass for better awareness

of the shared zone for cyclists and pedestrians.- Installation of a digital monitoring system and electronic signage to notify approaching

cyclists of pedestrians in the tunnel.- Installation of a digital monitoring system and electronic signage to notify cyclists travelling

at speed to slow down prior to entering the tunnel.- Upgrading lighting inside the tunnel to improve visibility and safety for all users.

6. The projects are expected to be delivered concurrently to ensure efficiencies in construction, minimising disruption to the community.

7. The project design is expected to be completed by December 2018 and construction is programmed to commence in early 2019 and be completed by mid-2019.

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Nell for his informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.ADOPTED

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chair, we had a presentation on the Brisbane International Cruise Ship Terminal last week at Committee, so this meeting seems to be all about the cruise ship terminal. So there was a lot of information that was provided to the Committee and we talked about the fact that it's a 50:50 joint funding partnership between Council and the Port of Brisbane.

We talked about the fact that the net economic output of our cruise industry in 2015-16 was almost $2.9 billion including over $1.7 billion of direct expenditure. So if you think that Brisbane is Australia's second most visited cruise port after Sydney with over 148 ships docking each year and $345 million direct expenditure, Brisbane operates as both a base port and as well as a day call port.

So significant benefits to our city and we're seeing cruise liners that are exceeding the 270 metres long so we're seeing the Fisherman Island Grain Terminal being used for those vessels. So this will be an opportunity for the larger vessels and it seemed quite clear that the new vessels are all being constructed that are over the 270 metres in length. So this will be a 200 metre wharf with 450 metres berth pocket to accommodate the world's largest cruise ship.

It will be I think a fantastic new facility that will be able to benefit the whole community. What we are doing with the upgrade is we are particularly focusing on a number of sections of road that lead to the cruise ship terminal to make sure that we can widen those narrow sections to improve safety, raise the levels in certain locations. We need to relocate utilities, we need to resurface and we need to future-proof for future signalisation.

Of course, we'll be providing information to the local community as part of the work that we are undertaking. So that is well underway and certainly was the subject of great discussion at Committee last week and I thank the Committee for their discussions—their very well informed discussions last week.


- 57 -

Just a little bit of an update, I think there was a question put to the LORD MAYOR about Riverwalk just to provide some response to that enquiry to the LORD MAYOR. We have undertaken repairs on the surface of one panel on the Riverwalk at New Farm.

So while the cracking was on the cyclist side of the Riverwalk, both the pedestrian and cyclist access was maintained while that work was undertaken. As this Chamber knows very well, since the flood in 2011, we undertook to replace the floating Riverwalk which was very costly in terms of ongoing maintenance responsibility with a fixed Riverwalk. The works were finalised in 2014.

At the end of last month this cracking was noted and on Friday there were officers that had poured concrete onto the one panel that was determined to have an issue. We undertook this work at night to minimise the impact on the local community and notified the surrounding residents before the work. The work has been completed, so 6 November the work was finalised and fencing was removed.

In terms of who is paying for the repairs—that was, I think, the query of Councillor CUMMING last week—these repairs are covered under the settlement deed for the defects liability period. So the ratepayers will not be paying for the repairs. The cracking is to the surface of one panel of the Riverwalk and there is no impact to the structure or the safety of Riverwalk.

So this is a very important facility that many Brisbane residents very much love. It will be now fully open and available for everybody to enjoy the lifestyle and leisure opportunities it presents and of course will once again showcase the natural assets of the wonderful Brisbane River. Thank you, Madam Chairman.


Councillor MARX.

Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman, and I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Committee presentation that we had last week, in particular, the cruise terminal. I know it's sparked a bit of controversy here in today's Chambers about its construction, but I want to highlight for a particular group of community who will be more than delighted that there's a new cruise terminal being constructed in Brisbane, and that's the community who craft.

There are thousands and thousands of women out there, including myself, when time permits who undertake as a hobby crafting, whether that's scrapbooking or card making. Up until now, we've never been able to participate in any of the cruises because as Councillor STRUNK has mentioned, they all leave from Sydney.

In particular, there's one—there's a very famous lady in that particular industry, Melissa Kennedy who runs Unmistakable Creations, and I've been very anxious to go on one of her scrapbooking cruises that are only three days—they go in and out. Unfortunately, like I say, because they go from Sydney, I've never had the opportunity. So I'm more than happy that this cruise ship terminal is being built and I will be able to partake in one of these one weekend one day in the future.

I actually took my first cruise back in 1995 back in the day when they cost thousands of dollars. I didn't have any children at that stage because you couldn't afford to cruise with a family at that point in time. To show how much cruising has come on from those days, cruising is now a very affordable holiday particularly for families.

I know many people who just cruise endlessly and they do the same cruise year in and year out. That doesn't exactly float my boat so to speak but that's what some people love. I know pensioners particularly they love it. You get on a cruise ship, you unpack once, and all your food is all included in your prices. Sometimes they have ones where all your alcohol is included. I don't necessarily worry about that.


- 58 -

You can do as little or as much as you like on a cruise. I think it's a very affordable holiday now for families. If you've got children, you can send them off to the children's club and you don't have to see them again, but you do have to collect them at the end of the cruise apparently, it's one of the rules.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SRI: Will Councillor MARX take a question?

Chairman: Councillor MARX, would you take a question?

Councillor MARX: Okay, go on, you dare me to. Alright.

Councillor SRI: Are you being paid by the—

Chairman: Through the Chair. Through the Chair.

Councillor SRI: —through you, Madam Chairman. Are you being paid by the cruising district to promote cruises?

Councillor MARX: No, I have not. No. I want to mention also when we talked about numbers, you know some of these cruise ships take 5,000 passengers right and they employ upwards of 4,000 employees. So if we stop these cruise ships, you're talking like thousands and thousands of people. Royal Caribbean alone employ 223,000 people across the world—that's one cruise company. So yes, that's just a whole lot of jobs gone.

So I think if we're going to worry about the environment, I think we need to make sure that QUU keep their work site under control because you know what they pump through down there. I did mention that word in Committee and I was scolded so I won't say it again here in Chambers. We all know what QUU deal with. Probably a bit like in here really, isn't it?

So on that note, I just want to say congratulations to Councillor COOPER as the Chair of Infrastructure and the Council officers who have done so much work in this space and I look forward to the day that I can get in my car, drive out to the cruise terminal and have a three day weekend cruising the ocean. Not that I see anything but just a whole lot of craft and have a wonderful weekend. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly, Madam Chairman. I thank the LORD MAYOR for just drawing to my attention that the Queensland State Government had sold down but not completely sold their interest in the Port of Brisbane Corporation. He left that out. QIC (Queensland Investment Corporation) are still an investor—one of the owners of the Port of Brisbane but that led me to have a little look at who else owns the Port of Brisbane now and it's even worse what we're doing in my view.

We are subsidising huge multinational corporations who are having dedicated infrastructure built for them at ratepayers' expense. There's a French company, I can't pronounce that, something ‘du Québec’, IFM Investors and Tawreed Investments, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. Why on earth are ratepayers' dollars being used to subsidise foreign owned corporation? Appalling.


Councillor COOPER?

I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.



- 59 -

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Kim Marx and Andrew Wines.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL UPDATE

332/2018-191. Lindsay Enright, Strategic Planning Manager, Major Projects Planning, Transport Planning and

Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Brisbane International Cruise Ship Terminal. He provided the information below.

2. The net economic output of Australia’s cruise industry in 2015-16 was almost $2.9 billion, including more than $1.7 billion direct expenditure. Brisbane is Australia’s second most visited cruise port after Sydney, with over 148 ships docking each year and $345 million direct expenditure. Brisbane operates as both a base port and a day call port. Base port operations include the servicing, maintenance and restocking of ships.

3. Cruise ships in Brisbane currently dock at Brisbane Portside Wharf and Fisherman Island Grain Terminal. Cruise liners of up to 270 metres in length dock at Brisbane Portside Wharf and cruise liners over 270 metres in length dock at Fisherman Island Grain Terminal.

4. The Brisbane cruise industry is moving to larger cruise liners (generally over 270 metres in length) and increased numbers of trips.

5. Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd is delivering a new dedicated cruise facility at Luggage Point. The $158 million facility will include a 200 metre wharf with a 450 metre berth pocket to accommodate the world’s largest cruise ships. The facility will also include a 10,000 square metre multi-level facility and designated areas for cargo, buses, taxis and cars. Additionally, the facility will support an average of 245 jobs during each year of construction and bring significant economic and tourism benefits to South East Queensland.

6. Site works for the Brisbane International Cruise Terminal (the terminal) commenced in November 2017, with stage 1 surcharge established in early 2018. The site is now consolidating as part of ground improvement works and will be left for up to 12 months. From September to December 2018, site work activities will include engineering and design of the wharf and terminal building; awarding of tenders for the wharf and terminal; and further site preparations.

7. Land access will be available via Council’s local road network. Council and Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd are equally funding the upgrade to a number of sections of road between Main Myrtletown Road and Marine Road, Pinkenba. The delivery of the road upgrades will coincide with the opening of the terminal in 2020.

8. Local road improvements will also include widening sections of the road to provide for increased traffic movements; re-alignment and upgrading of a number of bends and intersections to improve road safety; and raising parts of the road network to improve flood immunity. The Committee was shown screenshots of the concept designs.

9. To date, Council has completed investigation works to inform the design, including the location of services, and geotechnical and topographical surveys. Council will keep the community informed about the local road improvements project and meet regularly with Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd to ensure the design and constructions programs align.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Enright for his informative presentation.


- 60 -

11. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO GREENWOOD STREET, WISHART, AS PART OF THE SUBURBAN CORRIDOR MODERNISATION OF KAVANAGH ROADCA18/857252

333/2018-1912. A petition from residents, objecting to the proposed changes to Greenwood Street, Wishart, as part of

the Suburban Corridor Modernisation of Kavanagh Road, was received during the Spring Recess 2018.

13. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

14. The petition contains 13 signatures.

15. The petitioners believe that the installation of a pedestrian refuge on Greenwood Street near its intersection with Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road will not improve safety for pedestrians or motorists and are not aware of any recorded incidents. The petitioners are also opposed to the loss of parking due to the yellow lines which are required to accompany the device and feel the funding allocated could be better spent in other areas of Wishart.

16. Greenwood Street has a 50 km/h speed limit and is considered to be a district access road under Council’s road hierarchy facilitating the movement of people and goods within the area. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

17. Greenwood Street forms part of a proposed corridor enhancement project along both Greenwood Street and Kavanagh Road. The project is funded through the Suburban Corridor Modernisation program and has allocated funding of $497,000 for design, consultation and construction in Council’s 2018-19 budget. The project scope aims to modernise the corridor by bringing it up to current Queensland and Australian road design and safety standards. Proposed works include:- installing new pedestrian crossing facilities near bus stops and other facilities which would

benefit from a safer crossing point- reviewing all intersecting streets through the corridor and incorporating splitter islands to

reduce corner cutting and supporting pedestrian crossing safety for those walking along the corridor

- enhanced pavement parking (such as edge and centre lines) for improved driver guidance.

