web viewcommittee presentation –manual of ... ipswich motorway to boundary road and boundary...

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4533 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 8 August 2017at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4533 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY 8 AUGUST 2017AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:____________________________________________________________1

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________6

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:___________________________________________22ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE__________________________________________22A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN – PROGRESS ROAD UPGRADE

STAGE 4__________________________________________________________________________42B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN – JOHNSON ROAD AND

STAPYLTON ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE PROJECT_____________________________________48PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________54A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ECODRIVING AND LOW EMISSION BUSES______________________57INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE___________________________________________________________58A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION –MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES______________68B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO NOT PROCEED WITH THE PLANNED REMOVAL OF THE

FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BOUNDARY STREET IN FORTITUDE VALLEY AND CONSIDER BANNING VEHICLE ACCESS ON THE INBOUND LANE OF IVORY STREET TO PROVIDE DEDICATED CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO AND FROM THE STORY BRIDGE________________69

C PETITION – REQUESTING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MANLY, WYNNUM AND BELMONT ROADS, TINGALPA_________________________________________________________72

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________74A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT –

MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EXTENSION TO SHOPPING CENTRE (EGRESS RAMP), FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, HEALTH CARE SERVICES, OFFICE, SHOP (STAGE 1), AND MULTIPLE DWELLING (98 UNITS) (STAGE 2) AT 26 BELGRAVE ROAD, 8 HENDERSON STREET AND PART OF 322 MOGGILL ROAD, INDOOROOPILLY – EUREKA FUNDS MANAGEMENT LIMITED________________________________80

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE____________________________________83A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

DAY_____________________________________________________________________________84B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE THE BARK SURROUNDING THE PLAYGROUND AT

JINDALEE BOAT RAMP PARK, JINDALEE, AND INSTALL ARTIFICIAL GRASS______________________86C PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS MACARTHUR AVENUE

PARK, HAMILTON, TO ‘OLD SHORELINE PARK’____________________________________________87FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________89A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – URBAN AMENITY LANDSCAPE REJUVENATION PROGRAM_________94B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE MULCH AND DEBRIS FROM GRACEVILLE

MEMORIAL PARK, GRACEVILLE, IN ORDER TO PREVENT STORMWATER DRAINS FROM BEING BLOCKED_________________________________________________________________________94

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE__________________________________________96A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – POP-UP LIBRARY__________________________________________98

[4533 (Ordinary) Meeting – 8 August 2017]





B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVOKE THE LICENCE TO USE 18 TRINITY LANE, WOOLLOONGABBA, AS A LIVE MUSIC VENUE____________________________________________99

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVIEW LEGISLATION TO PREVENT ROAMING AND WILDLIFE ATTACKS BY DOMESTIC PETS, PARTICULARLY CATS______________________________100

D PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO INSTALL A SKATE FACILITY IN 7TH BRIGADE PARK, CHERMSIDE101

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______________________________________102A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE BATTLE OF BRISBANE_____________103B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 26 MAY 2017_____________________104C PETITION – REQUESTING THE SALE OF 29 BOURNE STREET, WOOLLOONGABBA, BE STOPPED AND

THE SITE BE CONVERTED INTO OPEN SPACE____________________________________________105

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – LGS PROJECT REVIEW:_________________________106

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________107

GENERAL BUSINESS:_____________________________________________________________108

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:_________________________________111

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______________________112






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) (Deputy Chairman of Council)Steven HUANG (Macgregor)Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)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)Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake)Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)

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.

MINUTES:26/2017-18

The Minutes of the 4532 (post-recess) meeting of Council held on 1 August 2017, 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.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:A. Heather Allan – Lung cancer awareness

Chairman: I would now like to call on Ms Heather Allan who will address the Chamber on lung cancer awareness.

Please proceed, Ms Allan. You have five minutes.


Ms Heather Allan: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, it’s indeed a privilege to be here before you representing the millions of Australians with lung disease. For most of us the 22,000 breaths that we take each day go largely unnoticed, but for many, every single breath is a struggle.

In his novel Breath, Tim Winton eloquently captures what those with lung disease experience every single day when he said, ‘It’s funny, but you never really think much about breathing until that’s all you think about.’ That’s the reality for the millions of Australians living with lung disease.

Lung disease in Australia is common. Together, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, comprise the second leading cause of death. Lung cancer is our biggest cancer killer. It kills more Australians than breast cancer, ovarian cancer and prostate cancer combined. In fact, more women will die of lung cancer than of breast cancer.

But despite these statistics, people just aren’t thinking about their lungs. Lung disease remains largely undiagnosed, and people are either unaware of symptoms or are ignoring symptoms. It’s easy to attribute breathlessness to ageing. It’s easy to put down your chronic cough to, well, it’s just your winter cough. We’ve been conditioned to think of our breast health and our prostate health and our heart health, but not so much of our lungs. So what’s the problem?

I believe that lung disease has a branding problem. I’d like you to take just a second to picture in your mind the face of a typical person with lung disease. I’m guessing that you’re not picturing the beautiful 28-year-old Lillian, young mother, corporate lawyer, diagnosed with lung cancer a couple of years ago. You’re probably not thinking of 27-year-old Cameron, a tradie who was diagnosed with silicosis after breathing in the dust from the bench tops that he engineers in engineered stone. And I’m positive you wouldn’t be thinking of four-year-old Charlie who has been diagnosed with childhood interstitial lung disease and goes to kindie every day attached to an oxygen cylinder.

The image that most people think about when they think about lung disease just doesn’t tell the whole story, and that’s if you’ve got lungs, you can get lung disease. Which brings me to the second part of the branding problem, and that’s stigma. That is the automatic link that our research tells us most Australians make between lung disease and smoking. We’ve been very successful in Australia bringing down our smoking rate, but we’ve done it on the back of the clear warning that smoking leads to lung cancer and other lung disease.

So there’s an unintended consequence from the successful public health campaign, and that’s that in every survey we conduct, we see that Australians have little sympathy for those with lung disease generally and lung cancer specifically. Now, smoking, of course, is an important risk factor for lung disease. However, the same level of judgment is not applied to other diseases, whether it’s heart disease, vascular disease, even breast cancer, all of which can be linked to lifestyle choices like smoking, diet or exercise.

This lack of empathy is translated into a lack of community support, philanthropic support, corporate support and policy support for those with lung disease. It means that champions are less likely to come forward and advocate for those with lung disease. Even journalists are less interested in covering stories about lung disease. People just don’t care about people with lung disease.

As one of my lung cancer advocates asked me, ‘Where are my fun runs, and where are my pink ribbons?’ By the way, I imagine you don’t know that one in three women diagnosed with lung cancer this year will be a lifelong never-smoker. With a smoking rate of around 13% in Australia, the vast


- 2 -

majority of those diagnosed with lung disease are a non-smoker, either an ex-smoker or never-smoker.

So imagine being diagnosed with a devastating disease like lung cancer and told that statistics tell you that you have a 15% chance of being alive in five years. Not only do you have to deal with this life-changing and life-limiting diagnosis, but you also need to deal with the attitudes in community that imply that you are somehow less worthy of support than those with other diseases.

So my request of you today is simple; please help us get out these two messages. Remember that anyone with lungs can get lung disease, and to be aware of symptoms of lung disease and act on those.

Chairman: Thank you, Ms Allan.

Response by Councillor David McLachlan, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN, would you care to respond?

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and to Ms Allan for coming in and addressing Council today. Ms Allan, I’m Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, so I have a responsibility for ensuring that we’re striving for a clean, green and sustainable city. We share your concerns about the impacts of lung cancer and recognise the need for a city with clean air and understand that lungs of the people and lungs of the city are two very important and parallel objectives, and we certainly strive for that.

Our objectives under our Brisbane. Clean, Green and Sustainable 2017-2031 document, which we released recently celebrates sustainability and environmental achievements. Things like planting two million trees, reaching 100% carbon neutrality and our commitment to purchasing green space across the city to reach our 40% green cover targets are very important for us to be able to continue to claim the mantle of being Australia’s Most Sustainable City.

Clean air is one of those key factors. I’ve highlighted here in the past that we’ve shown great leadership in this city over a couple of decades, and we’ve been recognised as the clean air capital of Australia by the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand. So these are important achievements, but it also points to both the legacy and the objective we have to make sure that we continue that path to being sustainable.

Other advancements—green transport, getting people into public and active transport, very important to reducing the amount of materials that are in the air that can be carcinogenic. I think you’ve come here today with a very important message that we need to know and understand, that lung cancer is not just a smoker’s disease; it can affect anybody. It certainly can affect anybody in an urban environment. We thank you for making sure that we’re aware of that message, and we’d be delighted to make sure that you have the support of this Council in getting that message our further. Thank you very much.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillors, Ms Allan has provided a lung cancer checklist and information that will be distributed to all Councillors today. Certainly you’ve been provided with the lung cancer checklist both last week and also on the back of your agenda today.

Thank you, Ms Allan.


- 3 -

B. Laura Klein – The need for a Norman Creek underpass

Chairman: I would now like to call our next public speaker, Ms Laura Klein, who will address the Chamber on the need for a Norman Creek underpass. Orderly, please show Ms Klein in.

Ms Klein, please proceed. You have five minutes.

Ms Laura Klein: Hello, my name is Laura Klein, and I’m a local resident of Stones Corner and a parent at Buranda State School. I’m here today to address LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR Adrian SCHRINNER and all Councillors. I apologise for talking so quickly, but I need to paint a clear picture of the issues at Stones Corner.

There is an urgent need to build an underpass under Logan Road to allow safer bike travel and pedestrian travel, connect our local communities, support active travel, and reduce road congestion; all issues high on Council’s agenda. I have lived in the area since 2002 but it wasn’t until my eldest child started at Buranda School in 2014 that I began walking the 800-metre journey to school twice daily. I soon discovered that the side street at Cleveland Street and the pedestrian lights at Logan Road were dangerous thoroughfares. In only a few months I witnessed and personally experienced so many near misses crossing these roads; so the Stones Corner Road Safety Committee was created in October 2014.

Since then we have had extensive consultation with Councillor Ian McKENZIE and multiple correspondence with many areas of Council. We have featured in four articles in the South-East Advertiser. We have completed two Council ePetitions with hundreds of signatures on each. We have submitted 90 letters to the LORD MAYOR’s Office in June this year asking him to prioritise the underpass construction. Council has always said they support and prioritise active travel, so that 50-metre underpass fits perfectly within that scope. It is the missing link in the current array of wonderful bike paths.

I now have three children at Buranda State School, and we walk or ride every day. Our Stones Corner Road Safety group has grown to 400 members, and we are well supported by the various BUG groups—bicycle user groups—throughout Brisbane, some of whom are here today. An underpass would provide a safe pathway for students from Buranda State School, Narbethong Special School, Stones Corner C&K Kindie, Coorparoo State High and Villanova College as well as Stones Corner Childcare Centre, as well as the thousands of general commuters and cyclists and pedestrians who cross here each week.

This is not about politics or power. The whole premise of our campaign is safety. We cannot risk a citizen being hit, maimed or killed while crossing these poorly designed intersections that can no longer cater for the massive increase in traffic. The list of near misses continues to grow. In 2015, a year 5 Buranda student was clipped by a car going through the red light as she crossed with her mum. She was not seriously injured, but it could have been fatal. Just three months later, I was crossing at the lights with my three children; my five-year-old was on his scooter, and was only one metre away from being struck by a car, also failing to stop at the red light.

Cleveland Street is of most concern because it is only a red zone, not an actual zebra crossing. So most drivers do not realise pedestrians have right of way even though it’s the law and is clearly signposted. Only two weeks ago a Buranda parent was crossing here when a speeding car came from the O’Keefe Street


- 4 -

roundabout and cut the corner to turn right into Cleveland Street. The parent was in the middle of the road with his children, and luckily the driver screeched to a stop, but it was very close.

We have asked for the right turn to be blocked. Councillor McKENZIE arranged for a monitoring camera in February this year, but it was deemed there was not enough evidence to suggest blocking the turn would improve safety. We strongly disagree with these findings. Councillor McKENZIE said he was unable to force the change. Councillor McKENZIE agrees that Cleveland Street is confusing and dangerous. He has suggested crossing further down the street. If this was safer, we would do it. We have tried this multiple times, but with parked cars and no centre island, it is extremely dangerous and not a viable option.

A staff member at Lady Marmalade Cafe sees near misses and minor collisions at Cleveland Street every day. If the road structure is left in its current state with no option for crossing via an underpass, it will be only a matter of time before a serious injury or fatality occurs. We are hoping it does not take such a catastrophic event before Council prioritises real safety and infrastructure changes in this area.

We understand flooding is an issue in Hanlon Park, but identical bike track underpasses have existed for years along the southern end of the park at Cornwall Street, Juliette Street and Ridge Street. So we fail to see why a new underpass cannot be built at the northern end under Logan Road. When it floods a few times a year, the existing underpasses and any new underpasses would be unusable. However, for 360 days a year, the underpass would provide a safe and practical passage for pedestrians and cyclists.

I attended a meeting with Booth Engineers two months ago who believe a low cost option is to move the low water channel to the third cell of the bridge and add some concrete to make a path under the first cell. I recently wrote to Councillor McKENZIE and Councillor SCHRINNER about this option. I have contacted Anthony Holloway from Bikeways 4 Brisbane, Michelle Seward from Norman Creek Redevelopment, and the team from the Active School Travel about funding this underpass.

Despite our years of advocacy, however, no changes to road crossings or infrastructure have happened, but we did receive some good news from the LORD MAYOR two weeks ago. Councillor QUIRK, thank you for your letter. We were heartened to receive confirmation that funding for two local projects had been included in the recent Council upgrades. Firstly, the preliminary investigation into upgrading the O’Keefe Street roundabout is a long-awaited project in this area, but it is not enough to ensure safe active travel for pedestrians and cyclists.

The second and most important project is the preliminary planning and costing to upgrade Hanlon Park. The LORD MAYOR recently confirmed in writing that an underpass may now be considered as part of the project, not an add-on at a later date. We look forward to being part of the community consultation for this project.

Thank you for your time today. I hope my presentation keeps the underpass project top-of-mind for the relevant parts of Council. We know it is such a useful, worthy project that ratepayers would be happy to see go ahead. We look forward to the preliminary investigations being completed this financial year, with a date for construction set in late 2018. Thank you.

Chairman: Thank you, Ms Klein.


- 5 -

Response by Councillor David McLachlan, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN, would you care to respond, please?

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and to Ms Klein for addressing Council today. My name is David McLACHLAN; I’m the Chairman of Environment, Parks and Sustainability, and I’m responding to you because I have oversight of the long-term vision for the Norman Creek Master Plan which you mentioned. But I’ve also been in consultation with Councillor McKENZIE and my Cabinet colleague, Councillor COOPER, about these connectivity issues. We certainly agree that the Norman Creek Master Plan will be an improvement to the connectivity issues that you’ve so passionately talked about here today.

I know that you’ve written to the LORD MAYOR and received that response, and thank you for acknowledging that. As you mentioned, there are two projects that will address your concerns. We have funding allocated for the Norman Creek Master Plan which will focus in the 2017-18 financial year on that Hanlon Park connectivity issue and with other funding to deliver works as part of the overall Norman Creek Master Plan in future Council budgets.

So we do, as you’ve acknowledged, need to focus on how we manage flooding in the area as well as providing those connections underneath the roadway and at Hanlon Park. So yes, it will be a priority to ensure that stormwater management is one of the priorities, and that flooding isn’t worsened by any construction that is undertaken, and we will be certainly undertaking community consultation in relation to what we do at Hanlon Park, and certainly a part of that master plan will be to consider that pedestrian connectivity as well under the bridge as part of that redesign. So, I am confident that that will result with a redesign that will show safer access for all pedestrians as a consequence.

As you’ve mentioned, you’re aware of the areas of compatibility with other areas of the Council, and I know you’ll continue to advocate for those various upgrade options. I’ll certainly be making sure that Councillor McKENZIE provides us with that information so we can look at where we need to allocate the funds. But be assured that, in the first instance, there is budget, as the LORD MAYOR has mentioned, as part of the Norman Creek Master Plan, to look at those works in particular at Hanlon Park and to see what we can do to get connectivity at that particular point at Stones Corner. Thanks very much for coming in.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN.

Thank you, Ms Klein.

QUESTION TIME:

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

Councillor McKENZIE.

Question 1

Councillor McKENZIE: Madam Chairman, thank you; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. This morning’s announcement about river infrastructure will boost Brisbane’s


- 6 -

tourism and lifestyle opportunities. Can you give the Chamber an update on what these plans entail, and when we can expect these hubs to come to fruition?