18. The petitioners’ feedback about the benefits of the proposed device has been noted. The device highlighted by the petitioners as a ‘splitter island’ is actually a pedestrian refuge island which provides a safe point for pedestrians to cross only one lane of traffic at a time.

19. As part of the project, community consultation was undertaken in September 2018 with all residents who are directly adjacent to a proposed treatment. The consultation period closed on 21 September 2018 and all feedback, including this petition, is being reviewed by Council.

20. Once the analysis has been completed, Council will respond to all the comments raised with a view to providing the best outcome for the community in consultation with Councillor Steven Huang, the Councillor for MacGregor Ward.

Funding

21. Funding for the proposed works is available in 2.1.2.2 Improve Local Transport Networks.

Consultation

22. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.


- 61 -

Customer impact

23. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

24. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

25. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.

Attachment ADraft response

Petition Reference: CA18/857252

Thank you for your petition objecting to the proposed changes to Greenwood Street, Wishart, as part of the Suburban Corridor Modernisation of Kavanagh Road.

Greenwood Street forms part of a proposed corridor enhancement project along both Greenwood Street and Kavanagh Road. The project is funded through the Suburban Corridor Modernisation program and has allocated funding of $497,000 for design, consultation and construction in Council’s 2018-19 budget. The project scope aims to modernise the corridor by bringing it up to current Queensland and Australian road design and safety standards. Proposed works include:- installing new pedestrian crossing facilities near bus stops and other facilities which would

benefit from a safer crossing point- reviewing all intersecting streets through the corridor and incorporating splitter islands to

reduce corner cutting and supporting pedestrian crossing safety for those walking along the corridor

- enhanced pavement parking (such as edge and centre lines) for improved driver guidance.

Your feedback about the benefits of the proposed device has been noted. The device highlighted by the petitioners as a ‘splitter island’ is actually a pedestrian refuge island which provides a safe point for pedestrians to cross only one lane of traffic at a time.

As part of the project, community consultation was undertaken in September 2018 with all residents who are directly adjacent to a proposed treatment. The consultation period closed on 21 September 2018 and all feedback, including this petition, is being reviewed by Council.

Once the analysis has been completed, Council will respond to all the comments raised with a view to providing the best outcome for the community in consultation with, Councillor Steven Huang, the Councillor for MacGregor Ward.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Damian Soper, Project Officer, Programs, Projects and Schedules, Transport Planning and Programs, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 6189.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING TRAFFIC CALMING SPEED HUMPS ON REDWOOD STREET, STAFFORD HEIGHTSCA18/870776

334/2018-1926. A petition from residents, requesting traffic calming speed humps on Redwood Street, Stafford

Heights, was received during the Spring Recess 2018.


- 62 -

27. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

28. The petition contains 34 signatures. Of the petitioners, 23 live on Redwood Street, two live in other streets within Stafford Heights, eight live in other suburbs and one lives outside the City of Brisbane.

29. The petitioners suggest there is a large number of vehicles speeding on Redwood Street, Stafford Heights. The petitioners are requesting the installation of traffic calming speed humps throughout Redwood Street between Stafford Heights State School and Appleby Road.

30. Redwood Street has a 50 km/h speed limit and is considered to be a district access road under Council’s road hierarchy. District access roads facilitate the movement of people and goods within and through suburbs, including bus and heavy vehicle usage. There are six Council bus routes operating along Redwood Street. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

31. Redwood Street is typically straight in horizontal alignment, although has a number of crests and dips due to the undulating geography of the area. A 40 km/h school zone is in place for some 600 metres of Redwood Street’s length, along the frontage of Stafford Heights State School.

32. Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed platforms and chicanes to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. Traffic calming treatments are generally applied to local and neighbourhood access roads, which primarily provide access to dwellings, residential buildings and other local streets with limited traffic movements. Traffic calming devices, which inherently impact on the efficient movement of people and goods, are unsuitable for district access roads. Traffic calming treatments on district access roads could also create broader problems by diverting traffic to the wider local traffic network.

33. In addition to the above, as Redwood Street is a bus route, the installation of devices such as speed platforms would not be supported. These modifications can have impacts on public transport due to buses potentially bottoming out on speed platforms and the physical impacts on operators and passengers, as well as the amenity impacts to nearby residents due to the noise generated by buses crossing the platforms.

34. For these reasons, the petitioners’ request for traffic calming on Redwood Street is unable to be supported at this time.

35. The petitioners’ feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. To promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on suburban roads, Council has implemented the Speed Awareness Monitors (SAM) program. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013.

36. To that end, it must be noted that Council has installed a SAM on Redwood Street facing eastbound traffic along the frontage of Stafford Heights State School.

37. In addition to the eastbound site, a future SAM site facing westbound traffic is currently listed for implementation during this financial year. While an exact location and timeframe are still being determined, once implemented, it is anticipated that the presence of these SAMs will have a positive impact on driver behaviour and result in reduced vehicle speeds in Redwood Street.

38. However, as speeding is primarily a behavioural issue, it is best handled by enforcement of the Queensland road rules by the Queensland Police Service (Police). Speeding vehicle complaints are able to be mitigated by regular enforcement by the Police and they can be contacted on 13 HOON (13 46 66).

Consultation

39. Councillor Norm Wyndham, Councillor for McDowall Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.


- 63 -

Customer impact

40. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

41. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

42. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.

Attachment ADraft response

Petition Reference: CA18/870776

Thank you for your petition requesting traffic calming speed humps on Redwood Street, Stafford Heights.

Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed platforms and chicanes to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. Traffic calming treatments are generally applied to local and neighbourhood access roads, which primarily provide access to dwellings, residential buildings and other local streets with limited traffic movements. Traffic calming devices, which inherently impact on the efficient movement of people and goods, are unsuitable for district access roads. Traffic calming treatments on district access roads could also create broader problems by diverting traffic to the wider local traffic network.

In addition to the above, as Redwood Street is a bus route, the installation of devices such as speed platforms would not be supported. These modifications can have impacts on public transport due to buses potentially bottoming out on speed platforms and the physical impacts on operators and passengers, as well as the amenity impacts to nearby residents due to the noise generated by buses crossing the platforms.

For these reasons, your request for traffic calming on Redwood Street is unable to be supported at this time.

Your feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. To promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on suburban roads, Council has implemented the Speed Awareness Monitors (SAM) program. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013.

To that end, it must be noted that Council has installed a SAM on Redwood Street facing eastbound traffic along the frontage of Stafford Heights State School.

In addition to the eastbound site, a future SAM site facing westbound traffic is currently listed for implementation during this financial year. While an exact location and timeframe are still being determined, once implemented, it is anticipated that the presence of these SAMs will have a positive impact on driver behaviour and result in reduced vehicle speeds in Redwood Street.

However, as speeding is primarily a behavioural issue, it is best handled by enforcement of the Queensland road rules by the Queensland Police Service (Police). Speeding vehicle complaints are able to be mitigated by regular enforcement by the Police and they can be contacted on 13 HOON (13 46 66).

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.


- 64 -

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Lucas Stewart, Senior Transport Network Officer, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 0220.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.


Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just three items on the agenda at the Committee last week. There are two petitions which I'm happy to leave to debate in the Chamber and the first item was a development application at 163 and 165 Richmond Road, Morningside for a childcare centre. So this application was for a material change of use and was lodged on 29 November 2017, and properly made on 5 December 2017. The application is lodged over a Low density residential site and it's located within the River gateway neighbourhood plan.

The proposal that was part of that application was for a childcare centre accommodating a maximum of 86 children with hours of operation from 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday. The centre is two storeys in height and under the 9.5 metre limit. It includes 17 car parks, Madam Chairman, that are accessed via a left-in left-out driveway on Richmond Road with no vehicular access off Asquith Street.

The impact, Madam Chairman—sorry the application was Impact assessable and there was 39 properly made submissions, 20 objections and 19 in support, Madam Chairman. The application was considered by the Committee last week and we approved it with the associated package of conditions, Madam Chairman and I commend the application to the Council Chamber.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on item C, the Graceville Fiveways SCIP (Suburban Centre Improvement Project)—sorry Village Precinct Project petition. I've just read the report this week and noticed that the Seven Hills Project—and good on Councillor COOK—is getting $40,000 for a future investigation into a Village Precinct Project.

Now I don't know why there is now a triple standard going on in relation to these projects. Firstly, LNP wards just get picked no matter what. Then when other Councillors lobby and petition on behalf of their communities, some Councillors are given funding and others, including this one, Council just wrote back to me and said no.

So let me be clear, the recommendation that came back to me a few weeks ago was no, we're not going to do it. Now this is an incredibly old, degraded area of shopping centres with an extremely busy intersection and this Council just said no, they wouldn't do it. Now I went back to Council and said that's not good enough. Why is it not even being listed? This Council eventually came back to me and said they'd consider it. They didn't send me the recommendation, I wanted to see it.

Now I see—now I see that other wards are being given money to start the planning process. This is the worst kind of governance. It lacks transparency, it lacks fairness. The fact that you will not undertake a proper review of which areas need to have these precincts done is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.


- 65 -

Now I've made a mistake here and I'm happy to put it on the record. What I should have done when the pathetic Planning Chairperson over there sent the recommendation to me saying no, we don't support it, I just should have said I don't support the recommendation. Instead, I thought I was doing the right thing here, and yet they're still not even prepared to put in a little bit of money to start the planning for this in the future. Shame on you.

It is disgraceful. Disgraceful that you are refusing to invest money in an area that is in desperate need of an upgrade. The footpaths are so old you can't walk on them. There are cars everywhere. It's such a hard space—there's one little tree basically which we had to fight for over six months to get replanted when it died.

I mean it's just shameful the way that this Administration neglects older shopping precincts around my ward. Annerley's been on the list for as long as I've been here. This area has been on my request for a SCIP forever and a day. I mean, Councillor COOPER, when this came up for the SCIP when she was Planning Chairperson, didn't even tell me until the day before the meeting with the traders was on that she was doing the SCIP in my area. They didn't even tell me.

This Administration have a shocking track record when it comes to supporting the community in my area and god help you when you put some Young Liberal out into the field in Tennyson Ward at the next election because I will be making sure that my community knows, knows that you people have said no to every significant safety and amenity improvement that's been requested in my ward for the past decade.


Councillor BOURKE—Councillor COOK.

Councillor COOK: Sorry, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to speak in relation to item A and item B. The development application for the childcare centre at Richmond Road, Morningside and the petition requesting The Corso, Seven Hills be included as part of the Village Precinct Projects Initiative for 2018-19.

Seriatim - Clauses A and BCouncillor Kara COOK requested that Clause A, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER THE PLANNING ACT 2016 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 163-165 RICHMOND ROAD, MORNINGSIDE; and Clause B, PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT THE CORSO, SEVEN HILLS, BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19; be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor COOK: So in relation to item A, the Richmond Road childcare centre application, Madam Chair, this application was first brought to my attention in the early days of my election as the Councillor for Morningside and I was very clear publicly in relation to my concerns regarding this development.

On 2 March, I sent an email to the DA (Development Assessment) team that I did not support the access to the site via Asquith Street as both myself and local residents felt that it would result in the introduction of non-local traffic into Asquith Street which is a minor neighbourhood road comprised primarily of residential dwellings.

I was also concerned about the proposed design for the development and its impact on the safety of the road network. I also held a community meeting with local residents who had mixed views about the appropriateness of the site for the childcare centre. This is reflected in the variety of public submissions on this development application. From memory it was 20 against and 19 in favour.

So I just want to be very clear about my position today, this land is low density residential land. I think most people in this Chamber are aware of my very clear support for low density residential land remaining just that, land for low density residential use. There does remain community concern over the traffic and


- 66 -

safety implications of this development even with the entrance now relocated to Richmond Road.

I have, just a matter of weeks ago, actually received additional data from Council officers to provide to the community to address some of the concerns they have raised with me. It does remain the view of many locals who particularly live in Asquith Street that the development will create an unreasonable traffic problem and detrimentally affect the efficiency of the road network. So today, we won't be supporting this development application and we will be supporting those residents who have objected to the DA.

I think there was—I wasn't here unfortunately last week, Madam Chairman, I had a death in my family—but I understand that at a Committee level there might have been some discussion about an email sent from my office that indicated support. I just want to also put on the record that I did contact Council officers once I became aware of that email and that email was sent in error. So I just want to put that on the record today to make sure that my views are clear.

In relation to item B, the petition in relation to The Corso being included as part of the Village Precinct Projects for 2018-19, again I guess my views are probably pretty clear on this matter but we will be supporting this item today but the support is somewhat qualified.

Madam Chairman, it is qualified for the following reasons. Here we have a petition with almost 450 signatures supporting the inclusion of The Corso as part of the Village Precinct Project. This is in addition to the petitions that were presented in October 2011 and August 2014. This is also in addition to this LORD MAYOR grandstanding around Morningside during the by-election how he would deliver for the people in my ward—he did not—he didn't do anything about this.

It is qualified because although we want to see this project designed and delivered, this is a half-hearted attempt to keep my residents quiet because the Administration quite simply knows they have stuffed up. We just a couple of months ago saw a project approved in Councillor WINES' ward of Enoggera with a petition of only 141 signatures.

That wasn't for planning, Madam Chairman, that was for the full project to be planned, designed and delivered in this financial year. That project was also getting an on-site kiosk from memory to provide the local community an opportunity to provide feedback. I hope to see a similar kiosk set up on The Corso in the coming months. I'm not sure if those kiosks are only reserved by LNP wards or not but I'd like to see one at The Corso.

Madam Chair, in this financial year, Village Precinct Projects has had over $5 million available in this current financial year. I feel like this LNP Administration have looked almost everywhere except Morningside to invest those funds. The LORD MAYOR has stood in this place time and time again and failed to honour his commitment to my residents.

He told us a matter of months ago that his candidate didn't win so it was just too bad for my residents who have been waiting since 2007, over 10 years, signed multiple petitions, they had very strong advocacy by the former Councillor for Morningside and it has strong local support. Madam Chair, I've written to the LORD MAYOR and Councillor BOURKE on this issue including the need to formalise the carpark on D’Arcy Road as part of the planning and design for the village precinct.

Councillor BOURKE has said he won't be including the carpark which in my view and the view of the locals in that area and the businesses in that area, we believe would improve the amenity of the area. So they feel that that's a further slap in the face after this debacle with The Corso.

So, Madam Chairman, it appears that this LORD MAYOR and this Administration is incapable of taking the politics out of their decision making and treating Seven Hills and the Morningside Ward equally. This LORD MAYOR cannot be trusted to keep his word. I'm not going to hold my


- 67 -

breath to see this project actually delivered because today we are only seeing a commitment to plan and design this project. My residents know what to expect from this Administration and quite simply that's nothing.


Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to address some of the points that have been raised by some of the Councillors. I think it’s really ironic and a bit hypocritical that on a day when the Australian Labor Party destroyed the common unity in the Local Government Association for political gain, Madam Chairman, to have a lecture about politicising a local issue from one of the Australian Labor Party Councillors.

You’ve got to remember that this is the same day that they’re trying to criticise the Councillors on this side for not being able to do their job, the same time they’re putting multiple positions forward on a DA in their ward going: it was just an error.

Well it was just an error, Madam Chairman, because it was quite a detailed email response that came back from Councillor COOK’s office. If it was just an error, you know—sure you might just get a ‘I now support’ email like just one line going: I support the development application, but no and I’ll read into the record because I think it’s important. I think it’s important that we—


Madam Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, given this relates to a Council officer and you have been very clear in the past we are not allowed to adversely mention Council officers, I would draw your attention to the fact that Councillor BOURKE is actually attacking a Council officer for his email.

Chairman: Order! Order!

Councillor BOURKE is referring to an email that has come from a ward office. Councillor BOURKE, I remind you that if it is in any way breaching any parliamentary privilege for you to consider that. If it is in relation to specifics relating to a submission and not reflecting a Council officer’s position, then just proceed with caution.

Councillor BOURKE: I will, Madam Chairman, because first—

Councillor COOK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor COOK.

Councillor COOK: The email signature on this email is from a Council officer employed by Brisbane City Council in my ward office.


Chairman: Order!

I don’t need commentary from anyone thank you.

Councillor BOURKE, I have not seen the email. I do not know what is contained in it. I ask you to proceed with caution.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So the first eight words will clear this up for everyone because the first eight words are: ‘please see below a revised Councillor comment by Councillor Kara COOK in response to the revised proposed plans regarding development application A004803435 at 163 Richmond Road, Richmond.’

So these are revised Councillor comments by Councillor Kara COOK and it goes on to say: ‘I support the proposed application’—

Councillor COOK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor COOK.


- 68 -

Councillor COOK: Councillor BOURKE is misleading the Chamber. This email has been withdrawn from the record by my office as it was sent in error. I’ve made that clear.

Chairman: Councillor COOK, Councillor BOURKE, as the Chair of Planning, is making this decision. If he is tabling this document, if it is part of the Council record in relation to this submission—and you have acknowledged that it has been withdrawn—sorry, that you have sent a further email since that was sent, so you have placed that on the record—so Councillor BOURKE is referring to the Councillor comments in relation to this. You have made some comments in the Chamber that also relate to your position. I will allow Councillor BOURKE to proceed but I do ask you to proceed with caution Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much for your protection, Madam Chairman, because this clearly outlines—and it goes on to say that the developers engaged effectively with the community and responded to their concerns. It’s on the record. It’s a Council file. It’s part of the documentation that’s there.

So, yes, the Councillor then changed her position and said that she no longer supported the recommendation that this be approved, but that’s on the file. It’s on the file and it’s there for people to see, Madam Chairman.

Just turning to a couple of other items that were raised. This notion that—one in Council before that no money’s ever spent in their ward and then in her own argument immediately afterwards said: and no one told me when you spent $3 million just up the road in my ward—just blows that whole argument out of the water—


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor BOURKE: —didn’t mention the Councillor by name.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor BOURKE: —didn’t mention anyone by name, but it blows that—

Chairman: Councillor—

Councillor BOURKE: —it blows that argument out of the water, Madam Chairman, when it comes to the argument that nothing ever gets spent in my ward.

Then on the issue of The Corso, this is no secret that we’re spending $40,000 doing a detailed design of The Corso. It was part of the Committee presentation that came through to this place where we outlined not only the projects we’re delivering this year, but the projects we’re designing for next year.

These projects don’t just magically happen. There is work that needs to be done. The Council officers, as part of that presentation, went through the selection criteria—what works are identified as part of these, what they look at when they are assessing sites and, also the point, that they needed for this year as the first year, because the money was only announced in this year’s Budget in June—needed to look for sites that were easy to do, that weren’t complex and didn’t require large amounts of design.

That’s why some sites, Madam Chairman, are being designed this year for next year. So that we’re able to deliver those for the following year and it’s how Council runs programs. We build a project while we’re designing future projects. That is the way that this organisation works. Not just in Village Precinct Projects but in a range of the programs. When I was Parks’ Chair, when I’ve been Lifestyle Chairman, we’re always forward planning for the projects we’re doing into the future.

So it isn’t some shock new announcement that $40,000 has been given to The Corso because that’s been talked about in this place for months. For at least the last six to eight weeks since that announcement came out that we were going to


- 69 -

do The Corso, we were going to Inala and various other sites across the city for investigation and for detailed design, as well as the ones that we’re delivering.

So I just want to make sure that the record’s right because a lot of things get said in this place, Madam Chairman, by some Councillors that aren’t 100% correct. Another one of those is this furphy that the change to the recommendation was never put back past the Councillor for the Graceville site. There was—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON you don’t just rise and just yell into your microphone.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Apologies.






Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Hansard’s a wonderful thing and when we go back and read it we’ll see that there was a claim that the change to the recommendation was never put back to the Councillor. So the Councillor got asked on 17 October whether or not she supported the recommendation. She came back and asked: ‘is Council not even going to list the project or are the funds fully allocated?’

The Council officers went back—that was on 17th—Council officers went back on 22nd, so Wednesday—they came back on the Monday and said we confirm that we will put it onto our list of sites for consideration in future projects. The Councillor came back and said: ‘can you put that in the recommendation’, which the Council officers did on 24 October, Madam Chairman, and Councillor JOHNSTON provided her support on 31 October to the changed recommendation. The email trail is there, so any notion that she wasn’t consulted on the change recommendation, as Hansard will show, is not correct.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your two points of misrepresentation please.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. On the first point of misrepresentation, Councillor BOURKE claimed that I said no money was ever spent in my ward and then referred to me—referring to $3 million being spent in Graceville. That’s not what I said, Madam Chairman. All of my debate today has been about the hypocrisy of the Administration in failing to transparently and fairly fund these village precinct projects.

On the second point of misrepresentation, Councillor BOURKE claimed that I said that the change recommendation has never been put back past me. That’s not been my point and that is not what I said. My point has been that this Council has treated each area differently and that when they gave me the recommendation in the first place they simply said no. There was no other option at that time. So he’s deliberately misrepresented me.

Chairman: I will now put the report, item A.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the City Planning Committee was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Kara COOK and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 17 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD,


- 70 -

Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 6 - Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

Chairman: I will now put item B.

Clause B put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the City Planning Committee was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put item C.