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor McKENZIE for the question. Madam Chairman, earlier today, together with Councillor COOPER and Councillor HOWARD, we released the concept plans around the first of two inner city mooring facilities. These two are based at New Farm Park and at the City Botanic Gardens.

Earlier, of course, we indicated that we would want to put together a series of 10 locations—five inner city locations, five suburban locations. Some of those are about providing a broad range of mooring facilities for commercial craft and water taxi services as well as leisure craft, and then five other locations, more suburban based, around leisure facilities—the smaller craft, rowing, canoeing and other water-based activities.

So, Madam Chairman, today in releasing those concept designs, we are seeking hubs that will be world-class in terms of a network of river access infrastructure in our city, and it is all about, again, improving the leisure and lifestyle opportunities that we have in our city. We are certainly known as Australia’s New World City, but part of that is a mantra around being a river city. So Council is very much committed to creating those opportunities for our residents and for visitors to our city.

So the River Access Network builds on the River’s Edge Strategy. It aims to provide a world-class network of river access infrastructure.

Apart from those at New Farm today which would be adjacent to the Powerhouse, and that of the City Botanic Gardens, which will be located down around the Edward Street precinct, near the Stamford Plaza Hotel, Madam Chairman, there are three other locations, and I have announced these in the budget. Two of those would be at South Bank and the other at West End. In terms of the five suburban locations, they will be at Dutton Park, Tingalpa, Moggill, Riverhills and at Colmslie.

So these river access hubs will certainly provide new multipurpose river-based infrastructure opportunities and, as I said earlier, will cater for a range of vessel types. The new access opportunities for charter boats and tour operators as a pick-up and drop-off point to places like Moreton Bay and that of Moreton Island and Stradbroke Island, Madam Chairman, emerged out of a tourism summit that we held in this city some months ago, supporting on-demand pick-ups and drop-offs by way of a water taxi service as a part of that vision for the future as well.

Once we get enough moorings in place, we believe that that would be the next step, to look for commercial providers that might be able to provide a river taxi service to various points around our city. Madam Chairman, it’s also about providing short-term use for non-motorised water craft, and I mentioned canoes and paddling opportunities, be it through kayaks or stand-up paddle boards, et cetera.

The timing, Madam Chairman, around these facilities is important as well. New Farm will be, we believe, the first one on board. So we expect the construction will occur in 2018 for this facility. It will be, I suppose, a simpler facility in terms of the approval process. The reality with the second one I’ve mentioned, the City Botanic Gardens, is that there are more complexities to it in terms of approvals. Madam Chairman, at the time when I brought the budget down, I simply asked all those entities and authorities that have an approval


- 7 -

process associated with their responsibilities for river-based infrastructure to have a make-it-happen attitude around these things. So, Madam Chairman, I am continuing to meet in regards to that to make sure that we’ve got all of those entities on board for an early and positive result for our city.

So, the City Botanic Gardens location, we would expect the construction for that to commence either late 2018 or 2019. Again, with that, it is based also around a cycling and walkway facility in Alice Street, Madam Chairman; an Alice Street link there, and that again hooks into the Botanic Gardens. So all of this will be an integrated facility and, Madam Chairman, again because of those complexities of heritage listing and other issues, we believe that will be behind the New Farm facility.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 2

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Back in August 2013, respected IT journalist, technologist and commentator Renai LeMay made the following prediction about Brisbane City Council’s IT strategy, and I quote, ‘Brisbane City Council is my prime candidate Australia-wide right now for an organisation which is headed for a massive IT disaster. The Council is simultaneously handing out major bundles of IT out-sourcing services, off-shoring IT staff, conducting innovative projects involving cloud computing, and rolling out one of Australia’s largest enterprise systems consolidations.’

He went on to say, ‘We would have thought good governance would have suggested that it might not be the best time to off-shore IT jobs when you're in the middle of a huge IT systems overhaul.’ LORD MAYOR, do you acknowledge that you should have seen your current IT disaster coming, and that this whole saga is the result of Council making a wide range of IT decisions that set the scene for the $180 million system melt down we are suffering?


LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. There’s always lots of soothsayers, Madam Chairman, out there. There will always be plenty of predictors. We had some of the same predictors around, Madam Chairman, when we took on the $350 million BaSE program, and that, of course, was a system that brought 60 different individual systems into a single platform. Of course, the Labor Party at that time was saying that, you know, you’d never do it, it wouldn’t happen, you wouldn’t be able to do it on budget and, Madam Chairman, they’ve never actually got up here and admitted, ‘yes, well, we were wrong on that occasion. You were able to do it. You did bring it in on budget’, Madam Chairman, and it has delivered that outcome that we sought.

So, Madam Chairman, there will always be those who are also very, very expert after the fact.

Councillor interjecting.


- 8 -

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: I was referring to Councillor CUMMING, Councillor; I wasn’t referring to the entity or the individual that Councillor CUMMING named in the question.

So, look, the IT world is full of, you know, people with all sorts of expertise and ideas, Madam Chairman. That is the nature of that sector. I think we can all name entities, both private sector and public sector, that have had issues with IT and IT implementation programs over time. Madam Chairman, we have been faced with issues regarding the Local Government Systems. I made that very public, Madam Chairman. I went on the front foot and told people that we had a problem, and I did that in January of this year. I gave at that time the vendor of Local Government Systems six months in which to provide a facility, to provide a system. Madam Chairman, that six months was up a little over a week ago now, and as a result of no system being delivered, I took the step, Madam Chairman, of cancelling that contract.

So we are now in negotiation, in arbitration, Madam Chairman, surrounding that outcome of that contract, and that’s where it sits. So, Madam Chairman, again Councillor CUMMING today has drawn out one individual who had a view of the world, and it was—


LORD MAYOR: That was about BaSE?

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order! Order!

LORD MAYOR: Well, I don’t—

Chairman: Councillor—

LORD MAYOR: I don’t—Madam Chairman, I—

Chairman: Just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Sure.

Chairman: That is enough. There is enough talking—Councillor ADAMS, please—

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman—

Chairman: Just a moment; just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR.

There is enough talking and calling out across this Chamber. I put you all on notice that, if you continue to interject and create disruption in this Chamber, you will be formally cautioned and warned.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, as people would know, I generally give the questioners in this place the benefit of the doubt. So in this case I am giving Councillor CUMMING the benefit of the doubt. I don’t recall this commentary. You know, I don’t recall this commentary being about the Local Government Systems program. If that commentary was about BaSE, it has been, of course, wildly wrong. So I’d ask you to check.


- 9 -


LORD MAYOR: I’m just hearing some murmurs on this side, Madam Chairman, that that commentary may well have been about the BaSE project, not LGS, and that—


Chairman: Just a moment, please.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: No, Councillor SUTTON, I’m speaking. You just sat there after I had just finished saying about calling out—


Chairman: Sit down!


Chairman: Enough! Enough! You do not answer me back in this Chamber.


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, I remind you of the Meetings Local Law; when I am speaking, you cease. You do not scream out across the Chamber when I have told you not to, and you do not sit in this place and tell me to clean out my ears. You may do that to your children at home, but you do not do it in this place.


Chairman: You start behaving with an appropriate level of respect.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, in responding as best I can to Councillor CUMMING’s question, I don’t recall this statement. If this statement was made in 2013, however—and I must admit I didn’t quite pick up on that part of the question; I was more interested in what this person had said. But if it was 2013, Madam Chairman, Local Government Systems was not even on the agenda in 2013, if that was in the question. Clearly the comments at that time could only have been about BaSE which was where we were bringing 60 systems into one.

Now, when Councillor CUMMING goes back and checks, and we certainly will. I will re-check the Hansard and the actual question today, and if that was the case, if that comment was made around 2013 or 2014, Madam Chairman, it is well ahead of Local Government Systems even being on the agenda in this place. It was clearly about BaSE if that was the case. Now, if that was so, BaSE has been an outstanding success, Madam Chairman. It brought that $350 million project, bringing 60 systems under a single platform into this place. It had a business case which projected $450 million in benefits over a 10-year life of that BaSE program, and Madam Chairman, that person, if they were talking about BaSE, has got it completely wrong—completely wrong.

So, Madam Chairman, again, I always give the questioner the benefit of the doubt. Now, I am being handed a document here which says, ‘Brisbane reveals $353 million overhaul’—


- 10 -


Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: That was, of course, BaSE. It was, of course—

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has unfortunately expired.

Further questions?

Councillor HUANG.

Question 3

Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Can you please outline how this Administration is creating new lifestyle and leisure opportunities by supporting Brisbane’s local creative community?

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor HUANG for that question. Of course, this Administration is focused on creating lifestyle and leisure opportunities—

Chairman: Don’t be distracted, Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: This Administration, as I said, Madam Chairman, is focused on creating lifestyle and leisure opportunities for the people of Brisbane, Madam Chairman, and we continue to do that with our latest budget, the 2017-18 Council budget; with a number of exciting announcements in that budget, Madam Chairman. But we’re building on past successes where this Administration has delivered into those lifestyle and leisure opportunities.

Of course, we continue our investment into the Brisbane Powerhouse, Madam Chairman, which is a key destination for creatives in our city, and has been the heart of our cultural showcase, for many years. We’ve also done our Creative Sector Survey, Madam Chairman, which has provided the Council with great insight into how we can better support, foster and develop creative communities right across our city.

But most importantly, Madam Chairman, we have announced—this Administration and the LORD MAYOR—a desire to build a new West End community hub for the creative community, Madam Chairman. So we know that, with the purchase and redevelopment of the ABSOE site in Montague Road, the old creative spaces that were there were no longer available for the artists and the number of groups that used to use them. So, Madam Chairman, we as a Council, have decided to step in and fill the gap that is needed.

So it is my pleasure to tell the Chamber—and if you’ve seen it in the media—Council has entered into an arrangement to lease 1/170 Montague Road at West End, Madam Chairman, and this new exciting space will be transformed into a creative hub to help support the various artists, musicians, groups and other individuals who may wish to use it, to help develop their creative skills, whether it is products, whether it is performances, or digital, the whole range of creatives that we have in our city.


- 11 -

It will be a space not only for them to work and collaborate but one for them to express their art as well as exhibit their art, Madam Chairman. So, earlier this month we started—I should say, earlier in July, because we are now in August, Madam Chairman—early in July we started the expressions of interest process, to help find a head lessee for the creative hub.

Madam Chairman, it has been an exciting process, and we have been really pleased to see that we’ve had 13 applications put in, which have met the criteria, and we’re now going through the process of assessing all of those applications. It is really important, Madam Chairman, that we get the right head lessee for this space, because we want it to serve the community really well and provide for the needs of the West End community when it comes to creativism; more broadly, the Brisbane creative community.

So we’re doing that assessment, as I said, and we will hopefully soon be announcing the successful head tenderer. Madam Chairman, we are hoping to work with that head tenderer to set up a model where the sub-lessees and the head tenderer are able to get to a point where it is self-sufficient. Council’s commitment has been to provide a lease and a space for two years, Madam Chairman, and we’re going to be working very closely with that group who is successful to make sure that we have a model which works well into the future.

All of this, Madam Chairman, is just part of our creative strategy on how we engage with the creative community across the city. We have a range of grants available to creatives as well, like the Creative Sparks Program, the Brisbane Arts and Cultural Innovation Awards, as well, Madam Chairman, as well as things like QUBE Effect which I’ve spoken at length about in this Council Chamber before.

We also, on top of the investment directly into those groups and individuals, Madam Chairman, support and sponsor a range of cultural organisations right across this city. So cultural organisations like the Queensland Youth Orchestra, Metro Arts, La Boite Theatre and others, benefit from this Administration’s commitment to providing lifestyle and leisure opportunities for the residents of Brisbane, supported through our creative strategies.

It is really important, Madam Chairman, as we continue to grow as a city, that we continue to provide spaces and continue to provide funding to support creatives. Madam Chairman, we know that it’s a growing part of the economy, not only here in Brisbane but around the world, whether it’s the digital section, whether it’s the creative section. There are real opportunities in a globalised world for the creative community to benefit from the opportunities and the developments in technology, Madam Chairman, and the developments in other fields.

That’s why this Administration is continuing to invest money into this space. It provides the jobs of the future and the opportunities for the future. But most importantly, Madam Chairman, it makes our city a place to visit, to work, and it provides those opportunities for all of Brisbane’s residents, when it comes to lifestyle and leisure opportunities.


Councillor CUMMING.


- 12 -

Question 4

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. By the Council’s own admission, law firm Minter Ellison has been paid $1.6 million as part of the IT bungle that has seen TechnologyOne paid $21 million for an IT system your Administration has abandoned. Can you now detail how much has been paid to date to Deloitte and KJ Ross for their part in this process?

Chairman: LORD MAYOR

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, again with these questions, one of the great mistakes I make in this place is, you know, giving too much credence to the questions, Madam Chairman. Already we’ve seen today with one question out, a quote, Madam Chairman, which was absolutely nothing to do—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

LORD MAYOR: —with the Local Government—of course you would interject on behalf of the Labor Party.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, firstly the question was about fees paid to Deloitte and somebody else about the current Local Government contract—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —and I would ask you to draw the LORD MAYOR—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —back to the question.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, you do not debate on a point of order. The LORD MAYOR was providing context around the Local Government System and the clarification.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, so, Madam Chairman, again—and I’m very happy to respond to the question, but I again just say that, Madam Chairman, that last question was nothing to do with the Local Government Systems, and it was entirely—


LORD MAYOR: —I’ve got the article here. Yes, of course, so do your homework—


LORD MAYOR: —before you come in here and ask your questions.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR seems intent to keep on—


- 13 -

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor SUTTON: —answering the last question.

Chairman: —you do not—do not speak over me. You do not debate—

Councillor SUTTON: Well, you keep on speaking over me.

Chairman: Do not answer me back. You do not speak over me when I’m speaking, and you do not debate a point of order, which is what you did.

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, I am asking you to draw the LORD—

Chairman: I don’t uphold your point of order.

Councillor SUTTON: My point of order is that the LORD—

Chairman: I don’t uphold your point of order.

Councillor SUTTON: —is relevance. Of course you don’t.



LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman—

Chairman: Just a moment, please—

LORD MAYOR: —I will move on.


Councillor SUTTON, you do not sit there and make comments after I have made a ruling. I formally caution you that if you continue to interject and disrupt this meeting, you will be formally warned and you may be suspended from the service of this Chamber for a period of up to eight days.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, it is becoming blatantly obvious where Councillor CUMMING’s last question came from. Why would Councillor SUTTON be so upset—and perhaps she’s framed—


LORD MAYOR: Perhaps she’s framed this question as well.




- 14 -

Warning – Councillor Shayne SUTTONThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor Shayne SUTTON that unless she desisted from continuing to interject and disrupt the order of the Chamber she would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor Shayne SUTTON was warned that, if she were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.


LORD MAYOR: Yes, so, Madam Chairman, I—


Chairman: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I just draw your attention to the Meetings Local Law, section 33, subsection 8, and it states that neither the LORD MAYOR nor a Chairman shall debate the subject of the question. The answer should be relevant and succinct, and I ask that you direct—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —the LORD MAYOR to answer the question.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON. The LORD MAYOR is providing context in his answer.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, with Local Government Systems, I made it clear that we would be engaging entities from the private sector to assist this Council, in its deliberations and its contractual negotiations with that of the vendor, TechnologyOne.

Madam Chairman, that has been the case. It has been important for us to go out and get the assistance of specialists in this field to assist Council to make sure that, given that this contract did not go well, that we, Madam Chairman, got ourselves in the best possible position in representing the ratepayers of this city. I make no apologies for having done that, because it was the right thing to do in the circumstances, where we had a contract in place, where that contract was not being delivered.

Madam Chairman, I wanted to ensure that we got the best possible advice in this city to ensure that the ratepayers were put on the front foot in this matter, that we get a very clear understanding as to whether this service, this contract, was able to be delivered and done so within the timeframe that I outlined in January of this year. Those engagements have been very, very important in reaching a point where the exposure of ratepayers was limited.

I am, Madam Chairman, convinced that the engagement of people like Deloitte, like Minter Ellison, those entities that we have engaged have been absolutely worthwhile. So, Madam Chairman, Councillor CUMMING, I don’t have the actual figures today. You’ve given a figure, I notice, $1.6 million to Minter Ellison. I don’t know whether that’s right or not, based on question one. I’d need to re-check that. But, Madam Chairman, the reality is that we will be spending what we need to, because it is no point in us just relying on an in-house legal service where you’ve got matters—



- 15 -

LORD MAYOR: Yes, you’re a lawyer expert; we all know that you’re a wonderful lawyer expert.



Order! Councillor JOHNSTON! I formally caution you that if you continue to interject and disrupt this Chamber, you will be formally warned and you may be suspended from the service of the Chamber for a period of up to eight days.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, we required specialist legal and consulting services in this area. Again, I re-state that they were engaged because I wanted to make sure that the exposure of ratepayers in these circumstances was minimised. Madam Chairman, I have absolutely no regrets having gone down the track of making sure that we have the best people in place in terms of dealing with this particular outcome.

So, Councillor CUMMING, you are right; we have engaged specialist services. They have cost money to engage, but I would say this to you, and I would say this to the ratepayers of Brisbane; that those engagements, Madam Chairman, will result in a far, far better outcome for our Council and our ratepayers over time, than would have been the case had we not engaged them, by a golden mile.

Madam Chairman, it’s a bit like, you know, if you’ve got something wrong with you, you go to a GP and, you know, the GP says, oh, you’d better go to a specialist. Well, what do you do? Do you stay with your GP? No, of course you don’t. Of course you don’t. You go to the specialist, Madam Chairman. You go to somebody who’s got the expertise in dealing in that particular field, and that’s what we have done. We have done that deliberately in the interests of ratepayers.

So, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. I am disappointed that this has really lost its way, this Question Time today, with a very deceptive question in question one, which was completely about another project all together, and just shows what lack of homework the Opposition are doing in these matters.


Councillor ALLAN.

Question 5

Councillor ALLAN: Madam Chairman, my question is to the Chair of the City Planning Committee, Councillor SIMMONDS. In a growing city such as Brisbane, we are faced with balancing the current and future requirements of a range of stakeholders, including residents, businesses and visitors. One of the key mechanisms for planning these changes is via the neighbourhood planning process. Could you outline for the Chamber how we manage the balance between the commercial and industrial uses of land, with residential demand and the factors we consider in making zoning decisions?

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you for the question, Councillor ALLAN. I acknowledge your keen interest and input in the


- 16 -

Banyo-Northgate neighbourhood plan. This is an example of how Council seeks to balance competing uses within a growing area.

The Banyo-Northgate neighbourhood plan was launched in November last year, as Councillors know, to review and plan for the current and future residential, commercial and industrial demand within the area. In recognition of the targets set by the State Government in the draft regional plan, the Banyo and Northgate area is identified as a growth node with access to key major roads and train stations.

As we do with all our neighbourhood plans, Council launched the neighbourhood plan with an online survey and called for nominations for the Community Planning Team. This initial community engagement phase helps Council understand what the community loves and what can be improved before progressing any detail for the plan area.

The more residents involved, of course, as we know, during this part of the consultation process and throughout the consultation process in general, the better the residents’ views are represented as part of the overall outcome. So, I just wanted to take this opportunity, Councillor ALLAN, to congratulate you on being the driving force behind this initial period of consultation for the Banyo-Northgate neighbourhood plan. We had a huge number of responses from residents, with more than 1,000 survey responses, and over 70 Community Planning Team member nominations. This, I think, we can sheet home very much as a result of the hard work by you as the local Councillor and your dedication to get people involved.

Now, further to your point about how we manage the competing interests of residential mixed use and industrial within that plan area. So, the survey certainly did indicate what residents love about the Banyo-Northgate area. They love the access to train stations, with three train stations in the area. It’s not surprising that a third of residents said they travel to and from work via the train. The community also indicated that they love access to cafes, restaurants and shops, but there could be more done to provide these additional amenity opportunities.

To this end, only a couple of weeks ago, on 20 July, Council held the third Community Planning Team meeting focusing particularly on residential and industrial uses within the area. The Community Planning Team identified that there were the opportunities for mixed use development to occur, particularly around the Nudgee and Northgate train stations. While these areas are currently industrial uses, Council planners are taking on board this feedback and are currently looking at opportunities that balance the transitions of these current uses with the future needs of the residents and workers.

In particular, I note your point that mixed use development in this area will allow for more of the things that residents love, such as shops and cafes, as well as residential elements to create and complete that community-style atmosphere. These community-driven initiatives are in the process of being finalised in the form of a draft strategy document to be consulted and tested with the broader Banyo-Northgate community, and I note that we will continue to discuss these options as that strategy is formulated.

In particular, those initiatives in the Banyo and Northgate area, and being considered as part of the Banyo and Northgate community strategy, will dovetail nicely with the additional consultation that will shortly commence on a recent study that Council has done regarding our planning settings that govern industrial land within our city. I look forward to a consultation with the community and particularly our industrial land owners about how we can improve the planning settings around the use of industrial land in the city.


- 17 -

This study, along with the neighbourhood planning strategy document, ensures that Council is going well and above the statutory requirements that have been set in place by the Queensland Government for consultation to ensure that we get the balance right between the current and future residents and workers within not just the Banyo and Northgate area but, of course across the city. That is why the neighbourhood planning process that this Council is involved in is an award-winning program.

It’s also the reason, of course—and they say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery—that none other than the Queensland Labor Party have picked it up as part of the State Government’s community engagement toolkit and have set out to copy our award-winning neighbourhood planning process. I certainly recognise the common sense in that decision by them to emulate this LNP Administration. It is good to see that that additional consultation that we roll out may also be adopted by the State Government.

So, Councillor ALLAN, we will continue to look through those survey responses for the Banyo-Northgate neighbourhood plan area. We will continue to engage with the Community Planning Team. We look forward to going out with the draft strategy for further consultation that I know that you will drive through your community. We look forward to continuing this approach of significant consultation across the neighbourhood planning area. Thank you.


Councillor CUMMING.

Question 6

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Your Finance Chair, Councillor ADAMS, has confirmed reports Council is owed more than $100 million in unpaid toll fines. On Triple M last week, during your disgraceful scare campaign over EB (Enterprise Bargaining) negotiations. You said that every $10 million in lost revenue meant a possible rates rise of one per cent. Does this mean your incompetent Administration has been suckered into a contract that will hit Brisbane residents with a 10% rates rise?


LORD MAYOR: Well, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. Madam Chairman, it’s interesting that Councillor CUMMING is pursing the issue of unpaid toll fines. I suspect if it was parking he wouldn’t be pursuing such an approach. The same could be argued there for unpaid parking fines, I guess, Councillor CUMMING. I could only assume from the question that it would follow, if you were saying that unpaid toll fines were of importance, then you would say that unpaid parking fines are of similar importance to you.


LORD MAYOR: Well, unpaid rates as well, but that’s another story. Madam Chairman, the reality is in terms of the toll fines is that this is not revenue that we’re handing out, Madam Chairman. It’s revenue that is, if you like, out there but not coming in. There is a difference. There is a difference, Madam Chairman, because our budget certainly has not, within its allocations, provided for a $100 million collection of these toll fines.

We know that the reality is that the system, the way it stands, is that the fines don’t get paid; a lot of these end up in SPER (State Penalty Enforcement Registry), Madam Chairman. When they end up there, of course, this Council doesn’t get those moneys, even if there is a successful outcome to SPER. In fact,


- 18 -

we pay them. So that is the simple reality, that we have to pay for those matters to go to SPER. If we are faced with unpaid fines, our next option is to go to SPER after we’ve been through a process of reminder letters and the like.

So, Councillor CUMMING, it’s not as though in this case, when you talk about $100 million, that it is $100 million that we have suddenly lost from our budget projections. That is not the case. It would be misleading of you if you were to try and create that impression with people here today. Rather, that is an amount of money that if all of the toll fines were collected, Madam Chairman; that is the order of moneys that we are talking about.

Again, I don’t have all of those numbers available with me, but I can say to you, to draw a correlation somehow with the $10 million equalling one per cent of rates revenue that I referred to, then I think that is incorrect. It would follow that if all of the $100 million came in to Council, that would certainly be a terrific relief to the Council and finances, and as a result, that would have a positive flow-on impact to ratepayers. But the reality is we were not in our budget projections expecting to get those moneys in.

By contrast, if we know that we have to pay out an additional $10 million, then that is clearly one per cent of our rates revenue. Last year, or this year, rather, in our budget, when we brought it down, you add up all of the rates revenue, take away the discounts for pensioners, Madam Chairman, that apply to those rates, and you end up with a total rate, a net rate amount of $1,060,000,000. So, it follows from that, around $10 million equals one per cent of rates. So that’s where that calculation came from, Councillor CUMMING. That was the analogy that I was using, were there a position where Council had to pay a 3.5% increase in salary as opposed to a 2.5% increase in salary, which is the offer on the table, together with a $400 sign-up grant.

So, Madam Chairman, that gives a context. I hope that that satisfies the response to Councillor CUMMING’s question. But, Madam Chairman, again his question comes from a wrong premise, a premise of saying that that’s money we’ve lost, when in fact we did not expect to actually receive that money.


Councillor KING.

Question 7

Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of Infrastructure Committee, Councillor COOPER. Can you please provide an update to the Chamber on the investment that Council is making in our city’s network and, specifically, that of Green Camp Road, to take real action on traffic congestion and ensure that residents can get home quicker and safer?

Chairman: Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Like everyone in the Chamber, I have a croaky voice, so I apologise for that. Well, it feels like everyone in the Chamber.

In response to that question of Councillor KING, it is always important—and I think this Chamber is very well aware of the fact that Council does above and beyond when it comes to delivering on attacking traffic congestion in this city. We are responsible for more than 5,700 kilometres of road, 15,240 streets, so a huge responsibility that we take on board and we deliver against each and every day in this city.


- 19 -

So we note that the State Government, who I’m advised have a responsibility for just over 322 kilometres of road; so our proportion is vast compared to theirs. When you look at the fact we’ve got two million vehicles driving on Council roads each and every day across the city, so we’ve got about half a million vehicles coming to and from the south, and more than 300,000 vehicles per day coming to and from the north.

The Connecting Brisbane plan, released by the LORD MAYOR and the Deputy Premier early in June, specifically highlighted the prediction of both Infrastructure Australia and the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, that the cost of road congestion will more than double to between $4 billion and nearly $6 billion for Brisbane, and $9 billion for South East Queensland by 2030 if congestion is not tackled. We absolutely are working hard to make sure that this is not the reality for our city as we grow.

That is absolutely why we are getting on with delivering projects to tackle congestion, and particularly the upgrading of Green Camp Road is one of our 90 road projects that the LORD MAYOR and this Council are absolutely getting into, to make sure that we are getting residents home quicker and safer each and every day. Green Camp Road carries 30,000 vehicles each day, and as Councillor MURPHY and Councillor SCHRINNER are well aware, the intersections at Rickertt Road and Tilley Road are already operating above capacity.

We’ve got inbound queues currently exceeding 800 metres at Rickertt Road intersection, and over a kilometre at Tilley Road, with delays of nine minutes in the morning peak and 18 minutes in the afternoon peak. So this upgrade is very much focused on getting on and dealing with this issue. It will reduce travel times along Green Camp Road by 50% during the morning and 35% during the afternoon peak period.

Green Camp Road will be widened to at least four lanes, and Tilley and Rickertt Road intersections will be upgraded to reduce congestion. This upgrade, with a fantastic BCR, Benefit Cost Ratio, of 8.8 will improve drainage and flood immunity of Green Camp Road. So it will go from a one in 20-year, or a 20% probability, to a one per cent annual exceedance probability, which is about a one in 100-year probability of a flood occurrence. So that is, again, another very significant improvement that this project will deliver.

As well as, of course, it will provide on-road cycle lanes as well as off-road shared footpath and fauna crossing facilities and wildlife awareness zones. This is a very important project, and we are absolutely delighted to see that we have been able to get support from the Federal Government—so this will be a joint Federal and Brisbane City Council project, with funding of more than $28 million to significantly improve safety.

We are getting a $10 million investment by the Federal Government, and this, I think, is absolutely credit to the LORD MAYOR and certainly to Councillor SCHRINNER and to Councillor MURPHY who have strongly advocated for this. But we’ve been able to show and demonstrate very clearly to the Federal Government—they initially were investing $5 million in this project, and we’ve been able to show even more improvement than the initial project, and they have supported us with an additional $5 million, to bring it to a total of $10 million. So it really shows there are significant benefits for both levels of government.

When we look at the statistics, from 2009 to 2014, there were 25 reported crashes along this section of Green Camp Road corridor, including 20 crashes at the Tilley Road intersection. We were really disappointed to see that the Australian Labor Party actually chose to, instead of investing in upgrading this project, play silly politics, with the local State Member, Don Brown, petitioning


- 20 -

only last year for the State Government to actually take action on this road, which was rebutted quite promptly by the Minister. He was suggesting that the State take control of this road and that they would deliver an outcome. They’ve delivered nothing, Madam Chairman. They have not invested one single dollar in upgrading this corridor.

I would particularly like to thank the LORD MAYOR and the Federal Government for their support and investment in Green Camp Road. We are working together to deliver great outcomes and tackle traffic congestion. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor CUMMING.

Question 8

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Given the revelation in last night’s Four Corners program, can you assure the people of Brisbane that 100% of the rubbish they put in their recycle bins is actually recycled?


LORD MAYOR: Well, thanks, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. It is a reasonable question to ask. I can advise Councillor CUMMING and the Chamber that it’s—


LORD MAYOR: I will. I can advise Councillor CUMMING and the Chamber today that the percentage of recycled material that does get to formal recycling is that of 93%. Madam Chairman, you say, well, why 93 and why not 100%. Well, the reality is that, Madam Chairman, as people utilise their bins, there are times when recycling material becomes contaminated because of other content within those bins. But we have contractual arrangements with Visy. We are in a strong position here.

What I can say to you, further, Councillor CUMMING, is that none of the materials from down south are going into the Rochedale landfill. Again, we have good strong arrangements in place in terms of that facility, but 93%, Madam Chairman, is the figure that we have. People in this city can feel confident that their recycling practices are treasured and respected, and that those recycling materials are being put to good use.

Certainly the program last night outlined challenges regarding the finding of markets for recycled materials, but, Madam Chairman, that aside, we are in a good position. We have got, through Visy, some good source markets in terms of the materials that they have. Obviously as a Council we have increasingly looked at other means of utilising recycled product. For example, we had experimentation using glass as part of the mix of bitumen. That is still a part of our processes. It is a small quantity of crushed glass that goes into bitumen. Again, it has to be free of contaminants. In other words, if you put in dirty glass bottles or whatever, that can have a chemical impact on the bitumen itself, so we’ve made sure through research that the glass is of the right type and quantity and cleanliness to, Madam Chairman, be able to be productively put into the mix of bitumen as one component of what we do.

So, Madam Chairman, I was of course not surprised in many ways to see the issues of waste coming to Queensland. As the Minister said, I think this


- 21 -

morning, he was aware that it has been going on since March, so I don’t know why some people were surprised by that. It’s just one of the realities that economic decisions were being taken by waste producers down south. But again on the question of recycling, Madam Chairman, I think Brisbane householders can be confident and reassured that their efforts are not being put to waste.

Chairman: That ends Question Time.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 31 July 2017, be adopted.

Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, point of order.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: I have a resolution for Council.

Chairman: Sorry?

Councillor CUMMING: I’m moving an urgency resolution.

27/2017-18At that juncture, Councillor Peter CUMMING moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

I move the suspension of so much of standing orders as to allow the debating of a matter of urgency, namely they that the Lord Mayor release the report from Democracy Intelligence Pty Ltd on the information technology contract dispute between Brisbane City Council and TechnologyOne.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, three minutes to urgency.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I understand that a motion along these exact same lines is already on the agenda for today.

Chairman: I realise that that is in the agenda. An urgency motion has been moved, DEPUTY MAYOR, and I have to treat the urgency motion as is in this case.

Three minutes to urgency.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this matter is extremely urgent as Council is now commencing arbitration with TechnologyOne in relation to this contractual dispute. The public statements by LORD MAYOR QUIRK have asserted that Council has done no wrong in this dispute, and all the fault lies with TechnologyOne. All the public statements by TechnologyOne, however, claim that Council’s failure to publicly release the independent review would show that Council has failed to document their own business processes at the outset of the contract, and this was crucial to allow TechnologyOne to commence their part of the contract.


- 22 -

Further, TechnologyOne claims in their ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) release 3 May 2017 that when they were briefed by members of the BCC (Brisbane City Council) LGS independent review committee on the morning of the LORD MAYOR’s announcement of 25 January, the members of the independent review panel were not negative about TechnologyOne’s role in the project to date but were critical of the BCC.

Madam Chair, it is extremely urgent for Council to be upfront about what has happened rather than cover it up as the costs of arbitration are likely to be extremely high. The arbitrator may well be a retired judge or senior barrister who will charge $10,000 a day or more. The parties would share these costs. The Council has been using one of the most expensive law firms in Australia, Minter Ellison, to act on their behalf. They’ve already paid to them $1.6 million, and the costs of all the work preparing for arbitration are likely to be enormous and run into millions of dollars.