Clause C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the City Planning Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Ryan Murphy (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Jared Cassidy, Steven Huang and Jonathan Sri.

A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER THE PLANNING ACT 2016 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 163-165 RICHMOND ROAD, MORNINGSIDE

335/2018-191. The Team Manager, Planning Services East, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability,

reports that Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd, on behalf of Kaleidoscope Property Holdings No 2 Pty Ltd, submitted a development application on 29 November 2017. The application was properly made on 5 December 2017.

Development aspects: Material change of use – Development PermitGeneral description of proposal: Childcare centreLand in the ownership of: Thomas Edward Smith and Mark Robert CooperAddress of the site: 163-165 Richmond Road, MorningsideDescribed as: Lot 1 on RP66253

Lot 2 on RP66253Containing an area of: 1,318 square metres

2. This Impact assessable application is over land currently included in the Low density residential zone under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). The site is located within the River gateway neighbourhood plan.

3. The site has a dual frontage to Asquith Street and Richmond Road, Morningside. The site adjoins a Neighbourhood centre located to the west.

4. The site currently contains two detached dwelling houses. The closest residential use adjoins the site to the south at 5 Asquith Street, Morningside.

5. The proposal is for a childcare centre, as outlined below:- accommodating 86 children - includes five activity rooms over two levels - two storeys under 9.5 m in height - hours of operation to be 7 am – 7 pm


- 71 -

- acoustic fencing to all side boundaries- 2 m wide landscape buffer to the southern boundary- 199 m2 (15%) deep planting - site cover of 693 m2 (53%)- gross floor area (GFA) of 595 m2

- access via a 7 m wide Type C1 (left in, left out only) crossover from Richmond Road- 17 car parking spaces, including 11 staff, six visitor, one disabled and one van parking space.

6. The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant assessment benchmarks and it has been determined that it complies with the relevant provisions of City Plan.

7. In accordance with the Planning Act 2016, the proposal was subject to Impact assessment and public notification. Public notification was carried out between 9 February 2018 and 5 March 2018 in accordance with the Planning Act 2016. Thirty-nine properly made submissions were received during the public notification period. Twenty objections and 19 submissions supporting the development were received.

8. Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, does not support the proposal.

9. The Team Manager, Planning Services East, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, advises that relevant reports have been obtained to enable the assessment and the decision process prescribed by the Planning Act 2016, appropriately justifying the proposal and outlining reasonable and relevant conditions of the approval.

10. It is recommended that the application be presented to the City Planning Committee for a recommendation to Council for approval subject to the approved plans and conditions included in the attached Development Approval Package. The Committee agreed, with Councillors Jared Cassidy and Jonathan Sri dissenting.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

As:

(i) a properly made development application was made on 5 December 2017 to Council, pursuant to section 51 of the Planning Act 2016 as follows:

Development aspects: Material change of use – Development PermitGeneral description of proposal: Childcare centreLand in the ownership of: Thomas Edward Smith and Mark Robert CooperAddress of the site: 163-165 Richmond Road, MorningsideDescribed as: Lot 1 on RP66253

Lot 2 on RP66253Containing an area of: 1,318 square metres

(ii) Council is required to assess the application pursuant to Chapter 3, Part 1, section 45(5) of the Planning Act 2016 and decide the application under Chapter 3, Part 3, Division 2, section 60 of the Planning Act 2016,

then Council:

(i) upon consideration of the application and those matters set forth in section 60 of the Planning Act 2016 relevant to the application, Council considers that:

(a) the site is within the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland Regional Plan, and the use is consistent with an Urban Activity

(b) the proposal does not cause conflict with the State’s planning policies, planning regulation provisions or regional plan

(c) the proposal is consistent with the general intentions of City Plan


- 72 -

(d) the proposal would not create an unreasonable traffic problem, increase a traffic problem or detrimentally affect the efficiency of the road network

(e) the proposal would not detrimentally affect the amenity of the surrounding area

(f) the development can be accommodated within the existing essential infrastructure networks,

(ii) considers that where reasonable and relevant conditions are imposed on the development, it would be appropriate that the proposed development be approved on the site

(iii) issues a Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice for the development pursuant to the Planning Act 2016 and Brisbane Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 7) 2018, for the transport, community purposes and stormwater trunk infrastructure networks

(iv) approves the development application referred to above and subject to the conditions in the attached Development Approval Package to:

(a) notify the applicant of this decision and issue the applicant the Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice

(b) notify the Central SEQ Distributer-Retailer Authority of the decision and provide the Authority with a copy of the Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice

(c) notify the Councillor for the Morningside Ward, Councillor Kara Cook, of this decision

(d) notify the submitters of the decision

(e) publish notice about the decision on the website. ADOPTED

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT THE CORSO, SEVEN HILLS, BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19CA18/820982 and CA18/836775

336/2018-1912. Two petitions from residents requesting that The Corso, Seven Hills, be included as part of the Village

Precinct Projects initiative for 2018-19, were presented to the meeting of Council held on 11 September 2018, by Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, and received.

13. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.

14. The petitions contain 449 signatures.

15. Two previous petitions seeking that The Corso be included in the former Suburban Centre Improvement Projects were presented to Council on 18 October 2011 and 20 August 2014, respectively.

16. Village Precinct Projects generally include the provision of new footpaths, artworks, street tree planting, garden beds, street furniture and improved pedestrian accessibility. Photographs of the current condition of The Corso area are provided at Attachment A (submitted on file).

17. Council has determined that investigations will be undertaken to assess the condition of The Corso area and placemaking opportunities to facilitate improvements.

Funding

18. Funding is available under Program 4 (Precinct Projects), to undertake investigations for a future Village Precinct Project in the subject location during 2018-19. An amount of $40,000 has been allocated to this project.


- 73 -

Consultation

19. Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, has been consulted and has declined to state a view regarding the recommendation.

20. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jared Cassidy abstaining and Councillor Jonathan Sri dissenting.

21. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL’S BUDGET FOR THE DELIVERY OF VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS FOR 2018-19 HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOCATED. HOWEVER, COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CORSO, SEVEN HILLS, FOR A FUTURE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECT IS JUSTIFIED. COUNCIL HAS ALLOCATED A BUDGET OF $40,000 FOR PROJECT INVESTIGATION DURING 2018-19. THIS INVESTIGATION MAY INCLUDE SITE SURVEYS, UTILITIES MAPPING AND INITIAL CONCEPT DESIGNS.

ADOPTED

C PETITIONS – REQUESTING GRACEVILLE FIVEWAYS SHOPPING PRECINCT, GRACEVILLE, BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS INITIATIVE FOR 2018-19CA18/821173 and CA18/836495

337/2018-1922. Two petitions from residents requesting Council deliver a new Village Precinct Project at the

Graceville Fiveways shopping precinct, located at the corner of Long Street East, Oxley Road and Park Terrace, Graceville, were presented to the meeting of Council held on 11 September 2018, by Councillor Steve Griffiths, Councillor for Moorooka Ward, on behalf of Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, and received.

23. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.

24. The petitions contain 204 signatures.

25. The petitioners believe this project would enhance and beautify the Graceville Fiveways shopping precinct through improved footpaths, seating, street trees, signage, garden beds and street art, and promote business and consumer confidence in this busy retail hub.

26. A Suburban Centre Improvement Project (SCIP) was undertaken in Graceville in 2016, along Honour Avenue, on the western side of the railway line. The Graceville Fiveways shopping precinct was not part of that SCIP. Photographs of the current Graceville Fiveways shopping precinct area are provided at Attachment A (submitted on file).

Funding

27. Subject to budget considerations, funding for site investigations may be sought under Program 4 (Village Precinct Projects) during the 2019-20 financial year.

Consultation

28. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

29. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Jared Cassidy and Jonathan Sri dissenting.

30. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECT PROGRAM DELIVERY BUDGET HAS BEEN FULLY ALLOCATED FOR 2018-19.


- 74 -

HOWEVER, THE GRACEVILLE FIVEWAYS SHOPPING PRECINCT, GRACEVILLE, WILL BE PUT ONTO COUNCIL’S LIST OF SITES FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN DETERMINING FUTURE VILLAGE PRECINCT PROJECTS.

ADOPTED

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I get to the item before us, just a couple of things I’d like to mention. The LORD MAYOR mentioned this in his summing up today, about the Student Environmental Leadership Network celebration in City Hall this week. I’d just like to add my congratulations to those students who participated in the Student Environmental Leadership Network, SELN as the acronym goes.

Fifty-five students from 21 schools across Brisbane completed the Green Heart Schools program this year, the SELN program. Since 2013, when this was first introduced, over 300 students have now completed the program from 62 secondary schools across Brisbane; 160 school-based environmental projects have been delivered.

So these are great Green Heart ambassadors for our city and continue to prove that a big city can have a green heart, and we continue to deliver programs that attract the attention of students but learn from the students as well, as they deliver programs that they see as environmental importance to them. So they’re great war on waste warriors and making great contributions to environmental outcomes in our city, and I thank them for it.

The other thing I wanted to mention before I get to the report before us was to congratulate the Oxley Creek Transformation team, who picked up a significant award this week—the Planning Institute of Australia Queensland 2018 Awards. The Oxley Creek Transformation project received the Planning Excellence Award in the category of Best Planning Ideas - Large Project.

So very pleased to mention this in the Chamber; I thank the staff of Oxley Creek Transformation, the board and their consultants for delivering a great program that we’re now at the beginning of implementing—the 20-year program, $100 million program over 20 years to deliver the Oxley Creek Transformation. It starts with good planning and that planning has already received a significant award for excellence, which I’m very pleased to see.

Madam Chairman, the item before us, item A, was a committee presentation on the International Riversymposium which was this year held in Sydney. The 21st Riversymposium which was a program started in Brisbane by Brisbane City Council and has now become a world-renowned event for resilient rivers.

The 2018 Riverprize award was presented to the Australasian winner and Councillor MARX will admonish me if I get this wrong in the pronunciation—the Whangawehi Stream in New Zealand. Did I get that right Councillor MARX? Close. I’m sure Hansard will have fun trying to spell that out as well but we’ll correct that when that comes through. But fantastic to see the work that’s being done internationally. There was an Asian winner from the Philippines—Pasig River.

The 22nd Riversymposium will be in Brisbane next year between 20 and 24 October, and the theme will be resilient rivers and showcasing Brisbane and the regions—our expertise in resilient rivers. So looking forward to working on that over the course of the next 12 months to make sure that we continue to showcase the great environmental outcomes that we’re delivering here in


- 75 -

Brisbane in the region. I’m sure Oxley Creek will be mentioned this time next year when we see 22nd Riversymposium here in Brisbane. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Nothing further?

I will put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Nicole Johnston, Angela Owen and Julian Simmonds.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – INTERNATIONAL RIVER SYMPOSIUM

338/2018-191. Joseph Casabella, Water, Energy and Environmental Systems Manager, Water, Energy and

Environmental Systems, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on the International Riversymposium. He provided the information below.