Madam Chairman, if the Council admit at least some of the blame, then the matter may be able to be settled at an early stage which could save Council millions of dollars. In addition, if Council decides to go ahead and abandon TechnologyOne and use of the big multinational IT firms, the cost of the overall project is likely to blow out by several hundred million dollars.

Madam Chair, it is urgent that Council fess up now to try to avoid massive additional costs. The problem Council has, if it fails to take this action, is that it will have to explain why two senior staff left Council around the same time the dispute arose if there was no fault on behalf of Council. Clearly Council is not without fault, and the release of the independent review will clarify that and will also be crucial in allowing the ratepayers of Brisbane to understand why this contract went so badly wrong.


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

Chairman: To the motion.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you; thank you, Madam Chairman. As I explained in the urgency resolution, Madam Chairman, this particular report is—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.

Councillor CUMMING: Sorry—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Sorry, just on a procedural matter, I think he needs to put the motion first.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, you don’t get up in this place with a mouthful of food and try to tell me what to do. We are debating the motion.

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, would you like me to—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.



- 23 -

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, we had a motion seeking to suspend Standing Orders, which has been approved, but we must have a motion validly put to us now. I’d ask that you ask the motion to be moved.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING had moved the motion. Councillor CASSIDY had seconded it. I called for ayes; I called for noes; it was put.

Councillor CUMMING, would you like to proceed?

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, this report is a crucial report in the overall scheme of things. It involved a detailed examination of where the matter had reached at the time the report was done, and the report identified real issues, as we understand it, with Council’s involvement with the contract, Madam Chairman.

So, for the LORD MAYOR over the last few months to say that he was giving notice to TechnologyOne, they’d had their six months, Madam Chairman. as though there was no fault at all in Council, Madam Chairman, is really quite wrong and I guess not, I suppose, commercially fair behaviour in terms of dealing with a local company of tremendous reputation, the biggest technology company in Queensland, one of the biggest in Australia, Madam Chairman, a really high quality employer.

The treatment that the LORD MAYOR has given towards that company has been very poor, very uncommercial, and in my view, very unethical, Madam Chairman, if you’re in business. The other thing, the Council is in business as much as private companies are, Madam Chairman, in dealing with these types of matters. So it’s really important that the matters raised in this report be identified, because, as TechnologyOne assert that they were actually briefed by the people who were preparing this report, and the people who were preparing the report were critical of what actions had been taken by Council staff at that stage, Madam Chairman.

The other thing is the loss of the senior staff leaving Council Administration. Well, why did that happen if Council had done no wrong, Madam Chairman? If Council had done no wrong, you would have supported your staff, you would have kept them in their positions. But you didn’t do that, Madam Chairman, so of course all that sort of thing is likely to be raised in arbitration, and if arbitration didn’t resolve the matter, then in court, and either way, it wouldn’t be a great benefit to Council. It would look bad for Council.

The other thing it would do is cause the costs to blow out, Madam Chairman. As we said, the figure is $1.6 million that Council has told people that that’s cost to date for Minter Ellison. The amount of work involved in preparing for the arbitration and the hearing of the actual arbitration would probably dwarf that. I could imagine you know it could easily blow out to something like $4 million or $5 million, Madam Chairman. That’s a matter that we need to minimise the cost to Council of what’s involved in this process.

We don’t need a process where Council takes a sort of dogmatic head-in-the-sand attitude of saying, ‘no, we were perfect, we did no wrong, and it’s all TechnologyOne’s fault’, Madam Chairman. That would not be an appropriate course of behaviour to take. If this report was made public, then people could see what the situation really was, and I believe we’d get a resolution of the dispute much more cheaply, much quicker and much more cost-effectively.

Chairman: Further speakers?

Councillor ADAMS.


- 24 -

Councillor ADAMS: Madam Chair, I also apologise for my croaky voice. I rise to speak against the motion before us today. Brisbane City Council has terminated its contracts with IT company TechnologyOne—that it’s failed to deliver on the IT systems replacement program. In January we made it clear Council gave them a six-month deadline for the company to provide an acceptable IT system to Council. The LORD MAYOR has provided regular updates to the Council since then.

After initially promising the product would be operational by March 2017, TechnologyOne has requested several extensions for the go-live date, with the most recent advice that it won’t occur until January 2019. This continual slippage is unacceptable, and Council lacks the confidence that even the most recent deadline will be met. Council will be seeking damages and, in accordance with the contract, has advised TechnologyOne that the matter will now be referred to arbitration for determination.

This decision is about the effective use of ratepayers’ money, and ensuring that Council’s core services are not compromised. Brisbane City Council will be relying upon the contents of the independent review in the forthcoming arbitration process. It is Council’s intention to publicly release the review following completion of the arbitration process. This information, and details of all payments made by Council to TechnologyOne, was made available to the media last Thursday before this notice of motion was submitted. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Further speakers?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in support of this motion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved. It is a pretty simply one. It’s all about accountability and transparency, Madam Chair. We’ve got a situation here where we’ve got an enormous company, an IT company, that does work with hundreds of other local and state and Federal government IT departments right across Australia and across our part of the world, Madam Chair. Basically what we have seen the LORD MAYOR reduce himself to is name calling, schoolyard tactics—

Chairman: To the motion, please.

Councillor CASSIDY: —Madam Chair. So, what we need is this report immediately released, Madam Chair. It’s about accountability and transparency, Madam Chair.

The LORD MAYOR’s actions over the last couple of months in relation to this, Madam Chair, are damaging the reputation of the Brisbane City Council as a local government entity that organisations like TechnologyOne or other companies will want to do work with, Madam Chair. We’ve got a situation in which this Administration is giving this Council and the hard-working Council officers a really bad name, Madam Chair, through their actions.

Already over $20 million has been spent giving us absolutely nothing. That’s just gone to waste. We’ve got nothing; we’re back to square one. We’ve spent $20 million of ratepayers’ money, Madam Chair; $1.6 million on legal fees to one of the most expensive law firms in Brisbane, Madam Chair, and there are other costs. The LORD MAYOR doesn’t even know. He said in Question Time today he didn’t even know what the costs—

Chairman: No, Councillor CASSIDY, this motion is about the report from the external review of the project being developed; not about what happened in Question Time. So come back to the motion, please.


- 25 -

Councillor CASSIDY: They are all reasons why this report has to be released, Madam Chair, so the ratepayers of Brisbane, the ratepayers of Brisbane who are footing the bill for this, Madam Chair, know what it’s all about.

Now, Councillor ADAMS has said at the conclusion of arbitration people may get to see this document, but not if a settlement is reached, Madam Chair. We know that the LORD MAYOR is going to go into this seeking to bury this report as deep as he possibly can. He doesn’t want the ratepayers of Brisbane to know what happened to their $22, $23, $25 million. We’re not even sure what’s been wasted so far. He doesn’t want them to know what’s happened there.

If a settlement is reached during arbitration, no one will ever know, and that’s why it’s very important that this motion is supported by this Council, because we’re here representing those ratepayers who pay that money to the Brisbane City Council, and they expect us to make decisions in their best interests, Madam Chair, and quite clearly these decisions that have led to this report, that have led to this legal action, have not been in the best interests of the ratepayers of Brisbane.

So this Chamber must support this in the interests of accountability and transparency, Madam Chair. We’re just trying to help the LORD MAYOR save some face here. We’re really trying to do you a favour, LORD MAYOR. So get on board and save yourself a lot of embarrassment down the road.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the motion before us today. I think it is critically important that the LORD MAYOR releases the report into this matter that was conducted because he has publicly gone on the record to state the fault attached to this contract lies with the supplier, TechnologyOne. We don’t know whether that is true or not, and the reason we don’t know whether that is true or not is because a number of things have since happened from the LORD MAYOR’s press conference back in January which he says is when he knew, but he knew months before, when Civic Cabinet were told about the problem, so November I think is when the matter was first escalated.

So they sat on it in November, they sat on it in December, and then in the height of the summer holidays, they thought they’d slip it out then. Now, the reason we can’t trust what the LORD MAYOR is saying, and we need to see this report, is that several things have happened. One, the senior Council officer responsible for the project was sacked, and the Chief Information Officer of Council was sacked. It appears that that is in response to the failure of this project. Now that indicates to me that there is a problem at Council’s end. There may well be a problem with the technical issues with TechnologyOne, but I don’t know that because we’ve apparently done a secret report that says where the problems are, where the fault are. We’ve acknowledged fault by sacking the two most senior staff associated with this project.

Secondly, we’ve now seen the LORD MAYOR go out, criticise this company, and a company, a publicly listed company, has responded in the most extraordinary way, based on an attack by a public official, by responding with public statements to the Stock Exchange, because the value of their publicly-listed company has been impacted by the LORD MAYOR’s actions in January.

I am concerned at the end of the day not only about the report and the fact that that is being kept secret; this from the Administration that has for years attempted to laud itself as the most open and transparent. I mean, that’s just the


- 26 -

biggest untruth going. But I would be very, very concerned that, if this is going badly for Council, the LORD MAYOR’s actions over the last six months have actually inflamed this situation and it is putting the ratepayers of Brisbane at further risk of significant damages.

Now, if I understood Councillor ADAMS correctly, she said this report has already been given to the media.


Councillor JOHNSTON: No? Well—right, okay. So perhaps about the payments, that’s been given to the media. So let’s be clear: the LORD MAYOR will not answer questions in an open forum about how much has been paid to try and correct this mess, but he’s given some information to the media. Now, if you have got nothing to hide, why not be upfront with the ratepayers of this city?

Release the report, LORD MAYOR. Let’s see where the problems are. Let’s see where the fault lies. Let’s see who’s responsible, and let us make an informed and transparent decision about how this Council spends its ratepayers’ revenues, because at the moment you are saying to us, to all the Councillors in this place, ah, it’s all okay; it’s probably going to be about $120 million, but you won’t tell us where the problems are; you won’t tell us how much it’s costing to fix those problems, and we are now having some sort of arbitration and possibly Supreme Court action, I presume, over this contract.

We are locked into a process that is steaming downhill without a brake. Now, the brake itself is in your hands. Has it been provided confidentially to Councillors so we can understand where the fault lies? No, it has not, and we’re entitled to confidential information. Has the LORD MAYOR—has the LORD MAYOR been upfront in here about expenditures and what we’re doing to fix this? No, he has not.

Every single time the LORD MAYOR has stood up, attempted to shift blame to a publicly-listed company, but then refused to tell us where those problems are and what he is doing to fix them. So let’s be clear; that is not the actions of an open and transparent Council that is responsibly administering money it has raised from its ratepayers. I can tell you after the six per cent rate hike in my ward last year and a six per cent rate hike this year, hundreds of millions of dollars being spent for a stuffed-up IT contract is not good enough without explanation. That’s what we are looking for here.

That report provides us with an explanation. It was done at the time, so presumably it gives us a pretty good idea of where all the problems are. If they lie with this Council, and we are retrospectively pursuing legal action, we are doing the biggest disservice to the ratepayers of Brisbane that we can, because this Council secretly knows that it is responsible for the stuff-up, or partially responsible for the stuff-up.

I would ask every single person listening today to ask themselves one question; if this report supported the LORD MAYOR’s belief and public statements that the fault lies with TechnologyOne, why has it not been released? Why hide a report that is the evidence that supports your opinion? There is no reason to do that, unless the evidence does not support your opinion, and for political or contractual purposes, you are attempting a different course of action that is not supported by the independent review that occurred.

Now, I can only presume, in the face of stony silence from this LNP Administration, that that is what is going on behind closed doors. So I call on the LORD MAYOR to release this report. The LORD MAYOR will stand up here and he says, bus drivers are causing rates to rise. A $120 million IT


- 27 -

contract stuff-up, that’s causing rates to rise, LORD MAYOR, and you won’t even justify your position to our ratepayers in Brisbane. That is not good enough. This Council must be transparent. It must be accountable. The place to do that is in this Chamber, to the elected officials who represent our communities and to be upfront with the ratepayers of Brisbane about what has gone wrong, because presumably that is what this report does.

So, LORD MAYOR, I leave you with a question, through you, Madam Chairman: what is it that you have to hide, and why is it you keep refusing to release this report?


Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to contribute to this debate, this very one-sided debate it appears to be, given that the members of the LNP in this place have decided not to debate it at all, save for Councillor ADAMS. I would be really interested to hear what the LORD MAYOR has to say about the release of this report in the context of this debate, because, Madam Chair, it is my strong view that the LORD MAYOR’s refusal to release this report strikes at his very integrity as the Lord Mayor of this city.

It is an integrity issue for him as LORD MAYOR; the same LORD MAYOR that stood in this Chamber and waved around newspapers saying flood cover-up, the same LORD MAYOR that has time and time again harped back to other things that may have gone wrong in this Chamber, but his challenge today is: will he show integrity, honesty and accountability and release this report which, if he is to be believed, will support his claim that this bungled contract was no fault of Council.

It is his integrity that is at stake today. It is his legacy that is at stake today. He has a choice today to be someone in this place who used—who covered up a report and spent Brisbane City Council ratepayers’ money to save his own political hide, because that is what he is doing. There is one reason, and one reason only, that he won’t release this report, and that is because it is damaging to him, his LNP Council and the decisions that they have made in this place under the cloak of secrecy.

This report needs to be released so that everyone can see what this independent report has had to say. As Councillor CUMMING said, if Council was to admit some fault early in the process, it actually may save us money in the arbitration process. TechnologyOne has a reputation to protect as well. It also employs a very, very large number of Brisbane residents. This can only end badly for both parties if both parties continue down this path.

Madam Chair, I appeal to the LORD MAYOR today to release this report. I say to him once again, his integrity as LORD MAYOR depends on it, because people need to know what the independent assessment has been. Stop covering up; stop the blame game, and for once and for all, release the report that can provide some independent advice as to what has actually gone on, because you do not sack two senior staff if they did nothing wrong, or that we have no fault. These are not the actions of a blameless organisation. Stop the cover up and release the report.


Councillor GRIFFITHS.


- 28 -

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. I am just pointing out that no one person from the LNP has risen to defend their hiding of this particular report. Madam Chair, this report needs to be released. Residents are sick of the secrecy in this Council. Councillor ADAMS is laughing about it now. We’re seeing that this is regarded as being secretive. This is okay. This is how we operate. Madam Chair, this is not a laughing matter. This is actually about taking residents seriously, about taking this Chamber seriously and taking transparency seriously here.

Madam Chairman, residents expect us to do our job. Now, we know that there’s a massive majority of LNP Councillors here. They sit quietly here, week in, week out, going along with the decisions that this Chamber makes. But, Madam Chair, this is the sort of issue that is going on all the time where residents aren’t aware that reports are being hidden. They’re being hidden from the people of Brisbane, and they’re being hidden from accountability and transparency. We have a duty, LORD MAYOR; all of us have a duty to ensure that we act appropriately for the residents of this city, for the ratepayers of this city.

As well as that, we have a duty to manage their funds well. You mightn’t like the fact that the Opposition is in this Chamber, but the duty of the Opposition is to hold you and hold the Administration accountable. At the moment, LORD MAYOR, at the moment, LNP, you are riding roughshod over the people of Brisbane. You’re doing what you like. You’re hiding reports. You’re using every excuse possible.

These reports should be released so that the Opposition, so that the people of Brisbane know what is in them. We’ve heard figures of $60 million, $120 million as part of this debacle. Well, that’s a hell of a lot of rates, and it’s a hell of a lot of services that the residents of Brisbane are coughing up with to cover a blunder that has been created by yourselves.

Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR needs to release this report, and members of the LNP need to ensure that he’s transparent and get him to release this report. Secrecy shouldn’t be the normal way of operating in Brisbane City Council. What should be normal is for scrutiny to happen. What should be normal is for transparency to happen, and what should be normal is for the residents of Brisbane to know that they’ve got an open government here. At the moment, they know they haven’t.

Madam Chair, I know—and this LORD MAYOR has talked about the LNP’s massive majority; he’s gloated about it, and he’s gloated about the fact that people are pleased with his decision making. Madam Chair, what people want to see is openness, transparency and accountability, and they want to see their rates spent well, and they want to see reports such as this available not only to them but available to the Opposition so they can be scrutinised effectively, which is the role of this very Chamber and the role of everyone here. Thank you.


Councillor CUMMING, right of reply.

Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, in reply, Madam Chair, I’m very disappointed that this wasn’t debated more thoroughly, Madam Chairman. I’m sure the LORD MAYOR should have a lot to say about the issue. It’s really treated the debate in the Chamber with some contempt. I appreciate Councillor ADAMS spoke, but I believe that a number of the other Councillors, especially the senior members of E&C who are more in touch with what’s happening behind the scenes, could have spoken and could have refuted the resolution put to Council if in fact they had the grounds to do so. One assumes now they’re just going to use their


- 29 -

massive majority to vote down this resolution, and it’s very disappointing, the approach they’ve taken to the debate.

Chairman: I will now put the motion.

The Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON 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 will return to Establishment and Coordination Committee, please.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman, I think I’d moved the motion, but I’m not sure we got to the stage of being seconded before.

Chairman: I think if you could just start again, please.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I did second it.

Chairman: Yes, so it’s been moved by the LORD MAYOR, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR, that the Report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee meeting dated Monday 31 July 2017, be adopted.


LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just before coming to the items on the agenda, I just wanted to raise a few matters if I could. Firstly, just going back to Question Time from last week, I had a question there from Councillor JOHNSTON, Madam Chairman, which was in relation to some lights in one of her parkland areas there, which she was stating the lights had been out since 2014 and Council hadn’t replaced them.

Madam Chairman, on face value, I thought, oh well, a couple of lights, that’s not going to cost very much; I don’t know why we’re taking so long to do that. But there is always another part of the story, generally, with Councillor JOHNSTON’s questions. So the story here is, Madam Chairman, while it’s only a couple of lights, the actual cost of replacement is around $120,000.


LORD MAYOR: That’s correct, $120,000. So, Madam Chairman, the reason for that quite simply is that it is contaminated land apparently where these lights are, in movements of the soils and so forth, Madam Chairman, then of course with the wires that are underground there, become an issue. So that is why this has not been the


- 30 -

number one priority out in Councillor JOHNSTON’s ward. There are, in terms of value for money, other projects, Madam Chairman, which were put in place of it. But, Madam Chairman, we’ll have a look at seeing how we might be able to do it cheaper.

As I indicated last week, I’d be keen to see if we can fix it up. But I just again make the point that often when I get these questions I take them in face value. It sounded like a fairly inexpensive exercise, Madam Chairman, fixing a couple of lights, but it’s never quite what it seems when Councillor JOHNSTON asks a question. You have to be very cautious in terms of what the complete story might be. So, Madam Chairman, that’s that one.

Madam Chairman, the issue of May 16, we in this place debated the sale of properties for long-standing or outstanding rates, Madam Chairman, of rate debts that were owed to Council. There were nine properties that we approved in this place to be sold at auction and to recover the outstanding long-standing rates on those properties. Madam Chairman, I am able to stand here today and to report to the Chamber that, of those nine properties that we proposed to sell, there is only one now that has not been settled. In other words, the owners of eight of those nine properties that we voted to put out to auction have all come up with the money and settled.


Chairman: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I seek to suspend Standing Orders.

28/2017-18At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

I seek to suspend Standing Orders to move an urgency motion calling on the LORD MAYOR to use one per cent of his $100 million bikeways budget to fix the damaged lights in Robinson Park, Fairfield.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it might not be one per cent, LORD MAYOR, and I promise you if there are any leftovers out of that expenditure, then you can have it back for other bikeway projects in the city. But, Madam Chairman, I am shocked by the LORD MAYOR’s response to date. Firstly he has again stood in this Chamber and implied that I have misled somebody in some way. Now, last week I asked a question saying: why haven’t the lights along the Yeronga bikeway in Robinson Park, Fairfield been fixed, after the 2014 November supercell storm.

Now, Madam Chairman, as the LORD MAYOR has found out, that question was correct. The lights have not been fixed. Yes, it is an expensive solution, LORD MAYOR, and yes, for the past three years, the Council officers have been telling me that, and presumably, LORD MAYOR, that is why you have been refusing to provide them with the funds to fix existing bikeway lighting that was damaged three years ago.

Now, LORD MAYOR, I don’t know what you’re thinking around this is, but you have $100 million in this term of Council to undertake bikeway projects, and you are not planning, to my knowledge, to spend a cent of that in Tennyson Ward. So, LORD MAYOR, it is not unreasonable for you to give the money to fix—not new lights, I know you won’t do new lighting; I have to pay for that out of my trust fund. All I want you to do is fix damaged lighting in a public park on a major bikeway that was damaged three years ago when the trees fell over that you won’t replace either.


- 31 -

Now, this is not a difficult issue. Either this Council, after major disasters, goes out and undertakes the necessary repairs, or they just languish there like this, and that is not reasonable to the residents who pay rates and expect to walk safely along the bikeway. Now, I don’t think that that’s something you need to blame me for, LORD MAYOR. There was a natural disaster. It caused damage. You have a responsibility as the LORD MAYOR of this city to invest funds back into fixing things that are damaged—public assets in our parks, and you have fundamentally failed to do that.

You failed to do it after 2011, you failed to do it after 2014, and you failed to do it after earlier this year. It’s not on. Yes, they’re expensive to fix, but guess what; that is what the funding is there for. You have funding available to you. There is $100 million available to fix this, and LORD MAYOR, you need to stand up now and you need to say that you will get it done as a matter of urgency.

Chairman: I will now put the motion for debate of the motion.

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 Nicole JOHNSTON and Jared CASSIDY 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, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 19 - 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, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, we’ll go back to the Establishment and Coordination Committee Report, please.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, again I was commenting on the nine properties that were proposed to be sold with a combined debt of $147,000. So today eight of those nine property owners have settled with Council. That means that we only have one property that remains on the list outstanding at a value of $20,640 in outstanding rates. So, Madam Chairman, the amount concerning the other eight properties, which was a combined total of $126,360 has been recovered.

So it really does give credence to the points that we were making on the day when we approved the sale by auction of these properties, that it is our experience that as soon as push comes to shove, and we reach this point, people miraculously somehow find that money in the main. Again, this latest issue is one which demonstrates that to be the case.

Madam Chairman, we’ve spoken here previously about the Battle of Brisbane, and the economic benefits to the city. What might surprise some Councillors—and I think it was actually remarked on in The Sunday Mail, in fact—and that is the total value of the international online media from the Battle of Brisbane was $354 million. That compared to the total media coverage for G20 of $180 million. That was across all media mediums. So it really does give a demonstration as to the value that we have achieved out of that event.


- 32 -

Madam Chairman, there are two items before us today. The first item is that of Progress Road, item A. This is Stage 4, a very important project in our city, and an important project to you, Madam Chairman, as well. This upgrade is the final stage in that project, and it is between Boundary Road and Teraba Street. Stage 1, of course, was from Garden Road to Poinsettia Street. That was completed in 2005. Stage 2, the Ipswich Motorway to Boundary Road, and Boundary Road to the Komatsu intersection; that was completed in 2011. Stage 3 was Garden Road to Teraba Street; that was completed in 2010. So this Progress Road Stage 4 is important.

It’s that whole east-west corridor connection between Ipswich Motorway at Wacol and Beaudesert Road at Algester. It has a significant role in carrying freight between the industrial areas of Wacol, Carole Park and Ipswich suburbs to the west, and Acacia Ridge, Slacks Creek and Underwood to the east.

It’s also been identified as a primary freight access route in the City Plan. As the submission notes, Stage 4 is part of the 2014-15 to 2018-19 Federal Government’s Road to Recovery program. In 2013, traffic surveys found that Progress Road carries approximately 15,000 vehicles per day, with approximately 600 to 700 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak hours. Traffic modelling shows that it will grow to about 20,000 vehicles a day, and increase to 700 to 1,300 vehicles per hour in each direction during the peak hours.

Madam Chairman, flooding improvements will also occur as a result of the upgrade with Bullockhead Creek, which runs south to north through these sections of Progress Road. It currently has a flood immunity of 20% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability). This upgrade will also improve safety. We’ve seen some 27 accidents recorded in the five-year period after June 2010 on Progress Road, with six of those 27 accidents within this Stage 4 section. So, Madam Chairman, I’m certainly commending that significant contracting plan to Council.

Item B is the Johnson and Stapylton Roads intersection project. So this is a boundary with the Brisbane City Council and Logan City Council. Again, this is a project that you’ve been engaged with, Madam Chairman, and I thank you for your ongoing communications with Logan City Council around this. As we always know, aligning budgets between local authorities is never easy, but we have reached that point, and, Madam Chairman, Johnson Road is an arterial road, of course, and a primary freight access road. Stapylton Road is also classified as an arterial road with a primary freight route, and both roads are local roads of regional significance.

So joint funding will occur between Logan City and Brisbane City Councils. It will improve safety, reduce congestion at this busy intersection. Installation of traffic signals will address the high number of recorded crashes at this intersection, provide signalised pedestrian crossings, install on-road bicycle lanes and improve vehicular access into and out of Stapylton Road.

The project involves, as I mentioned, installing traffic signals, widening the road to provide two lanes in both approaches to the intersection of Johnson Road, installing a right turn pocket on the western Johnson Road approach, a double right-turn pocket on the eastern Johnson Road approach, and a dedicated right-turn pocket and double left-turn lanes on the northern leg of Stapylton Road. So that is just some of the improvements, including pedestrian refuge islands and other improved aspects of this particular road project.

There have been 21 recorded accidents—

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, unfortunately, your time has expired.


- 33 -

29/2017-18At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCRHINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.


LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I’ll only be a few more moments. I thank the Council. There have been 21 recorded accidents at this intersection between 2011 and 2016; 15 of these required medical treatment and four required hospitalisation. Madam Chairman, the funding agreement, I am pleased to say, has been signed between the two councils, and construction is expected to commence late in this calendar year.

I commend the significant contracting plan to deliver the upgrade, Madam Chairman, in this particular case, given the nature of the intersection. Council is providing—that is, our Council is providing 60% of the funding and Logan City Council 40%.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT:30/2017-18

At that time, 3.56pm, 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 3.58pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:


Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in relation to this E&C, Madam Chairman, it’s a very long report on each of these projects, and I think that’s perhaps a reflection on the lack of decisions going through E&C. They had to pad it out a bit to make it look something of substance. But anyhow, Madam Chairman, I have some concerns about the chronology for item A, that’s the Progress Road Upgrade Stage 4.

The upgrades have been happening since way back—the first one, Stage 1, was completed in August 2005, Madam Chairman, and Stage 4 is now expected to be completed in January 2019, so that is a period of—let me calculate that—13 and a half years, Madam Chairman. That seems to me a long period of time, Madam Chairman, and perhaps an excessive period of time, Madam Chairman.

I do note that Stage 2 and Stage 2B were done in June and December 2011 respectively, and Stage 3 was done a bit earlier, it finished in December 2010 but there was a significant Queensland Government contribution to that one, Madam Chairman. Oh, there’s a Queensland Government contribution; I think Councillor COOPER before was decrying any Queensland Government contributions, so they do contribute at times, Madam Chairman, and I’m sure she would have given credit for them if she’d been around at that time.

Madam Chairman, someone once said, in terms of how long these processes go, don’t listen to what they say, look at what they do. One suspects that if it wasn’t


- 34 -

for the Commonwealth Government funding in this one, it may still be waiting to happen somewhere in the long-term future.

Madam Chairman, in relation to item B, Madam Chairman, we have a press release back from 2008 from a Councillor—oh, it’s Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR as she was at the time, announcing her budget highlights from the Parkinson Ward for the 2008 budget, and she talks about all these major road upgrades. But one she mentions is there’s $1 million over the next three years for Johnson Road intersection upgrades. Well, I hope this wasn’t one of them, Madam Chairman, because at item B, with that, it would have taken an enormously long time to be done, and also the cost now, $17.9 million, so I hope the $1 million hasn’t blown out to $17.9 million.


Councillor CUMMING: Yes, it’s way over the inflation rate—way over the inflation—yes.


Councillor CUMMING: Yes. But no doubt, Madam Chair, if I’ve got that wrong, you’ll be keen to correct me, thank you.

The other one was, of course, Johnson-Stapylton, is 40% contribution of Logan, and it’s good to see councils cooperating with projects close to their boundaries, Madam Chairman. Thank you.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair; I rise to speak to items A and B of the report. I think, Madam Chairman, that I was struck perhaps by the irony of Councillor CUMMING’s debate in relation to suggesting that there was too much detail in this report. He felt we padded it out—


Councillor COOPER: —we’ve given him too much information. I am so, so sorry, Councillor CUMMING, that we have provided lots and lots and lots of details here.

Councillor CUMMING: Claim to be misrepresented, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Well, I wrote it down, quite specifically, and I am absolutely confident that Councillor CUMMING said that we had padded out the report—


Councillor COOPER: Absolute—I am 100% clear about what you said, Councillor CUMMING, through you, Madam Chair. I listened very intently to your words. I’m always entertained by your commentary, but I think that your commentary clearly proves that we are actually providing a lot of information about what we are doing in relation to these projects, and it’s quite clear—and I note there was another comment by you; you said that, don’t look at what they say, look at


- 35 -

what they do. We are very happy for people to look at what we do, because we deliver projects, Madam Chair.

We don’t talk about things, like the State Government in the State Government Infrastructure Plan, which pretty much has zero projects for the City of Brisbane. We actually have committed in this term to spend $1.3 billion on 90 road projects. These are two examples of road projects that we are undertaking and that we will deliver. So, if Councillor CUMMING thinks that’s a point of criticism for this Administration, then we wear it proudly, Madam Chair. We are getting on and making things happen for the people of Brisbane.

So we’ve quite clearly got information here. We’ve got information in relation to Progress Road Stage 4 upgrade. This is a significant contracting plan to make sure that we are able to complete the final of the four stages to upgrade Progress Road from between Boundary Road to Teraba Street, and the LORD MAYOR outlined quite clearly that there has been extensive work that Council has undertaken. It is a final piece, so it is a significant investment in one of our city’s very important corridors.

So we have completed—and let’s be clear—we completed Garden Road to Poinsettia Street in 2005; Stage 2, Ipswich Motorway to Boundary Road and Boundary Road to the Komatsu intersection in 2011; and we completed Stage 3 from Garden Road to Teraba Street in 2010. So we have delivered pieces of this road and, of course, just like anything, road corridors are expensive, and Council doesn’t do everything all at once. We do it in pieces that are manageable, so we actually deliver the outcomes that we have always said that we will.

Progress Road, of course, is an arterial road. It’s a very key east-west corridor connection between the Ipswich Motorway at Wacol and Beaudesert Road at Algester, and of course it plays a very important role in transporting freight around our city. It specifically is nominated in City Plan as a primary freight access route and, of course, the submission notes that Stage 4 is part of the Federal Government’s Road to Recovery program. Again, thank you to the Federal Government for investing in infrastructure in our beautiful city.

So if you look at the information in the report notes that traffic surveys found in 2013 Progress Road carries approximately 15,000 vehicles per day with approximately 600 to 700 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak hour. This traffic modelling indicates to us it will grow to 20,000 vehicles per day, increasing to 700 to 1,300 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak hours.

So this upgrade, which runs for approximately one kilometre along what is currently an undivided two-lane road with no pedestrian or cyclist facilities for the majority of that road will make a huge improvement to safety. The LORD MAYOR noted that there have been 27 accidents recorded in a five-year period, with six of those 27 accidents in this particular section there at Stage 4. There will be significant improvements also in relation to flooding and this, again mentioned by the LORD MAYOR, will improve the flood immunity quite significantly to a 20% annual exceedance probability.

It will also include, as our projects do, Madam Chair, as you well know, Madam Deputy Chair, as you well know, improve the cyclist and pedestrian facilities with dedicated on-road cycle lanes in each direction and dedicated off-road shared pedestrian-cyclists on the northern verge. So this is a project that we are absolutely proud of, and we want to particularly thank the officers for their hard work on committing to getting this project delivered. We are very much looking forward to this final piece of that puzzle to be undertaken.


- 36 -

In relation to item B, the Johnson and Stapylton Roads intersection project, we actually had a presentation at Committee this morning, because I thought it would be of interest to all the members of the Committee. In particular, this is a boundary road, as Councillor CUMMING correctly identified—I’ll give him one point, Madam Chair. So, both roads are arterial roads, classified as—


Councillor COOPER: That’s right. It’s such a revelation that the alarm goes off when there’s one point bestowed to Councillor CUMMING. There’s also demerit points, though, so perhaps they don’t get necessarily the alarm going off.

So both roads are arterial roads classified as primary freight access routes. This is agreement between Brisbane City Council and Logan City Council. I do want to thank Logan City Council for preparing to fund 40% of this project, and Councillor SUTTON quizzically quipped to me this morning as to whether we’d got an agreement from Logan City Council. I said to Councillor SUTTON, I always feel that I’m learning more and more to make sure that, when people say they will give Council money, that I absolutely get it in writing. So I note her comments.