2. The International Riversymposium (the Riversymposium) was established by Brisbane City Council in 1998 to build global leadership to champion the health and resilience of the world’s rivers. The Riversymposium is a networking platform for policy, scientists, consultants, non-government organisations and community organisations.

3. The 21st Riversymposium was held between 14 and 18 October 2018 in Sydney with ‘Embracing Innovation’ as its theme. More than 350 delegates from 26 countries attended the event.

4. As part of the Riversymposium, Council set up an expo stand and conducted three presentations on: - the Flood Resilient Homes program- Brisbane citywide overland flow path modelling and flood risk mapping- River city economies.

5. The 2018 Riverprize award was presented to the Australasia winner, Whangawehi Stream in New Zealand; and the Asia winner, Pasig River in the Philippines. A video was shown to the Committee highlighting Whangawehi Stream and some of its water quality enhancement and education programs.

6. Highlights from the 2018 Riversymposium program included the following presentations.- Diversity in Water- Achieving River Resilience for Future Generations- Water Leadership- Open Space and Waterway Integration- Value of Urban Waterways

8. The Riversymposium allows Council to showcase Brisbane as a clean, green and sustainable city. Other benefits include water policy benchmarking, networking and partnerships, demonstrating Brisbane’s flood resilience and promoting our river city economy.

9. The 22nd International Riversymponium is scheduled to be held from 20 to 24 October 2019 in Brisbane. Next year’s theme will be ‘Resilient Rivers’ and will again showcase Brisbane, the region and our partners.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Casabella for his informative presentation.


- 76 -

11. RECOMMENDATION:


FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Well thank you, Madam Chairman. There was one item; that was the Committee presentation on Council’s Recreate Fashion Show and Twilight Market which will be on this Friday. The Manager of Waste and Resource Recovery gave us an informative presentation on Council’s Recreate Fashion Show as Council’s landmark event celebrating National Recycling Week. It’s being held in King George Square this Friday.

Reducing waste and recycling is something that Brisbane residents are passionate about, with more than 1.4 million tonnes of materials recycled over the last 25 years, and Recreate is a fun and creative way of celebrating just how far we’ve come as a city and to inspire people to get creative when thinking about how we recycle.

So the Recreate Fashion Show and Twilight Market will feature couture gowns created from more than 20 of our best and aspiring fashion designers such as George Wu, Darb Bridal, Maiocchi, Alice Nightingale, Robyn Woodrow, Yesterday People, Sharka Bosakova, Cindy Vogel and many more, as well as featuring handmade artisan wares at the BrisStyle Markets and gourmet food from everybody’s favourite food trucks.

So while Brisbane continues to lead the way in sustainability as Australia’s most sustainable city, there is always more work to be done. I encourage all Councillors to get involved and invite all residents to join us in celebrating National Recycling Week, by coming down to King George Square this Friday between 4pm and 8pm, to witness the incredible ingenuity and creativity of Brisbane’s best and brightest fashion designers showcasing couture gowns made from recycled materials, and celebrate our clean, green and sustainable city.


Nothing further?

I will put the report.

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.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Vicki Howard (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Julian Simmonds, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – RECREATE EVENT

339/2018-19


- 77 -

1. Terry Bird, A/Manager, Waste and Resource Recovery Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s Recreate Fashion Show and Twilight Market. He provided the information below.

2. This year, the Recreate event will be held at King George Square on 16 November 2018. The event inspires and models positive recycling behaviours with a view to increasing the yield of paper and cardboard in the recycling streams. The event highlights the value of paper and cardboard as resources that should be reused, re-created and recycled, rather than wasted in landfill. Residents are encouraged to assess their own recycling efforts and increase their recycling knowledge.

3. In the last three years, the Recreate event has leveraged off National Recycling Week promotions and media by using fun community engagement activities to encourage recycling conversations. The event extends Council’s key clean, green and sustainable messages to associate a fun event with broader waste reduction education. It integrates the Team Brisbane message to encourage community pride as a motivator for waste minimisation. Well known local designers are engaged to extend the conversation to established audiences. Past events have seen 9,000-12,000 people engage with the activities during the event.

4. The Recreate campaign creates a high-impact event to inspire and model positive waste reduction and recycling behaviours and increase awareness and discussion about the importance of paper and cardboard recycling. This contributes to Council’s commitment to keeping Brisbane clean, green and sustainable. There is an increased awareness of Council’s Brisbane Bin and Recycling apps. While educational activities engage residents and gets people talking about waste. The event is funded with support from Council’s recycling partner Visy.

5. This will be the fourth Recreate event held which targets an audience of 18-35 year old inner -city residents, commuters and visitors. The event targets Friday night shoppers and entertainment seekers.

6. Food trucks and market stalls are always popular at the Recreate events and have a following of their own. BrisStyle Markets are engaged by CitySmart to sell goods made from recovered/recycled items. Council also encourages waste minimisation for vendors and stall holders, such as single use plastics.

7. The Recreate event will bring more than 20 of Brisbane’s best and aspiring fashion designers such as George Wu, Darb Bridal, Maiocchi, Alice Nightingale, Robyn Woodrow, Yesterday People, SharkaBosakova, Cindy Vogel and many more. The Fashion parades will be held at 5.15pm, 6.10pm and 7.30pm. Designers will create garments from items that can be recycled in Council’s kerbside recycling service such as paper, cardboard, strawberry punnets and coffee cups. Photographs of fashion designs and a video from a previous Recreate event was shown to the Committee members.

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Bird for his informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.


Councillor MATIC: Madam Chairman, before I get to the report I just wanted to mirror the LORD MAYOR’s words around the launch of our social inclusion plan, A City for Everyone. I really encourage all Councillors to make a submission and to make sure that they send out information to all of their community organisations in regards to this document. It’s an important part of our ongoing process of


- 78 -

inclusion around our city. Not only in regards to the enormous amount of investment that we’ve done in disability services—the more work that needs to be done within that space—but importantly also too, Madam Chairman, social inclusion.

As the LORD MAYOR has often said, one in three of us was born overseas; one in six of us speaks a language other than English when we go home at night. We have members of our community from the LGBTIQ community; from different refugee groups. We are a melting pot, Madam Chairman, of so much diversity and all of it is an important part of what makes our city great, and this document needs to reflect the things we need to do as a Council and as a community to bring everyone together so that no one gets left behind, because that’s absolutely fundamental in the sense of community that each one of us works so passionately for within our wards and across our city.

So the document is out for public consultation at the moment in many, many different formats; to suit disability and language so that everyone has the opportunity to have their say. It will be open for quite a while over the Christmas period and so it’s important that everyone gets onboard with this and gets the information out as much as possible.

Madam Chairman, in regards to the Committee presentation, we had a presentation from the Manager of the call centre in regards to the many, many services the call centre offers across different ranges, and again such an important service that we provide to the community. It was a great informative presentation of the great work that Council does.


Nothing further?

I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Fiona King, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Kara Cook.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CUSTOMER SERVICES ACROSS OUR CITY

340/2018-191. Shane Hackett, Manager, Customer Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting

to provide an update on Customer Services across our city. He provided the information below.

2. Council’s Customer Services (CS) consists of five teams:- Customer Delivery, which includes the Contact Centre, Business Hotline and Searches and

Certificates- Customer Experience- Customer Solutions- Customer Projects- Branch Support.


- 79 -

3. CS supports Brisbane through multiple contact channels, many of which are available 24 hours a day. The primary method of contact continues to be via telephone and is supported by other contact channels, such as Council’s website, social media, written correspondence, face-to-face, short message service (SMS) and facsimile.

4. Council’s award winning 24-hour Contact Centre combines the operations of the Call Centre and five customer service counters. In 2017-18, the Contact Centre had 1,293,287 customer interactions. These interactions included 864,483 inbound phone calls, of which 88% were answered within 20 seconds; 88,295 social media interactions; 11,239 pieces of correspondence and 69,775 face-to-face customer interactions.

5. The Contact Centre also provides after-hours support to three regional councils (Lockyer Valley, Logan and Moreton Bay) and one water utility (Logan Water), as well as providing after-hours support to CityCycle customers. This after-hours service operates from 4.30pm to 8.30am on weekdays and all hours on weekends and public holidays. In 2017-18, 17,534 regional and water utility calls were answered.

6. Council has 20 consultants working across the five face-to-face customer service counters. These counters service more than 70,000 customers per year, providing information and advice on a variety of topics including licensing; permits and applications; local laws and compliance; rates enquiries; account payments; and animal registration. The counters are located at the:- Central Business Centre, Brisbane City- North Regional Business Centre, Chermside- South Regional Business Centre, Yeerongpilly- Westfield Carindale Shopping Centre Kiosk, Carindale- Indooroopilly Shopping Centre Kiosk, Indooroopilly.

7. The Central Business Centre (CBC) manages lost property found on Council buses, at bus stops and busways, and in the Brisbane Square Library. Lost property items are tracked via the Lost Property Register and some common lost items include wallets, mobile phones, umbrellas, bags, keys and school hats. CBC makes every reasonable attempt to contact property owners to reunite them with their items where possible.

8. In the event an item owner cannot be determined, low-value items (estimated between $10 and $100) are stored for one month; and sentimental items and valuable items are stored for two months. Perishable, soiled, offensive and non-valuable items are disposed of in accordance with the Lost Property procedure. Any suspicious, dangerous or criminal items are reported or transferred to the Queensland Police Service.

9. The Business Hotline, established by the Lord Mayor in 2012, is Council’s one-stop-shop for businesses of all sizes seeking information and advice on Council services. Customers can speak to the Business Hotline via 133BNE (133263), a 24-hour hotline providing advice and resolving simple business enquiries; or Tier 2, a dedicated team that provides client-managed and specialised business services, such as filming, festival or event approvals.

10. The Searches and Certificates team provides support to the building and development industry through five key services:- inspection of records- building searches- engagement notices- copies of building plans- Australian Bureau of Statistics data.

11. Customer Solutions improve and maintain systems and processes in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders to ensure customers have outstanding experiences. In an organisation as complex as Council, which offers more than 4,200 services, it is critical to maintain accurate, up-to-date content to support front line employees in answering customer enquiries. On average, Customer Solutions process 23 change requests and 10-15 scripting changes per day; and 20-25 OPTIMISE configuration changes per fortnight.

12. The Customer Experience team deliver 14 Council-wide customer experience processes and culture improvements, aligned to customer needs and expectations. The team uses state-of-the-art research and


- 80 -

survey approaches to gain a clear understanding of our customers’ expectations by identifying key customer groups and evaluating their needs. Customer Experience also provides specialist support to other areas of Council to assist understanding of customers and their experiences with Council; identify sources of customer dissatisfaction; tailor services to achieve a balance between customer needs and best value for the city; and achieve Brisbane’s Customer Charter service standards.