Councillor OWEN is absolutely across this one. She will know that this will make significant improvements to safety and deal with congestion at this particularly busy intersection. So, at the moment, the full intersection is stop controlled with Johnson Road being the priority through movement. The average daily traffic for Johnson Road east is over 21,000 vehicles per day. Johnson Road westbound is over 13,200 vehicles travelling per day, and Stapylton Road north has more than 10,000 vehicles travelling on it each and every day.

So, seven per cent of that traffic is heavy vehicles, so again something that Council is very keen to try and improve. We have undertaken a whole range of works since 2008. Both councils actually conducted a planning study to investigate upgrading of Johnson Road between Parkinson and Hillcrest, Elliot Court through to Cobalt Street in Carole Park. The study specifically identified Johnson Road was exceeding capacity, and recommended the signalisation and upgrade of Johnson Road and Stapylton Road intersection.

This project will also make a number of improvements to safety and tackling traffic congestion as well as fauna movements that will be able to be delivered. There has been a fauna survey that was undertaken and there was a review of the fauna movement and infrastructure assessment was undertaken in November 2016. While the study area has been found to contain low to moderate quality habitat features for fauna in general, fauna movements around the intersection are currently limited, and the upgrade will actually have a low impact on fauna movements. The environmental report made specific suggestions as to how we can facilitate this into the future.

There will be installation of fauna furniture within culverts; there will be exclusion fencing on the north-eastern corner of the Johnson Road and Stapylton Road intersection limiting wherever possible vegetation removal and revegetating disturbed areas. This is part of the project design, and will be delivered as part of the upgrade.

We will also be signalising the intersection, widening the road to provide two lanes at both approaches to the intersection on Johnson Road, dedicating double right-turn movements as pockets from Johnson Road east to Stapylton Road north, installing dedicated double left-turn pockets from Stapylton Road north to Johnson Road east, installing dedicated turn pockets for other traffic movements at the intersection, installing traffic and pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian


- 37 -

crossings on Stapylton Road approaches, and the western Johnson Road approach.

Of course, there will be also an installed pedestrian crossing on the south-eastern side of the intersection on Johnson Road with two-metre wide on-road cycle lanes on the Johnson Road approaches and the northern Stapylton Road approaches. So this has a whole range of stakeholders that are part of the discussion. There’s the Coles distribution centre on the north-west, the Australian Defence Force property on the south-west; we’ve got a landscaping business on south-east, and some private land that’s been approved as part of a development application for it to become light industrial commercial in the north-east. There will be a dedication of part of that private land on the north-east section as part of that development that was approved in 2015.

It is, I think, a great project. I know that the local Councillor is incredibly happy to see this come to fruition. It has been a long process, but when two local governments are involved, we need to make sure that everybody is satisfied with the outcome. I understand that that is certainly the case. It has been in my discussions with Logan, and we certainly absolutely thank them for continuing to work with us to deliver this particular project. Thank you, Madam Chair.

At that time, 4.21pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair.

Deputy Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy Chair; I rise to speak on item A—

Deputy Chairman: Sorry, just a moment, please, Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor CUMMING, you had misrepresentation.

Councillor CUMMING: Oh, yes, Madam Chair, I said the Administration had padded out this E&C because they had very few decisions to report. I didn’t say there was an excessive amount of detail in the report.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair; I rise to speak on item A, the Stores Board submission for the Progress Road Stage 4. This project is welcomed by residents in my ward, and I had a number of calls from road users after the budget came down and it was announced. They are looking forward to the completion of Stage 4 in early 2019.

I know I just wanted to also acknowledge, of course, the previous Councillor for the Richlands Ward, Milton Dick, who pursued the advocacy of the various stages of the project.


Councillor STRUNK: Yes, well done, Milton. But after the initial response, I did get a few questions from residents, and they wanted to know why it had taken so long, especially Stage 4, to come to fruition. Now, reading the submission, clearly sets out the four stages. Stage 1, of course, as we heard from the LORD MAYOR, was finished in 2005; Stages 2 and 2B in 2011, and of course Stage 3 in 2010.


- 38 -

Now, I don’t know why Stage 4 took so long because, you know, as the previous speaker, Councillor COOPER said, I know, yes, certainly roads, especially in various stages, they cost a lot of money, unless it’s called Kingsford Smith Drive. Madam Chair, I can see why local residents and businesses who rely upon this corridor would have been disappointed that they had to wait for eight years for Stage 4.

I was at a meeting some months ago with Councillor OWEN, and she did explain, of course, that the 2011 floods did cause some disruption to road upgrades. But really, eight years seems in excess of how long we should have waited for this particular Stage 4. Madam Chair, the funding for Stage 4 was a 50/50 share between Brisbane City Council and the Federal Government. I wonder if the Federal Government funding wasn’t there whether or not the Stage 4 would actually be undertaken at this particular time. I hope that the procurement strategy and activity plan goes smoothly, as residents and businesses are counting on the final stage, because of the rapid development, commercial and residential, that is happening in the area of Richlands.

Madam Chair, before I conclude my remarks, I would also want to acknowledge that cyclists and pedestrians are also being looked after in this project. Thank you.


Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman; I just rise to enter the debate on item A, which is the Stores Board submission for the significant contracting plan for the Progress Road upgrade at Stage 4. Madam Chairman, this is a fantastic project. It is the final piece, as we’ve heard from other speakers, final piece in the Progress Road upgrade down there in the heart of the industry part of this city in the south-western corridor where we have Wacol, we have Darra, I hear of sections of Richlands, and Sumner, which really generate a massive amount of jobs and growth, and economic growth for our city.

We need to provide appropriate infrastructure so that not only can the workers get in to do their job but the goods that they’re manufacturing, Madam Chairman, are able to get out effectively and connect into the other parts of the road network, so the Ipswich Motorway and the Centenary Highway, Madam Chairman, and the continued investment by this Council is outlined there in Table 1 of the report before us.

I note Councillor STRUNK was waxing lyrically about the previous advocacy of the Councillor for Richlands—the previous Councillor for Richlands, who was able, from not even being in this place to secure funding back in 2005, apparently, to start this. Well, Madam Chairman, this Administration, the LNP Administration, under the Lord Mayoralties that we’ve had, are the party that have built and upgraded Progress Road. No one else can claim credit for that. No one else can take credit for that, Madam Chairman. It wasn’t even an election commitment from Councillor STRUNK. I know we promised it. I know I promised to do Stage 4, Madam Chairman, of the Progress Road upgrade, with the LORD MAYOR at the last election. But I know the Labor Party didn’t. So for them to stand up here and go, why did it take so long? Why didn’t you do it? Well, they didn’t even commit to it at the election, Madam Chairman.


Councillor BOURKE: They’re just trying to take credit—that’s right, I will take Councillor COOPER’s interjection. They’re trying to take credit, Madam Chairman, for the investment that this Administration is making into road infrastructure, which also includes


- 39 -

cycle infrastructure, and public and active transport infrastructure. They’ve done that again and again, Madam Chairman, and Councillor STRUNK, throughout there, oh, you can do Kingsford Smith Drive—well, it might amaze you, Councillor STRUNK, to know that we’ve actually done a significant amount of road improvements in the south-western corridor.

Madam Chairman, we’ve done work on Sumners Road. We’ve done work on Wolston Road to do the extension that the Labor Party refused to do when they were in power. We’ve upgraded Progress Road. We’ve done works on Blunder Road; we’ve done works in Councillor OWEN’s ward, Madam Chairman, and there’s another contract in the item that we have before us today. There are tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of road projects that have been completed in the south-western suburbs, Madam Chairman, in my ward, in Councillor OWEN’s ward, and in the former Richlands Ward, Madam Chairman, to improve safety, to improve connectivity, to provide options for cyclists and pedestrians.

Before us today we see the latest stage of the Progress Road upgrade, Progress Road Stage 4, which is the final missing link. Most importantly, this addresses the issues, the complex issues, of the creek crossing, Madam Chairman, over Bullockhead Creek. It is going to be fantastic once it is completed. I have seen firsthand the impacts that flooding has on the road network out there, Madam Chairman, when this particularly vital link is taken out because of flooding.

I have also seen firsthand, sadly, Madam Chairman, some of the serious accidents that have occurred. I have been unfortunate in having to go past some of those accidents and see the damage and the carnage that can happen, Madam Chairman, because of the need to upgrade this road. So I wholeheartedly support the recommendation that we have before us today.

It is just another example of how this Administration is tackling traffic congestion and making it easier and safer for residents and businesses to get around our city and to support all modes of transport, Madam Chairman. Whether they’re cyclists with the improvements that this will deliver for cycle connectivity, for the active transport connectivity, and also, most importantly, to help support those businesses in this corridor who provide jobs and employment, Madam Chairman, for so many thousands of residents across our city. I would encourage all Councillors to support recommendation A today.


Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman; and Madam Deputy Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of item B. Madam Deputy Chairman, given that my press release of 13 June 2008 has already been raised in the debate, I will actually clarify the fact. Councillor CUMMING has said here tonight the devil is in the detail. Yes, it is in the detail, and it is about paying attention to detail.

What it says in my press release is $1 million over the next three years for Johnson Road intersection upgrades. This is where it’s really important, that before people come in here and make statements, they should follow my father’s wise advice that he gave me when I was very young: engage brain before opening mouth. Because often what happens is they come in here and they make a statement but they don’t check the facts. They don’t think about things before they go and shoot their mouth off. Johnson Road is quite a large corridor, and there are numerous intersections on Johnson Road.


- 40 -

This press release from 13 June 2008 is talking about multiple Johnson Road intersection upgrades. These were minor intersection upgrades. They were not specifically the major upgrade of the Johnson Road Stapylton Road intersection. So there is a very stark difference when you have minor intersection upgrades and major intersection upgrades.

Having been in this place so long, I would have thought that Councillor CUMMING would have actually got that, but it seems that he must have some strange habits because he’s apparently been downloading all of my media releases and keeping all of my media clippings. So I don’t know how to take that, but I will probably take it as a compliment and a form of flattery that he is so interested in what’s happening in my ward that he would go to that extent to keep all of those things.

But it does demonstrate there are so many press releases, there are so many media articles, because we are delivering so much. I reinforce what Councillor BOURKE has said. Since Councillor BOURKE and I have been elected, in that south-western corridor, we have worked very, very hard to deliver for the community those major intersection upgrades, and we are working on connecting up not only the Logan Motorway, the Ipswich Motorway through Blunder Road, through the $55 million Blunder Road deviation project that the LORD MAYOR was integral in delivering when he was Deputy Mayor and Chairman of Infrastructure. But there’s so many others that we’ve been working on. That Progress Road, as the LORD MAYOR explained it tonight, it’s going all the way from Progress Road, all the way up to Beaudesert Road. That is a major east-west connector, the same way that the Logan Motorway is, the same way that we’ve delivered Paradise Road upgrade, which is the north-south connector. I know that Councillor BOURKE has had a number in his ward as well.

It’s about delivery. I do reiterate what Councillor COOPER has said. We didn’t just go ahead and say, we’re putting in this major upgrade, this major investment, at Johnson and Stapylton Road until we had done the Johnson Road corridor study with Logan City Council and making sure that they were on board with whatever we do, because it is very important when you have a border intersection with another city, you have to make sure there is joint purpose.

Certainly I acknowledge that Councillor STRUNK has obviously been listening to me when I’ve been making statements, because yes I did say that Johnson Road was delayed as a result of circumstances that happened with the 2011 floods, and that was from a budgeting perspective. When the 2011 floods hit, we needed money to restore and repair roads and other commitments across the city. They were things that needed repair and restoration straight away. Where money is identified in the forwards, and road projects can be pushed back a little bit, sometimes you have to sacrifice things in certain wards to make sure that the absolutely essential things get done in other wards to restore it to a workable condition.

So my residents have been extremely patient with this. I know that over in Logan City Council, former Councillor Lynne Clarke and former Mayor Pam Parker were very supportive of working with us on this project, and current Councillor Laurie Smith and current Mayor Luke Smith have also worked quite well with us as well to ensure that, from both sides of the city boundaries, we are delivering for our residents. That is what it’s about. It is making sure that, where we have got a major corridor, a major safety issue, that we deal with it, but we deal with it in a way that is going to be conducive to smoother operational flows in the traffic, but also long-term benefits for the residents.

Madam Deputy Chairman, I would just like to extend a great thank you not only to Councillor COOPER for her ensuring that everything is signed, sealed and delivered now, but also the DEPUTY MAYOR because, when he was Chairman


- 41 -

of Infrastructure, but also when he was Chairman of Finance, it goes way back to then, and also the LORD MAYOR in his roles, for making sure that these major infrastructure projects in our local suburbs are hitting the mark. They are hitting the mark, delivering for people, making sure we have safer suburbs, and making sure that we reduce traffic congestion across our city.

If we don’t tackle traffic congestion across our city, it impacts on the lifestyle of our residents. It impacts on the time that it takes them to get to work. It impacts on our public transport system, because it slows our buses down, and that is why we are so committed to delivering this important infrastructure. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair.


LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I thank Councillors for their contribution. Madam Chairman, as was stated earlier, we are certainly getting on with these two projects, but we’re able to do some of the bigger projects, the big four as I call them, around the city as well—Kingsford Smith Drive, Telegraph Road, the Inner City Bypass and that of course of Wynnum Road where a lot of the resumption work is done.

So, Madam Chairman, it is about showing, I suppose, today through these two contracting projects, Madam Chairman, items A and B, that it’s not just about the big ones. We’ve said all along we’ve got 90 projects across this city, $1.3 billion worth of work that we’re undertaking in this term, Madam Chairman, and these are two of those important suburban pieces of works that are demonstrated through these contracting plans today. So, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillors for their contribution, but look forward to the passage of these items today so we can get on with the job.

At that time, 4.44pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Chairman: I will now put the report.

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

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN – PROGRESS ROAD UPGRADE STAGE 4165/210/179/2504

31/2017-181. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. The Chief Executive Officer and Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 11 July 2017.

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


- 42 -

Purpose

4. Progress Road forms part of the South Brisbane arterial road network and is identified as a primary freight access route in Council’s City Plan Road Hierarchy. It provides an important east˗west connection between the Ipswich Motorway and the Centenary Motorway.

5. Progress Road fulfils a number of different functions including:- supporting the east-west movement of vehicles and economic growth in Brisbane's southern

suburbs of Wacol, Carole Park, Richlands and Ellen Grove- providing a main link in this area to both the Ipswich Motorway and the Centenary Motorway.

6. To enable the corridor to operate effectively, Council has been progressively upgrading the Progress Road corridor since 2005 and Stage 4 will complete the four-laning of Progress Road. Table 1 (hereunder) and Figure 1 – Stage 4 project works and previous upgrade stages (submitted on file) show the upgrade stages.

Table 1 – Progress Road upgrade stages

Stage Section Completion DateStage 1 Garden Road to Archerfield Road August 2005Stage 2 Ipswich Motorway to Boundary Road June 2011Stage 2B Boundary Road to Bullockhead Creek December 2011Stage 3 Garden Road to Teraba Street (completed by the

Queensland Government with Council funding contribution)

December 2010

Stage 4 Boundary Road to Teraba Street Expected January 2019

7. Stage 4 extends for approximately 1 km along a currently undivided two-lane carriageway. There are no existing pedestrian or cyclist facilities for the majority of the extent of the Stage 4 upgrade. There is uncontrolled direct access to adjoining properties on both sides of Progress Road and land use is a mixture of industrial, residential and Council-owned parkland.

Business case

8. Stage 4 is part of the 2014-15 to 2018-19 Roads to Recovery (R2R) program which is a 50/50 jointly funded initiative between Council and the Australian Government. Stage 4 will reduce traffic congestion by increasing road capacity to cater for current and projected traffic volumes. Stage 4 will also improve road safety for all users and provide both on and off-road cyclist facilities and improved pedestrian facilities.

9. FunctionProgress Road forms part of a major transport corridor that has a significant role in carrying freight from the Wacol and Richlands areas onto the motorway network. Significant residential, commercial and industrial development in the Wacol, Carole Park, Richlands, Ellen Grove and Springfield regions is generating increasing traffic volumes in the area.

The Progress Road corridor is identified in Council’s Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026 and has been progressively upgraded in stages.

10. Current situationTraffic surveys in 2013, indicated that Progress Road carries approximately 15,000 vehicles per day and approximately 600 to 700 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak hours. Due to anticipated traffic growth in the area, modelling predicts Progress Road will carry approximately 20,000 vehicles per day and approximately 700 to 1,300 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak hours in 2031. This volume exceeds the capacity of the existing two-lane road in the Stage 4 upgrade section.