13. One of the ways Council measures customer satisfaction is through customer satisfaction research. Customer satisfaction has been measured since the mid-90s and Council continually receives great results with scores between 80% and 90%, which is outstanding for a government organisation. This shows that customers are genuinely happy with the service that Council’s Contact Centre and Business Hotline provides.

14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Hackett for his informative presentation.

15. RECOMMENDATION:


FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 November 2018, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Our presentation last week was on Brisbane’s tourism future and I have to say that tourism future is extremely bright. We heard from Steven Silvester, our Foreign Investment Manager through Brisbane Marketing, that we have got over $16 billion worth of planned or proposed projects coming into Brisbane over the next few years, one of which—the terminal that we’ve been speaking about in-depth this evening.

But what we are seeing is these projects are driving conversion and spend per person in our tourism industry, and when you add that to our indoor visitor attractions, our bay and river experiences, and of course all the nature-based experiences that we have in and around Brisbane as well, we have the potential to be adding $6.5 billion per annum to our tourism spend by 2031.

So what we are seeing in Brisbane is a transition into an international leisure destination, and that is a lot of significant growth we are seeing in potential from that investment.

We are the fastest growing regional area in Queensland for tourism—eight per cent per annum from 2014 to 2017—and it is expected by 2026, millennials will make up 50 cents in every dollar for tourism. So they are going to be travelling a lot more than we travelled at their age and that is the money that we need to harness for them to come and spend in Brisbane as well.

The important part of the report though is to realise that we are not sitting on our laurels. We have our economic development board, Brisbane Marketing, working very hard to deliver the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan, which has very clear strategic direction to 2031, and seven strategic points around talent and skills, diverse districts, productive districts, start-up ecosystems, small and medium enterprises, a regional approach and of course Team Brisbane.

Nothing is being taken for granted. We are working hard to make sure we harness all of that potential growth, and I look forward to the realisation of this international spend in the years to come.


- 81 -


Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I just want to rise and speak briefly in regards to the presentation that took place in the Committee in regards to Brisbane’s tourism future. I think from all of what the presenter showed us—documents and the presentation—was certainly a bright future.

We were also informed that the attractions—that attractions are a key to visitors spending more of their tourist dollars in our city and of course Greater Brisbane.

Now one of the growing trends in tourism around the world is shared accommodation; better known as Airbnb and Stayz and there’s a few others as well.

Now when I asked the presenter what the disruption this form of accommodation was having on our hotels, I was surprised to hear that Airbnb and other forms of shared accommodation hadn’t been measured in any substantive way here in Brisbane.

Anecdotally he said that we were—and we were informed that the majority of the Airbnb accommodation is taken up by tourists who use hostels. I thought this was one answer but a bit of research of recent articles gives a more informed view of the impact that shared accommodation like Airbnb is having on our traditional hotel market.

Briefly this is what I found—a Deloitte Access Economic Tourism and Marketing Outlook Report states that shared accommodation is speeding ahead of hotel accommodation in Australia and around the world for that matter. This is in spite of the many thousands of rooms of accommodation hoteliers are rolling out right across the city, and of course we heard about some of that from the LORD MAYOR here earlier.

In 2017, the number of nights in which guests used shared accommodation like Airbnb and Stayz surged by 9.6% while conventional hotels only grew by 5.6%. Tourist Research Australia’s latest visitor survey figures state record international tourism stays will surge by six per cent, but the nights spent in hotels and resorts and serviced apartments will only increase by one per cent.

They also said that in all forms of regulated shared accommodation account that—sorry, I’ll start over—they also said that in all forms of regulated shared accommodation—will only account for—will account for four times the number of international visitor nights in regulated accommodation.

Madam Chair, I would encourage Brisbane Marketing to urgently look at this issue for our city. I have no doubt that Airbnb and other forms of shared accommodation are here to stay and they should identify what’s happening in this space, but also on a positive note of course Airbnb or shared accommodation is something that is low cost in many cases, and we should also be encouraging this market for tourism in Brisbane. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that’s the first time someone’s spoken of a Finance Committee report in about seven months, so thank you Councillor STRUNK for taking the time. I agree with you, we do have a bright future, and I definitely agree with him that attractions are a key to increasing the spend in Brisbane City when it comes to tourism.

I don’t agree though that the answer was hostels when we said there was a disruption to hotels. That was me suggesting that maybe hostels were the choice of what they had before Airbnb. But what we did hear was that the focus on our tourism is really about stay nights. Now if Airbnb is bringing in more visitors, new visitors, to have more stay nights here in Brisbane, that is a fantastic thing as far as I’m concerned.


- 82 -

Whether that is taking away from our hotels, we aren’t seeing that effect yet is what we heard from Mr Silvester, but hopefully as I said, it means new visitors who wouldn’t come here before we had Airbnb are now coming to visit us as well.

I take on board the comment that we need to investigate how Airbnb is being used in Brisbane, but at this point of time it’s not regulated. It is still a disrupter. There is no legislation State-wide or in our city planning around the use of Airbnb and we have no access to the details of how Airbnb is used unless Airbnb cooperates with us, and that has not been something that we have looked at at this point of time.

So we deal with Airbnb on a case by case basis if it comes up within the remit of Brisbane City Council—



Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt. Would Councillor ADAMS take a question?

Councillor ADAMS: No.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SRI.

Councillor ADAMS: But as I said earlier, as far as I’m concerned if this is encouraging more people to come to Brisbane and stay in Brisbane and spend their tourism dollar, that is a bonus for the residents of Brisbane City Council. Thank you.

Chairman: I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Adam Allan (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE’S TOURISM FUTURE

341/2018-191. Steven Silvester, General Manager, Investment and Industry Development, Brisbane Marketing,

attended the meeting to provide an update on Brisbane’s tourism future. He provided the information below.

2. Graphs were shown to the Committee as follows.- Stretch tourism spend above the Tourism Forecasting Committee forecast with new products

indicates Brisbane has grown at seven to eight per cent per annum since 2014 and could stretch this to more than nine per cent per annum and become a top 100 global visitor city. By 2021, additional tourism spend is projected at more than $400 million.

- Overnight visitor projections.- Seven billion dollars in planned projects around our city are driving visitor numbers.

These projects include the second runway of Brisbane Airport ($1.35 billion), the International Cruise Terminal ($150 million), Queen’s Wharf Brisbane ($3 billion) and Brisbane Metro ($990 million).

- Nine billion dollars in proposed projects around are city are driving the average length of stay. These projects include the Howard Smith Wharves ($200 million), Stamford/Dexus waterfront precinct development ($1.3 billion), Brisbane Live ($2 billion) and Cross River Rail ($5.2 billion).

- New projects that are driving conversion and spend per person include indoor visitor attractions, bay and river experiences, and iconic nature-based experiences. By 2031, the potential for additional expenditure from visitors is $6.5 billion per annum.


- 83 -

3. Brisbane has transitioned to an international leisure destination with significant growth potential from investment. This growth is expected to attract more than two million international visitors, 48 million additional visitor nights, $6.5 billion to support 70,000 FTE jobs and $16 billion gross regional product (GRP).

4. Factors driving this tourism opportunity include the following.- Tourism in the Asia Pacific is forecast to grow at seven per cent per annum to 2031.- Brisbane is growing faster than the regional average in international overnight visitors

(8% growth 2014-17)- By 2026, millennials will account for 50 cents in every tourism dollar spend globally.- New world cities are more appealing to millennials than old world cities (many of which are

reaching peak demand).- Brisbane has a natural advantage, but limited tourism product range or depth.- Seven billion in tourism investment by 2022 from global investors.

5. Brisbane’s tourism growth is connected to:- expenditure growth at double the national average in the December 2017 quarter, up 11% per

annum to $2.25 billion- 22% of visitors are now international visitors versus 16% in 2017- the international leisure market numbers, which are growing at 7% per annum (three quarters

of record high growth)- approximately 1,400 new rooms coming online in 2018 including five-star properties, such as

W Hotel, the Westin Brisbane, Emporium and the Callie- the International Airport doubling in capacity by 2020.

6. An amount of $6.5 billion is being invested across Brisbane’s four zones (city, river, bay and hinterland) and visitor experiences including city-based attractions; nature-based and wildlife experiences; aquatic and coastal; history and culture; sports and adventure; and food and wine.

7. Based on international focus groups, priority experiences in the:- city zone include family visitor experiences; CBD and waterfront; and cultural facilities- bay zone include city to bay ferry services and marine hubs; bay and island nature tourism;

and iconic accommodation- hinterland zone include city parks and Mt Coot-tha; iconic accommodation and food; and

connections to Scenic Rim and valleys.

8. Other priority experiences across the region include:- aviation attractions in partnership with Tourism and Events Queensland- approximately 8,400 new hotel rooms by 2031- continued push for major events and conferences- enabling infrastructure in transport and precincts.

9. A list was provided to the Committee detailing documents, such as the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan, and seven key points that set a clear strategic direction to 2031. The seven key points are Brisbane’s growth sectors; talent and skills; diverse districts and productive precincts; start-up ecosystem; small and medium enterprises; Brisbane region approach; and Team Brisbane.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Silvester for his informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:


PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors are there any petitions?

Councillor CASSIDY.


- 84 -

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a petition calling on Council to review Townsend and Seaview Streets, Brighton regarding speeding traffic.

Chairman: Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a petition raising concerns about composting at 154 and 166—both adjoining properties—at Mt Crosby Road, Anstead.

Chairman: Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a petition regarding safety concerns at the Junction Street intersection in Woolloongabba.


Councillor WINES may I have a motion for receipt of the petitions please.

342/2018-19It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, 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 TopicCA18/1020635 Jared Cassidy Requesting an assessment of Townsend Street, Queens Parade

and Seaview Street, Brighton, for improved speed limit signage and possible speed bumps.

CA18/1003051 Kate Richards Requesting that commercial composting at 154 and 166 Mt Crosby Road, Anstead, not be permitted.

CA18/1020771 Jonathan Sri Requesting that the Logan Road and O’Keefe Street traffic circle be enlarged to include Junction Street.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel order?

There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors are there any matters of General Business?

Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to speak on one matter tonight and that is the LGAQ conference that I attended on behalf of Council three weeks ago. As is custom in this place when we go and represent Council, we also always do a report back to Council.

So, Madam Chairman, this year’s conference was held here in Brisbane for the first time in six years. The Local Government Association conference has been held here in Brisbane. It was the 122nd meeting of the Local Government Association of Queensland, so a long and proud history of representing local government right across this State for the issues that matter to local government where we come together as a whole; we put aside our individual differences as councils representing small parts or larger parts of this city; we come together as a whole as an organisation; as a voice for local government; and speak with one voice on issues and matters that attend to local government and our future as local governments, Madam Chairman.