Over a five-year period up to June 2010, 27 accidents were recorded on Progress Road between Boundary Road and the Centenary Motorway, however it is expected that the Stage 2 and Stage 3 upgrades of Progress Road would address some of the factors contributing to these accidents. Of the 27 accidents, six were recorded within the Stage 4 proposed upgrade limits.


- 43 -

The existing cross section consists of a single traffic lane in each direction with no median separating opposing directions of traffic, which is substandard for this type of road and traffic volumes. There are currently no pedestrian or cyclist facilities for the majority of this section of Progress Road.

Bullockhead Creek runs south-north through this section of Progress Road and the existing road crossing consists of five concrete box culverts. The crossing has low flood immunity with 20% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP).

11. PriorityStage 4 is necessary to meet the required standard for an arterial road and to address issues associated with traffic capacity, safety, flood immunity and a lack of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

Failure to deliver Stage 4 will result in:- ongoing road safety issues due to the substandard road cross section- ongoing access issues during large storm events due to low flood immunity at the existing

Bullockhead Creek crossing- continued safety risks to pedestrians and cyclists due to substandard or no current provisions

for these road users- increased congestion and delays due to the single traffic lane in each direction reaching

capacity.

Outcomes

12. Design options were evaluated through a multi-criteria assessment, considering future traffic and network requirements, design geometry, constructability and the incorporation of public and active transport facilities. The preferred option was a five-lane cross section, with three lanes eastbound and two lanes westbound.

13. Stage 4 objectives include:- improved road safety for all users- increased capacity to cater for current and future traffic- improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians- improved flood immunity at Bullockhead Creek crossing to one per cent AEP- upgrading the final section of the Progress Road corridor.

14. Stage 4 incorporates the following:- widening Progress Road from two lanes to a five-lane carriageway with a central median - dedicated on-road cycle lanes in each direction- dedicated off-road shared pedestrian/cyclist path in the northern verge- installing LED street lighting- replacing the existing culvert crossing with a twin bridge structure with one per cent AEP

flood immunity at Bullockhead Creek.

Policy and other considerations

15. Is there an existing CPA/contract for these works?No, the Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure panel (520202) is limited to works valued up to $10 million.

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

Council staff will be engaged in the project management, contract administration, application for planning approvals and technical peer reviews of the project.

Market analysis

17. The current civil construction market in South East Queensland is competitive as a consequence of the number of new projects being well below historical levels, however, the market has experienced a moderate increase in activity with Council and the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) releasing multiple projects to the market recently.


- 44 -

18. It is anticipated that Council will attract multiple offers and this project will attract interest from tier one and tier two contractors. This project requires a TMR pre-qualification level of B3/R3/F25 and a contractor who is accredited under the Australian Government Building and Construction Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Accreditation Scheme (Building Code 2016 Certification).

19. All contractors with an office in South East Queensland, with relevant TMR pre-qualification levels, Building Code 2016 Certification and known experience successfully completing similar projects have been contacted, with considerable interest shown regarding submitting an offer for this project. As part of the procurement strategy, an industry briefing will be held to outline the project.

Procurement strategy and activity plan

20.Procurement objective: To procure the Principal Contractor for construction of the Progress

Road Upgrade Stage 4 project in a way that 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.

Title of contract: Progress Road Upgrade Stage 4 (Boundary Road to Teraba Street)Type of procurement: Establishing a one-off contractProcess to be used: Request for Tenders (RFT)RFT/P standard to be used (and any amends):

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

Advertising/select sourcing: Offers are to be sought publicly via open tender.How RFT is to be distributed: RFT is to be distributed via Council’s supplier portal.How tenders/proposals are to be lodged:

RFT is to be lodged via Council’s supplier portal.

Part offers: Part offers will not be considered.Joint offers: Joint offers may be considered.Contract standard to be used (and any amends):

Australian Standard General Conditions of Contract 4000 (AS4000) with Council’s standard amendments.

Period/term of contract: Approximately 50 weeksInsurance requirements: Council’s Principal Arranged Insurance will apply. In addition,

motor vehicle insurance of $20 million will be required.Price basis: Schedule of ratesPrice adjustment: Not applicable, prices will not be subject to adjustment for rise and

fall for the duration of the contract. Liquidated damages: $8,500 per daySecurity for the contract: Two unconditional bank guarantees:

1. one unconditional bank guarantee of 2.5% of the contract sum to be released upon practical completion

2. one unconditional bank guarantee of 2.5% of the contract sum to be released upon final completion.

Defects liability period/Warranty period:

12 months

Other strategy elements: A probity auditor will be appointed to oversee the procurement process.

An independent Evaluation Panel Chair will be appointed. 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. City Projects Office, Planning and Design, possess the required skills and knowledge of the area and completed detailed design and documentation for the project.

Alliance ContractAn 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


- 45 -

deliver value for money to Council.

Anticipated schedule

21.Pre-market approval: 8 August 2017Date of release to market: 11 August 2017Tender closing date: 15 September 2017Evaluation completion date: 28 October 2017Contract prepared: 30 October 2017Post-market approval: 5 December 2017Contract commencement: 8 December 2017

Budget

22. Estimated total construction expenditure is $22,331,385.

23. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this contract? Yes

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

25. Program budget line item:Program: 2 – Infrastructure for Brisbane Outcome: 2.1 – Road and Transport Network Management Strategy: 2.1.2 – Build the Transport NetworkService: 2.1.2.1 – Build the Transport NetworkProject: Progress Road Upgrade Stage 4

26. Program budgetFinancial Year

2014-15$000

2015-16$000

2016-17$000

2017-18$000

2018-19$000

2019-20$000

Total$000

Capital 712 381 8,190 25,091 3,055 608 38,037Expense - - - - - - -Revenue (R2R)

324 173 3,960 11,107 1,314 269 17,147

27. Breakdown of budget and identifiable costs:Line Item Description Budget Estimate Identifiable CostProfessional services $5,595,281 $5,595,281Land acquisition $6,810,320 $6,810,320Construction $22,331,385 $22,331,385Corporate overheads (9.5%) $3,300,014 $3,300,014Total $38,037,000 $38,037,000

Procurement risk

28. Summary of key risks associated with this procurementProcurement Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation

StrategyRisk Allocation

Additional traffic management and changes to construction methodology are required

Medium Obtain pre-approval for temporary traffic management for construction under traffic.

Keep community informed of the expected temporary traffic

Council


- 46 -

Procurement Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Strategy

Risk Allocation

disruption and alternative routes during construction.

Develop communication strategy.

Public complaints cause program slippage through restricted construction times

Medium Develop key messages around benefits and construction program.Keep the community informed about changing conditions before and during construction.

Provide project email and 1800 number to contact the project team.

Offer meetings where required.

Ensure updated information is available via website and Contact Centre.

Register all feedback and pass on to project team for review.

Council

Latent conditions around bridge and roadworks

Medium Significant geotechnical testing completed to map soil and rock shelves.

Council

Area of contaminated land encountered not covered in project schedules

Medium Geotechnical investigations completed during design phase.

Council

Unsuitable ground conditions lead to additional costs and project delays


Council

Variations associated with a schedule of rates contract

Medium Superintendent and inspector to monitor and assess the project works and variations.

Independent review of design and quantities completed.

Council

Directly affected property owners not satisfied with reinstatement works and restrictions to access property

Medium Prepare property reinstatement plans and obtain property owners’ written consent.

Council

29. Is this contract listed by Strategic Procurement Office (SPO) as a critical contract?No

Tender evaluation

30. Evaluation team


- 47 -

Specialist advisors and engineering design team members will review engineering elements contained within tender submissions and provide technical advice, as required to the Evaluation Team.

The Category Manager Construction and Operations, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services, or a nominated delegate will provide advice and any negotiation lead as required.

A probity auditor will be present at all Evaluation Team meetings and at any negotiation/clarification meetings with tenderers.

31. Evaluation criteria(a) Mandatory/essential criteria

- TMR prequalification level of B3/R3/F25 or higher.- Accredited under the Australian Government Building and Construction

Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme (Building Code 2016 Certification).

- Acceptance of Council’s construction contract standard, AS4000 (with Council’s standard amendments).

(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria

Ref Weighted Evaluation Criteria1 Project management of:

- project staging- Public Utility Plant (PUP) staging- detailed program supporting staging- traffic management- safety management plan- environment including erosion and sediment control, air quality and

noise mitigation.2 Demonstrated previous track record and capacity to deliver the project.3 Key personnel experience.

(c) Price modelNormalised tender price (e.g. risk of delay costs).

32. Evaluation methodologyResponses will be evaluated using Council’s standard value for money (VFM) methodology. This is non-price score divided by adjusted price to create a VFM index.

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

34. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN IN RELATION TO DELIVERY OF THE PROGRESS ROAD UPGRADE STAGE 4 PROJECT (BOUNDARY ROAD TO TERABA STREET).

ADOPTED

B STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN – JOHNSON ROAD AND STAPYLTON ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE PROJECT165/210/179/2491

32/2017-1835. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

36. The Chief Executive Officer and Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 11 July 2017.


- 48 -

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

Purpose

38. That the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves the Significant Contracting Plan (SCP) in relation to the delivery of the Johnson Road and Stapylton Road Intersection Upgrade project.

Background

39. The Johnson Road and Stapylton Road intersection is located at the boundary between Brisbane City Council and Logan City Council (LCC) and is a priority controlled intersection with stop signs on the Stapylton Road approaches. Refer to Figure 1 – Project Plan for the proposed intersection upgrade (submitted on file).

40. Johnson Road is defined as an arterial road and a primary freight access in Council’s road hierarchy and provides access between Carole Park, Forest Lake and Browns Plains. Council and LCC share responsibility for the planning, upgrading and maintenance of the road as it is located on the boundary between the two authorities.

41. Stapylton Road is classified as an arterial road and a primary freight route in Council’s road hierarchy. Both roads are Local Roads of Regional Significance (LRRS).

42. Over a five-year period between 2011 and 2016, 21 accidents have been recorded at the intersection, including 15 requiring medical treatment and four hospitalisations. Significant traffic delays are experienced at the intersection, especially traffic turning left from the north leg of Stapylton Road onto Johnson Road and right-turning traffic from Johnson Road onto the north leg of Stapylton Road. These factors make upgrading the intersection a high priority for both Council and LCC.

43. The project is to be jointly funded with LCC who will contribute 40% of the total project cost, excluding Council corporate overheads, pending the execution of the formal funding agreement. The formal funding agreement is required to be executed prior to the release of the tender.

Business case

44. Council completed a planning study in 2009 for the Johnson Road corridor between Cobalt Street and Elliot Court. The study considered both current and future traffic capacity needs of Johnson Road and recommended an upgraded layout for the road corridor. The report identified that the Johnson Road and Stapylton Road intersection needed to be signalised as a priority to address the high accident history and high traffic congestion levels.

45. In 2015, Council completed the Blunder Road upgrade north of the intersection between the Ipswich and Logan Motorways to improve north-south connectivity. Completion of this project and recent industrial development on Stapylton Road just to the north of the intersection is generating increasing traffic volumes at the intersection.

46. FunctionCouncil’s Road Hierarchy Plan defines Johnson Road and Stapylton Road as arterial roads and as a primary freight access and a primary freight route respectively. Industrial and commercial development in the surrounding suburbs of Forest Lake, Carole Park and Browns Plains and further development of the industrial areas south of the Logan Motorway are generating increasing pressure on the already congested intersection.

47. Current situationRecent traffic counts indicated that Johnson Road carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day and Stapylton Road carries approximately 11,000 vehicles per day.

The existing intersection layout comprises:- right-turn pockets from Johnson Road to Stapylton Road north and south legs- single through lanes on all approaches.


- 49 -

No provisions for pedestrians or cyclists currently exist at the intersection.

48. PriorityThe intersection upgrade is urgently required to address the high recorded accident rate and issues associated with traffic congestion and a lack of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

Failure to deliver the upgrade will result in:- ongoing road safety issues- continued safety risks to pedestrians and cyclists’ due to a lack of adequate provisions for

these user groups- increased congestion and delay due to the existing priority control.

Signalisation of the intersection will address the majority of the recorded accidents and reduce traffic delays, in particular left-turning movements from the Stapylton Road northern leg and right-turning movements from the Johnson Road eastern leg.

Outcomes

49. Design options were evaluated through a multi-criteria assessment, considering future traffic and network requirements, design geometry/alignment and constructability.

50. The upgraded intersection will include:- installing traffic signals at the intersection- widening the road to provide two lanes on both approaches to the intersection on

Johnson Road- installing double right-turn pockets from Johnson Road east to Stapylton Road north- installing double left-turn lanes from Stapylton Road north to Johnson Road east- installing pedestrian crossings on all but the eastern leg of the intersection- installing a pedestrian footpath on the south-eastern side of the intersection along

Johnson Road- installing two-metre-wide, on-road cycle lanes on the Johnson Road approaches and the

northern Stapylton Road approach- upgrading the culvert at the Oxley Creek tributary on Johnson Road to provide a flood

immunity of two per cent annual exceedance probability.

Policy and other considerations

51. Is there an existing CPA/contract for these works?No, the Council’s CPA 520202 for Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure has been established for works valued up to $10 million.

52. Could Council businesses provide the works?No, Council businesses do not have the capacity to be the construction contractor on the project.

Council staff will be engaged in the project management, contract administration, application for planning approvals and technical peer reviews of the project.

Market analysis

53. The current civil construction market is competitive with projects across South East Queensland being below historical levels, however, the market has experienced a moderate increase in activity with Council and the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) releasing multiple projects to the market recently.

54. It is anticipated that Council will attract multiple offers and this project will attract interest from tier two and some tier one contractors. This project requires a TMR pre-qualification level of R3/F25.

55. All contractors with an office in South East Queensland, with relevant TMR pre-qualification levels and known experience successfully completing similar projects have been contacted, with considerable interest shown regarding submitting an offer for this project. As part of the procurement strategy, an industry briefing will be held to outline the project.


- 50 -

Procurement strategy and activity plan

56.Procurement objective: To procure the Principal Contractor for construction of the

Johnson Road and Stapylton Road intersection upgrade in a way that 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.

Title of contract: Johnson Road and Stapylton Road Intersection Upgrade ProjectType of procurement: Establishing a one-off contractProcess to be used: Request for Tenders (RFT)RFT/P standard to be used (and any amends):

As per Council’s corporate standard with no amendments.

Advertising/select sourcing: Offers are to be sought publicly via open tender.How RFT is to be distributed: RFT is to be distributed via Council’s supplier portal.How tenders/proposals are to be lodged:

RFT is to be lodged via Council’s supplier portal.

Part offers: Part offers will not be considered.Joint offers: Joint offers may be considered.Contract standard to be used (and any amends):

Australian Standard General Conditions of Contract 4000 (AS4000) with Council’s standard amendments.

Period/term of contract: Approximately 34 weeksInsurance requirements: Council’s Principal Arranged Insurance will apply. In addition,

motor vehicle insurance of $20 million will be required.Price basis: Schedule of ratesPrice adjustment: Not applicable, prices will not be subject to adjustment for rise and

fall for the duration of the contract. Liquidated damages: $6,500 per daySecurity for the contract: Two unconditional bank guarantees:

1. one unconditional bank guarantee of 2.5% of the contract sum to be released upon practical completion

2. one unconditional bank guarantee of 2.5% of the contract sum to be released upon final completion.

Defects liability period /Warranty period:

12 months

Other strategy elements: A probity auditor will be appointed to oversee the procurement process.An external Panel Chair will be appointed for the tender evaluation.

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. City Projects Office, Planning and Design, possess the required skills and knowledge of the area and have completed detailed design and documentation for the project.

Alliance ContractAn 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 to Council.

Anticipated schedule

57. Construction contractPre-market approval: 8 August 2017Date of release to market: 14 August 2017Tender closing date: 12 September 2017Evaluation completion date: 25 October 2017Contract prepared: 25 October 2017


- 51 -

Post-market approval: 28 November 2017Contract commencement: 4 December 2017

Budget

58. Estimated total construction expenditure is $13,094,096.

59. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this contract? Yes

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

61. Program budget line item:Program: 2 – Infrastructure for BrisbaneOutcome: 2.1 – Roads and Transport Network Management Strategy: 2.1.2 – Build the Transport NetworkService: 2.1.2.1 – Build the Transport NetworkProject: Johnson Road and Stapylton Road Intersection Upgrade

62. Program budget:Financial

Year2016-17

$0002017-18

$0002018-19

$0002019-20

$0002020-21

$000Total$000

Capital 389 9,535 7,010 217 - 17,151Expenses - 821 - - - 821Revenue - 3,891 2,558 77 - 6,526

63. Breakdown of budget and identifiable costs:Line Item Description Budget Estimate Identifiable CostProfessional services $3,279,752 $3,279,752Land $8,262 $8,262Construction $13,094,096 $13,094,096Corporate overheads $1,589,890 $1,589,890Total $17,972,000 $17,972,000Note: this project is jointly funded by Council and LCC. LCC has agreed to pay 40% of the total cost excluding environmental levy and Council corporate overheads.