As I said, it ran from 28 to 31 October this year. It was opened officially by the LORD MAYOR on the Tuesday morning, who spoke about his time in Council, his memories of the Local Government Association when he was representing the Local Government Association, just as Councillor John Campbell, Councillor Anne Bennison, former mayors and other aldermen from this Council—have also been members of the Local Government Association.


- 85 -

From there it went into Council showcases as well as plenary sessions and keynote speakers, as all Local Government Associations conferences do. Of particular note, one of the Council showcases that I was really interested in was the presentation by Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Madam Chairman, where they detailed and explained and demoed their Development.i product which is—for those Councillors that haven’t seen it—a really innovative way of engaging with the community and providing up-to-date development information.

It was great to see the innovation that’s being driven out of local government by some of the councils; not only with the work that we do here in Brisbane, but also some of the smaller councils across the state.

Turning to the Wednesday, Madam Chairman, we launched the Better Councils, Better Communities campaign. This a new marketing campaign identifying what really matters to local communities and sharing the stories from local councils right across the state about how Council delivers the services and the outcomes in their community.

It was great to have that launched at conference. I should say there was nearly 800 delegates or attendees at conference this year which is a super turnout. Brisbane is always one of the bigger conferences, Madam Chairman, because it is just easier to get to Brisbane from some of the more regional and remote councils, and it was great to have nearly 800 attendees obviously staying here in Brisbane; filling up hotel beds; spending money in our local economy as well.

We heard from the Minister and also from the opposition spokesperson for local government, as we do every year, and we also most importantly heard from David O’Loughlin, who is the Australian Local Government Association President, where he spoke about the campaign that’s being run by ALGA to get one per cent of federal tax revenue—sorry, one per cent of the total tax revenue that’s collected in the country given to local governments.

This is a critical thing for local government to continue to be able to deliver the services that we continue to see being devolved or pushed down to local government. We in Brisbane are probably somewhat in a little bubble when it comes to feeling the full effects of that, but certainly there was a lot of councils right across the state who spoke for the need to actually see a greater investment.

It might shock the Chamber that some 80% of the total taxation revenue that’s collected in this country goes to the Federal Government, about 16% of the rest of the remaining 20% goes to state governments and councils make up the last three per cent—three to four per cent. So there’s not a very large funding pool that comes to local government, but there is an enormous amount of services and work that we do in our local communities that we have to fund.

Madam Chairman, of course a Wednesday is always dominated by the motions debate. We got through 112 motions this year on the Wednesday. Brisbane had a number of motions that were put forward and they all got up. I want to thank Councillor MARX and Councillor KING for speaking to motions and for being there as well.

There were some major motions. There was one ironically around Airbnb and share economy and getting those—information released to local government in a partnership with the State so that we can make the planning decisions that need to be made.

There was a motion put forward by one of the North Queensland councils around sunscreen and body products entering the Great Barrier Reef and the damage that that’s actually doing to the Great Barrier Reef. That was carried as well and the need for disclaimers or some information to be provided to people who are visiting some of our marine parks—not to use certain products and to try and limit the opportunity for those products to enter into the waterways.

There were the standard good old motions on things like flying foxes and mobile phone blackspots, Madam Chairman, that come up every year that always cause a little bit of debate. But I think the major motion that caused the most debate was actually the date of the Council elections. The changes by the


- 86 -

State Government to their Electoral Act or their electoral date, and the date that was chosen by the Premier to actually go to an election in October, which locked them into October 2020, now means that the two elections are in the same year.

It was overwhelmingly supported by councils on the day that we do not move our date from March 2024. There has been a number of proposals that are put forward. The ECQ (Electoral Commission Queensland) has expressed concern and the State is looking for a different date. Local government, not through any of their own making, is now being put in the position where we may have to change the date of our local government elections.

With one single voice, a united voice, we said we don’t want to move from March 2024. That is the date that the people expect to go to the election and that’s the date that local government has always gone to elections for the last 20 to 30 years—is in March. That was resoundingly—as I said, resoundingly passed, Madam Chairman, and was the subject of much debate with many different viewpoints put forward, but at the end of the day, as with all Local Government Association things, it is one single voice speaking on behalf of all local governments in this State.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to congratulate the 120 plus residents from across Brisbane and across neighbouring Council areas who came down to the Volunteer Marine Rescue (VMR) on Sunday to participate in the first ever Paddle against Plastic for Cabbage Tree Creek.

Two local residents, Andrew and Julie, reached out to a not-for-profit organisation called Ocean Crusaders to organise a clean-up of our local creek. Ocean Crusaders have been working across Australia in doing very practical education and clean-ups with local organisations primarily based on the Sunshine Coast but have worked right across Australia.

Andrew and Julie approached me for support and we were able to support them through an LMSIF (Lord Mayor’s Suburban Initiative Fund) grant. The Ocean Crusaders team, supported by the Redcliffe Environmental Forum, went in on Friday and Saturday and collected over 2.5 tonnes of rubbish from the Cabbage Tree Creek; basically from the mouth of the creek up to the Gateway Bridge, which isn’t a particularly long stretch, but it’s a significant amount of rubbish they collected.

Then residents, mostly on kayaks, on Sunday collected another 1.44 tonnes of rubbish. Primarily the bigger stuff that was collected early included a lot of shopping trolleys, a scooter—a motorised scooter, air-conditioning units, large slabs of Styrofoam, general industrial plastic waste, and a lot of the stuff that was collected on the Sunday was general plastic waste—Styrofoam, glass bottles—an enormous amount of glass bottles that were in Cabbage Tree Creek.


Councillor CASSIDY: I don’t know whether they’d be eligible for the 10 cent scheme. I’ll take that interjection Councillor COOK. I’m not sure. I don’t believe so. They’re probably predate that by the looks of them. Some very historic looking bottles there.

But it was a wonderful effort. They will now provide that data and do this in an open way—Ocean Crusaders. Council can use that data and to try and pinpoint as they—they will continue to engage with our community the source of this rubbish, and some of the strategies we can employ to ensure that we’re stopping rubbish; both through an educational point of view in talking to people—we did see some pretty ordinary situations over people’s back fences in terms of what I would think people have been doing for a very long time—treating the creek, which is over their back fence, as a bit of a dumping ground.

So educating people about the importance of our creek which flows into Moreton Bay of course, but also about empowering other people to know how to


- 87 -

go out and safely clean-up our creek and to partner with other local organisations, like the VMR, and having a way to dispose of that rubbish.

So I just want to congratulate everyone for that. It’s the single largest community collection around Australia. The next closest in terms of a one day Paddle Against Plastic was in Moonee Ponds down in Victoria, and they collected less than a tonne. So while it’s good that as a community we’ve got that, it’s bad that it was there.

I’m hopeful that as a community we can work together, and with Council, to ensure that we can clean our creek up. It does, as I say, flow into Moreton Bay. Ninety per cent of the crustaceans—prawns, bugs, crabs—that people enjoy out of Moreton Bay are bred and raised in our mangrove areas and there’s very important mangrove areas through Cabbage Tree Creek—Shorncliffe, Boondall, Deagon and beyond and then around to Nudgee Beach and Wynnum Manly area of course.

So it’s very important that we get on top of this so I look forward to using that data and engaging with Council to find better ways of making sure our waterways are clean.

Chairman: Further general business?

Councillor MARX.

Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on the LGAQ conference that I attended also with Councillor BOURKE and Councillor KING, and Remembrance Day that happened this weekend.

At that time, 6.09pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Ryan MURPHY, assumed the Chair.

Councillor BOURKE has pretty much mentioned just about everything that happened at LGAQ so I won’t go into too much detail on everything all over again.

As he mentioned, more than 100 motions were discussed and voted on over the two days which was pretty amazing. They got through them really quickly. As he said, the largest discussion was around the motion about changing the Council election dates. That caused a lot of controversy; a lot of discussion.

We were given six options about what we could choose to do, but in actual fact there really wasn’t a choice because basically the State Government has already come out and said that as far as ECQ is concerned they do not have the capability of running an election in March and then fronting up again in October of the same year which, I don’t know, sounds a bit odd. But anyway there you go and we said well perhaps we should just take it back and run the elections ourselves as councils, which we’ve done in the past.

It’s interesting. I just noticed that there is not one single ALP Councillor left in the Chamber, no Independent and no Green. It’s just all the LNP Councillors are left here. Isn’t that amazing? Okay, well there you go. Obviously better things to do than to be here in the Chamber representing their community.

I do want to mention something that was on at the LGAQ convention and that was—interestingly enough at the LGAQ’s Future Cities, Smart Communities summit they discovered the impact and reach of gamification as a successful community engagement and educational tool was recognised.

They also noted that Brisbane City Council presented on its Plan your Brisbane initiative as part of the summit. So basically they took what was our game that we had created with our Plan your Brisbane and turned it into their own one that they’re at this moment calling Game On.

What attracted me to the actual stand was this great big picture of this lady and it says come and see what it takes to be me. I thought well that would be really good. I think it would be awesome if people would actually come and see what


- 88 -

it takes to be a councillor. I think people underestimate just what it is that is involved in the role.

But anyway on the note of the game, the LGAQ CEO, he challenged the staff to bring fun and engaging game to annual conferences to help Council engage communities and prove understanding of strategic planning matters and other issues. That was part of a broader community campaign promoting the role of local government.

I do note that the game app that we had under Councillor SIMMONDS in the planning—Plan your Brisbane app—was treated with derision by the other side, and yet here is the LGAQ, the largest local government organisation, deciding that it was a very worthwhile thing that they should potentially—

Councillor WINES: Point of order.

Deputy Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor MARX.

Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Would Councillor MARX take a question?

Deputy Chairman: Councillor MARX?

Councillor MARX: Sure.

Councillor WINES: Councillor MARX are there any Opposition Councillors in the room of any party other than LNP? Are there any members of Council other than LNP in the room right now?

Councillor MARX: No, there aren’t and I was going to mention that feedback was gathered from some of the Councillors there and it was interesting that it was noted that Councillor GRIFFITHS and Councillor STRUNK were both at LGAQ. My understanding is that as a Council we pay for their attendance at these conventions, as they do for us Councillors, which is perfectly fine. They also apparently—I did see them participating in the game and providing their feedback.

So again what they say here in the Chambers and what they do out there in the community can be vastly different. I don’t know whether we’re going to hear the report from them about their time at the convention, which as Councillor BOURKE has mentioned, is obligatory as part of going. I’m more than happy to leave it at that, but just say thank you to the LORD MAYOR as always for allowing me to be a delegate, and to go to a convention where we meet and learn many, many things.

Finally, just to mention—Remembrance Day on Sunday. As always, it’s not as big as Anzac Day but it was still a large event out in my ward at Sunnybank RSL and I congratulate them on their event. Well run, thank you.

Deputy Chairman: Further general business?

Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I rise briefly to speak on a couple of matters relative to Calamvale Ward, in particular the Armistice murals that we unveiled this weekend and also Remembrance Day.

Mr Deputy Chairman, the matters in Calamvale Ward that I would actually like to start with is—last night was the 30th anniversary of Algester Toastmasters and this is a significant achievement for that very important club in our local community. I’d just like to place on my record my congratulations to them. There is a small and dedicated group that have been working together to lift each other up and inspire each other to increase their skill base, but also the comradery and good-natured support that they have for each other is not to be understated. I think they do a wonderful job in our local community.

Mr Deputy Chairman, on Sunday morning at 9am we had the opportunity to unveil something very special in Calamvale Ward. These are what’s known as the Armistice murals and the Remembrance Walk. Now Ruth Frith Place is something that Councillors on the Administration side of the Chamber are very


- 89 -

familiar with because I have spoken about Ruth Frith OAM in this Chamber many times. I thank all of the Administration Councillors for being here in the Chamber tonight. It’s very disappointing that Councillors from the other side of the Chamber, the ALP, the Green and the Independent, have not remained in the Chamber unfortunately.

But what is important is beside Ruth Frith Place is—we have 100 poppies on the wall of the Bolton Clarke retirement community—and it was formerly known as RSL Care so it’s quite appropriate for it to be there. So on the wall we have 100 poppies reflecting the 100 years since the signing of the Armistice which led to the end of the First World War.

We’ve also had four murals painted. Now this was very, very important to our local community because earlier in the year I put out a call for local community people to submit some designs that we could put on these murals. We have four murals; one was designed by Class 3TL at Algester State School. They formulated the design to build their wreath for the Anzac Day service and then that has become the design for this mural.

It has the rising sun in the background and a lone soldier saluting, and it’s surrounded by a wreath of poppies. Those children did a fantastic job. They came down on Sunday morning to see the mural unveiled and they were very, very excited that they have left a legacy in the local community.

Another local lady by the name of Inez Brown, designed another special Armistice mural and she did a wonderful job. She reflected all three of the services and the nurses in her mural, and reflected the centenary of Armistice, and that is the first mural that you actually see as the walk down Remembrance Walk, as we have referred to it.

The next mural is Sky, Land and Sea designed by Brodie McNally and that reflects all three services and the bond and comradery of the people within the services.

The fourth mural is the Brothers in Arms mural that is also reflected over in Polygon Wood, on the site of Diggers Rest. Interestingly yesterday when I was at the Algester Probus Christmas Lunch, I caught up with Daphne Dennis and Daphne Dennis—her father’s cousins were actually the Hunter brothers.

The actual picture of Brothers in Arms is of the Hunter brothers. One of the Hunter brothers never came home. His brother lovingly wrapped him in a ground sheet, placed his hand over his heart, facing the sunset to see Australia, and in recent years when they were digging up a road in Zonnebeke, they uncovered the graves of five people, five soldiers, and they’re referred to as the Zonnebeke Five.

So there’s a lot of history, but it also has a local connection through Daphne Dennis whose father was their cousin, but also it is poignant that it is next to Ruth Frith Place because Ruth’s two uncles both served in World War I and they never came home.

So we have a very special legacy in our local community that has certainly been a community contribution. I thank Bolton Clarke for partnering with me and also June Hinze from Fantast, who coordinated the sketching of the murals and the layout. Bolton Clarke funded the painting. Also a very special thank you to the soldiers who are in the Art Therapy program at the Solder Recovery Centre, because they volunteered to come out and paint those murals on the walls. That is their legacy as well. That is their contribution back to the community and I think that’s a wonderful way of everybody coming together to really reflect and remember the service of those who have given their tomorrows for our today.

To all those who have served to give us our freedom, on behalf of the Calamvale Ward community, I say thank you. Thank you for your service to all who have served and all who continue to serve. Thank you Mr Deputy Chairman.

Deputy Chairman: Further general business?

Councillor KING.


- 90 -

Councillor KING: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I will be brief. I stand to speak on LGAQ conference that I attended, also the new mental health facility going in to the Prince Charles Hospital and very, very quickly on Remembrance Day.

At that time, 6.17pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Madam Chair—it is, Madam Chair, now—Madam Chair, with the LGAQ conference there was some very interesting speakers of course. One was the mayor from—Bolula?—


Councillor KING: —Boulia, sorry. Thank you Councillor MARX—who spoke—a very small country town—who spoke on the 3D crossing. He was quite a character, the gentleman, saying these 3D crossings are amazing. They actually look like rocks on the ground that cars drive over. They’re absolutely amazing. But he did have a laugh and say it’s a bit different to Brisbane because about 100 cars a day go down the main road.

But when it went—put it on Facebook it actually went viral all over the world, and it actually has been a tourism drawcard for this small country town. So well done for thinking outside the box and getting some identity for your council.

I thought it was interesting again the debate on changing our election for all the councils from March. The only time this has been changed—and I will correct Councillor BOURKE—is when the State Government changed their election so ours had to be pushed out to April I believe, about six weeks after the State election.

So I was absolutely flabbergasted why the State Government believe that the ECQ cannot do two elections in one year—one in March and one in October—when they did one six weeks apart in the past.

Madam Chair, the councils just stood there together side by side and voted for no change because it was no fault of ours and Council that the State Government chose to call an election then and to have two years—to call an election early I might add and cause an election to be two in each year.

We were clearly told though we were wasting our time by voting for no change, because the State Government had already made up their mind that they’re going to change it anyway without consultation.

Which leads me to the new mental health facility that’s going to be at the Prince Charles Hospital. I met with the Minister—one of the Ministers today. Not the Minister I’ve been seeking a meeting with for 11 months now after 10 bits of communication—a different Minister—and was informed they did have a meeting to tell people what was happening in the local community. Not consult with them but to tell them what was happening.

At that public consultation, I heard from several residents, there was actually no information given to them or no clarity given to them at that meeting. So I find it very hypocritical that the Labor Opposition Councillors who left 45 minutes ago probably, who aren’t here representing their community—they’re out somewhere else probably having a glass of wine—shopping—although it’s Tuesday night Councillor WYNDHAM—I find it very hypocritical that those people on the other side of this Chamber say that we don’t do any communication, and now they’re the leaders of communication.

Well, Madam Chair, when I asked the question to the said Minister today—what communication was given to the community of Marchant Ward with this new development that’s happening on their property—stunned silence. There was no community consultation. Well why? Was there any investigation of the impact to the community? No, there was no study done or unsure whether there was any study done for the impact of our community.


- 91 -

So it’s the hypocritical nature of those opposite who say consultation, consultation with our award-winning neighbourhood planning program with lots of communication and consultation. Those opposite don’t believe—they just believe in telling people what’s going to happen and this is going to happen at your back door with no consultation; you have no rights; you have no say.

Madam Chair, which brings me to—oh I forgot to mention with the LGAQ—I actually didn’t see Councillor STRUNK and Councillor GRIFFITHS there at all, so I’m glad you did after Council paid for them to go. It was actually interesting because Councillor GRIFFITHS got an award at the dinner. He wasn’t there to actually achieve the award. Didn’t even say he wasn’t going to be there—


Councillor KING: —for being a Councillor for 15 years. Yes, participation award. But he wasn’t even there or didn’t even tell the organisers that he wasn’t even going to bother to turn up. So I’m glad Councillor MARX saw the Councillor there because Council does pay for us—pay tickets for us to actually attend. So I’m glad that Council did not waste their money because you actually did see one of the two Councillors. I’m not sure if you saw both.

Madam Chair, Geebung RSL did a fantastic job for Armistice Day. It brought tears to my eyes. Their guest speaker was absolutely amazing going from the impacts of World War I to the change in society and how it is now, and he thinks that our society is losing their mateship. I know Councillor COOPER was there as well. I’ve never heard a speech so powerful and so moving at a Remembrance Day or any of the Anzac Days and my thanks go to that speaker.

I did like how they changed the tunes this year. We didn’t do the same old tunes as we normally do, that Councillor COOPER and I know off by heart now. They actually put the Spirit of the Anzacs in, which again was exceptionally moving and well received. So congratulations Geebung. Thank you so much for putting on an amazing Armistice Day. Thank you.

Chairman: Further general business?

There being no Councillors rising to their feet, I declare the meeting closed.

Thank you to LNP Councillors for remaining in the Chamber until completion.

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 on 6 November 2018Q1. On what date was the damaged footpath and ramp outside Sherwood Kindy at 44 Thallon St Sherwood

reported to Council?

Q2. On what date was the asphalt fill ‘make safe’ work undertaken?

Q3. Has the footpath been listed for future capital works in the Council Budget, if so on what date?

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 8 November 2018Q1. On what date was the damaged footpath inside Lagonda St Park Annerley reported to Council?

Q2. On what date was the asphalt fill ‘make safe’ work undertaken in Lagonda St Park, Annerley?

Q3. Has the footpath been listed for future capital works in the Council Budget, if so on what date?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 8 November 2018Q1. Can you list the addresses and in which Ward BCC Libraries are located.

Q2. Can you inform how many full time and part time Council employees currently work in each BCC Library?


- 92 -

Q3. Can you list the opening and closing times of each Library Monday to Sunday.

Q4. Can you list from the busiest to the least busy in customer interaction of BCC Libraries.

Q5. Can you list in square footage or by meter the size of each of the Council Libraries.

Q6. Can you list in date order the last time each of BCC Libraries were refurbish and the cost of the refurbishment.

Q7. Please list the total rates collected in dollars from each of Brisbane’s 26 wards (individually) in Category 1 (Principle Residential).

Q8. Please list the total rates collected in dollars from each of Brisbane’s 26 Wards (individually) in all categories except Category 1 (Principle Residential).

Q9. How many jobs for footpath repair or replacement are currently listed in SAP?

Q10. How many staff are employed by Brisbane City Council?

Q11. How many FTE positons are there in Council?

Q12. How many employees are permanent full-time in Council?

Q13. How many employees are permanent part-time in Council?

Q14. How many employees are casual in Council?

Q15. How many employees are on fixed term contracts in Council?

Q16. How many labour hire employees worked in Council or on Council projects in the 2017-18 FY?

Q17. Please complete the following list for all recurrent footpath repairs:

Ward Address (including suburb) Date Lodged

Q18. How many complaints were lodged with Council’s insurer regarding footpath accidents/injuries across Brisbane for the following periods:

(a) Year to date 2018/19(b) 2017/18(c) 2016/17

Q19. How many complaints regarding footpath accidents/injuries received a settlement for the following periods:

(a) Year to date 2018/19(b) 2017/18(c) 2016/17

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.24pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED


- 93 -

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Jade Stopar (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer)Shivaji Solao (Council and Committee Officer)Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)


- 94 -

€¦ · web viewnow, i was a bit shocked when he basically said that he doesn’t support it...

Documents