Procurement risk

64. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:Procurement Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation

StrategyRisk Allocation

Additional traffic management and changes to construction methodology are required

Medium Obtain pre-approval for temporary traffic management for construction under traffic.

Keep community informed of the expected temporary traffic disruption and alternative routes during construction.

Council/Contractor

Public complaints cause program slippage through restricted construction times

Medium Develop key messages around benefits and construction program.

Keep the community informed about changing conditions before and during construction.

Council


- 52 -

Procurement Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Strategy

Risk Allocation

Complaints from environmental groups cause project delays and/or additional scope

Medium Develop key messages around benefits of the project addressing environmental aspects.

Keep the environmental groups informed about the project and progress.

Council

Tributary to Oxley Creek floods during construction

Medium Incorporate flood assessment findings into constructability assessment and tender/contract documentation and ensure contractor implements required drainage measures.

Council/Contractor

Latent conditions around roadwork

Medium Significant geotechnical testing completed to map soil and rock shelves.

Council

Area of contaminated land encountered not covered in project schedules


Council

Unsuitable ground conditions lead to additional costs and project delays


Council

Variations associated with a schedule of rates contract

Medium Superintendent and inspector to monitor and assess the project works and variations.

Council

65. Is this contract listed by Strategic Procurement Office (SPO) as a critical contract?No

Tender evaluation

66. Evaluation teamSpecialist advisors and engineering design team members will review engineering elements contained within tender submissions and provide technical advice, as required to the Evaluation Team.

The Category Manager Construction and Operations, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services, or a nominated delegate will provide advice and any negotiation lead as required.

A probity auditor will be present at all Evaluation Team meetings and at any negotiation/clarification meetings with tenderers.

67. Evaluation criteria(a) Mandatory/essential criteria

- TMR prequalification level of R3/F25 or higher.- Acceptance of Council’s construction contract standard, AS4000 (with Council’s

standard amendments).(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria

Ref Weighted Evaluation Criteria1 Project specific requirements:

- detailed construction program- construction methodology including project staging plans- Public Utility Plant (PUP) sequencing supporting project

staging


- 53 -

Ref Weighted Evaluation Criteria- operational traffic management supporting staging plans –

maintain all current traffic movements- environment including erosion and sediment control, vegetation

clearing and tree protection.2 Demonstrated previous track record and capacity to deliver the project.3 Key personnel experience and availability including percentage of time

on site.

(c) Price modelNormalised tender price (e.g. risk of delay costs).

68. Evaluation methodologyResponses will be evaluated using Council’s standard value for money (VFM) methodology. This is non-price score divided by adjusted price to create a VFM index.

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

70. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN IN RELATION TO THE DELIVERY OF THE JOHNSON ROAD AND STAPYLTON ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE PROJECT.

ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES that the report of that Committee held on 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I wanted to take this opportunity to provide Councillors with a bit of a report on the recent delegation to Singapore that I joined with the South East Queensland Council of Mayors. The delegation was between 2 and 6 July, and included mayors and councillors from Brisbane, Toowoomba, Redland, Logan, Moreton Regional, Scenic Rim and also Ipswich City Council.

Throughout this delegation we did around 20 to 25 different engagements and meetings. There was a jam-packed agenda, and we absolutely learnt a hell of a lot about how things work in Singapore, not just from a governance point of view, but particularly from a public and active transport point of view as well. I wanted to share a few of those learnings, and also some that may be relevant to Brisbane and some that definitely wouldn’t be relevant to Brisbane.

One of the most important things that you should be aware of with Singapore, though, is that they are striving to have what is called the car light society. It’s like going on the roads diet that former Councillor Abrahams used to talk about. But the interesting thing is, in order to buy a car in Singapore; you have to purchase a Certificate of Entitlement. That Certificate of Entitlement is a bit like car registration, but it lasts for 10 years. After 10 years, it expires, and you have to either purchase another one or hand it back.

To purchase a standard sort of car that most of us would drive, so a car over 1.6 litres in terms of the engine capacity, the peak price in January 2013 for that particular Certificate of Entitlement was 96,000 Singaporean dollars. So that is


- 54 -

essentially their version of car registration—96,000 Singaporean dollars. If you do the conversion, it’s roughly one for one Australian dollars with Singapore dollars. So, if you want to buy a Hyundai Excel or one of the lower cost cars, it will still cost you more than $100,000 just to get that car onto the road.

Interestingly enough, despite this significant cost, around 45% of Singaporean households still own a car. So even with a very high density island, even with great public transport, even with the cost of potentially $100,000 to buy a car, 45% of households still have a car, which is fascinating.

They have obviously a bidding process for these Certificates of Entitlement, so there is a competitive process. It is like an auction. So the price can go up and down based on market forces. They also, in addition to this Certificate of Entitlement, have a congestion charge which is called the ERP (Electronic Road Pricing) System. That is essentially a road usage charge, and it is based on how congested the road network is at any given time. So the price goes up when there are heavy levels of congestion, and down when it’s quieter.

Obviously, Singapore is a success story when it comes to taking a country and really—in a short period of time bringing it really up the level of, I guess, living standards, up a level of investment in infrastructure, and up the level of average income for people. It is a small country and a very compact country. In fact, Singapore would fit twice into the City of Brisbane local government area. So that's the size of that. That particular island has more than four to five million people. So consider that, in half the size of Brisbane, five million people.

Obviously, that's a challenge but it's one that the Singaporean authorities have risen to. They do their planning in a way that just made me so envious. Their first and highest level of planning is actually a 50-year plan. Can you imagine any Australian government coming out with a 50-year plan? It might be nice in theory but in reality a 50-year plan?

They have stuck to their plans. They have actually delivered their plans. They review those plans every 10 years, and they haven't had all the chopping and changing which comes with changing of government either, because they've only had a couple of governments. In fact, I think they've only had one government in 50 years so that government has been able to deliver on the plans.

Every 10 to 15 years they do a master plan for the whole island as well, and then there's ongoing planning that happens each and every year. Some of their key targets including having 75% of all journeys in peak hour taken on public transport, and they want eight out of 10 households to be living within a 10-minute walk of a train station.

If you have a look at the way they approach getting people onto public transport it's interesting. Obviously, there's the high cost of car ownership and road usage but they do try and make public transport very attractive. They are running metro trains at 100 second headways during peak time. So every 100 seconds another train turns up. This is including the driverless trains that they have on some of their metro lines. This is a really impressive system that they have in place.

They have a network of covered walkways. It was interesting, obviously our Council has been investing in footpaths but because of the climate over there being so hot and humid and raining almost every day, they need to invest in covered walkways. They literally have hundreds of kilometres of covered walkways leading into their public transport stations. So along a stretch of road that we would put in a concrete footpath, they put in a concrete footpath plus a covered walkway.


- 55 -

They also have a whole heap of pedestrian overpasses as well. They have more than 4,000 elevated pedestrian overpasses. That is providing a big challenge for them to become an accessible city. Most of those overpasses have staircases leading to them or ramps and they're not wheelchair accessible. So they've got a big expense in making all those overpasses more accessible.

I was interested to see that despite the popularity and well-known nature of their metro system around the world, they actually carry more people on buses every day than they do on their metro trains in Singapore. They have this massive fleet of double decker buses similar to the London buses to carry people around.

Every day they carry 3.9 million trips on their buses. That is, as I said, more than they carry on their metro system. So while Singapore is known for its metro and its driverless trains, they actually should also be known for their incredibly efficient bus system.

I did obviously investigate the opportunity to bring double decker buses here to Brisbane and obviously some other cities in Australia are introducing double decker buses. Unfortunately, double decker buses would not fit under most of our bridges, particularly low rail bridges, and they would not fit into most of the busway sections that exist at the moment. So obviously rather than going higher in Brisbane, we need to go longer. That's obviously what we're looking at right now.

Certainly, they have an incredibly efficient bus system and one that we have some significant learnings from. The interesting thing that I saw while I was over there for bus driver training is, because their roads are so busy and congested a lot of the time, they don't actually send their drivers out to train on the roads up front. They have a very high tech simulator, just like a computer game or a flight simulator, where the drivers actually learn to drive in a simulator before going out onto the roads.

They did have trouble in Singapore attracting bus drivers in the past and so instead of calling them bus drivers, they call them bus captains—bus captains—that's right, and that was designed to increase the public standing of the role and to attract more people into that role. So they seemed to be doing that quite effectively. So maybe our bus operators should be called bus captains or bus generals or bus admirals but certainly—


DEPUTY MAYOR: —a really incredible set of learnings from this Singapore trip. How much time do I have left, Madam Chairman?

Chairman: You've got about a minute.

DEPUTY MAYOR: A minute, okay good. I'll wrap this up. Look, one of the interesting things though, that I learnt from the meetings that we had over there, is that there is an incredibly strong relationship between Brisbane, and indeed Australia, and Singapore. A lot of Singaporeans send their students here to Brisbane to study as international students.

The feedback we received is they love to come to Brisbane because it's actually really cheap to own a car and to drive a car around the place, compared to Singapore. So they come to Brisbane, study here at university, drive a car, and then they go back and they're faced with a hundred-thousand dollar bill to buy a Hyundai Excel.

It's interesting, those links go up right through the leadership of the government, and indeed there were many senior government leaders that have indeed studied


- 56 -

here, either in Brisbane or in Australia, and have really strong links and a fondness for Brisbane and Australia.

Having the different mayors and councillors from South East Queensland was a really unique thing, usually cities send delegations on an individual basis, but to have that delegation of some of Australia's largest councils going over there was a really positive thing, and will help definitely build stronger links in the future.

I think there are some great learnings in both directions that we can have. For us, obviously, we're in awe of their awesome public transport, but in return there's a whole heap of lifestyle things that they look to us for as well, and things that we actually do better than Singapore. I won't list them for fear of offending but there are some really things that we should be proud of here in Brisbane that we do well, and as I said great learnings in both directions.

Chairman: I will now—sorry—further debate?

Nothing? No summing up?

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 Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Peter Cumming, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ECODRIVING AND LOW EMISSION BUSES

33/2017-181. Bernadette Murray, Major Projects Manager, Engineering and Assets, Transport for Brisbane;

Brett Howe, Depot Manager, Virginia Bus Depot, Bus Operations, Transport for Brisbane; and John Hatchman, Fleet Engineer, Engineering and Assets, Transport for Brisbane, attended the meeting to provide information on EcoDriving and low emission buses. They provided the information below.

2. EcoDriving is a fuel-efficient way of driving that best utilises sophisticated vehicle technologies and is used across bus, taxi and trucking industries. EcoDriving has been shown to improve road safety while also reducing pollution. Transport for Brisbane has implemented an EcoDriving program for its bus operators which is modelled on the Western Australian Government’s training program but tailored to suit Transport for Brisbane’s operational needs and requirements. The day-long EcoDriving program trains bus operators to modify their behaviours, particularly accelerating, decelerating and idling with a mixture of classroom-based learning and in-bus practical driver coaching.

3. In Western Australia, industry trials involving taxis, buses and trucks have shown reductions in fuel consumption of up to 18% for some individuals, with averages between 5% and 10%. A pilot program involving five Virginia Bus Depot-based bus operators had reductions in fuel consumptions ranging between 1% and 9%.

4. From 1 July 2014, a dashboard mounted unit called I-Coach has been fitted to all B7RLE buses (approximately 180 buses). I-Coach provides immediate feedback to bus operators on harsh braking, harsh acceleration and harsh curving through a non-disruptive beep and light.

5. The EcoDriving program was implemented at the Virginia Bus Depot from March 2017. Approximately 90% of bus operators based at the Virginia Bus Depot have participated in the EcoDriving program, with 100% completion expected before Christmas. The assessment timeframe for


- 57 -

the EcoDriving program is between 12 and 18 months to enable data capture of seasonal variations and ensure the driver’s behaviour change is sustained.

6. Mr Howe played two videos showing first-hand accounts of EcoDriving program participants. Bus operators are reporting high levels of engagement with the EcoDriving program. Ninety-one per cent agreed their level of skill increased as a result of attending the training, 97% agreed the course would help them do their job and 98% agreed the training related to their job. Participant feedback indicated that the classroom learning, coupled with a practical driving session, were ‘all very helpful’. Furthermore, some bus operators who have completed the course report that they are also applying the EcoDriving skills to the way they drive their personal vehicle.

7. Key successes of the EcoDriving program include increased employee engagement and satisfaction; customer feedback that trips are smoother; reduced maintenance for buses due to less wear and tear, particularly for the steering, suspension and brakes; and improved safety for bus operators and passengers.

8. Mr Hatchman detailed the difference between the Euro V operating standard (the current vehicle emissions standard in Australia), Euro VI operating standard (the latest emissions standard mandated in Europe for buses) and Environmentally Enhanced Vehicles (EEVs), which represent 85% of Council’s bus fleet. EEVs reduce particulate matter by 33%. Euro VI vehicles reduce particulate matter by 66%, nitrogen oxide by 80% and total hydrocarbons by 70%. There are no changes in carbon outputs between Euro V and Euro VI vehicles and no change in fuel consumption; nonetheless, Euro VI represents a significant reduction in overall emissions.

9. Transport for Brisbane has four Euro VI buses and drivers report they are more powerful, making them feel safer on the road. In addition to emissions standards and extra power, other advantages include on--board emissions diagnostics that advise if a vehicle becomes non-compliant; service intervals that are extended from 30,000 km to 40,000 km; and improved performance.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Murray, Mr Howe and Mr Hatchman for their informative presentation.

11. 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 Andrew WINES, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, we had a report at committee last week on the MUTCD—the Manual of Uniformed Traffic Control Devices. It was very interesting and informative. I think all the members of the committee thought it was an important presentation for us to understand. It was very clear about how this then works.

So it sets the overarching standards for managing traffic across the State of Queensland. It is State Government that actually owns the MUTCD. We also discussed the fact that there's some activity in the Federal space to not only have State uniformity but to have national uniformity for consistency and safety. So it is a legislative requirement for Council to comply with these particular standards. We discussed how all of the information that the standards undertake.


- 58 -

We also talked about the fact that there is a regular review of the manual. So there have been parts as regularly updated as May this year. Obviously, this has informed us, and I thought all of the committee members were surprised to hear, that any person can provide feedback to the Department of Transport and Main Roads in relation to the manual. There is currently a review of Part 4, which is the part that refers to the criteria for speed limits.

So there is certainly, understand, work in progress in this particular area, and Council will certainly be providing feedback to the State in relation to our views as to how this particular process works. There were also two petitions that were presented to committee, and I'm happy to respond to any commentary in relation to those matters. Thank you, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I rise to speak on items B and C in this Infrastructure Committee report. Really on item C, I didn't get the chance last week in committee because we were running out of time but I really did just want to congratulate Councillor MURPHY and Councillor COOPER on what was a well-executed call in response if ever I saw one for Councillor MURPHY to be petitioning for this intersection upgrade. So well done to Councillor MURPHY and Councillor COOPER for their execution of that.

In terms of the petition B, requesting Council not proceed with the planned removal of the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street in Fortitude Valley, and considering banning vehicle access in the inbound lane of Ivory Street, to provide dedicated cycle and pedestrian access to and from the Story Bridge.

Look this petition came about as a result of the changes that Council has made down there, the recent intersection upgrade of Ivory Street. I use the term ‘upgrade’ loosely. Essentially that work has created a whole heap of issues. The concrete footpath has already been removed as part of the works that were funded last financial year, and there's more funding in this year's budget.

Madam Chairman, I'm sure in her response today, Councillor COOPER will stand up and say that it's a complicated site, and the engineers have said that this is the safest that they could make it, and I respect what the engineers have said. However, I do make the point there is a distinction between theory and practice. Whilst this intersection may be technically safe, for all intents and purposes, if you speak to the many users they will say that it is no longer practically safe.

Madam Chairman, that is because in changing the intersection into the configuration that it is today, has actually completely ignored the fact that there is an established desire line and path of travel that people use in that particular part of the city, that even after removing the footpath, people are still wanting to use that established pathway, to the extent that the grass is already wearing away from where the footpath was removed.

I attended the site with a representative of Space for Cycling to listen to their concerns about this intersection upgrade, or non-upgrade as the case may be, and what it has actually meant for cyclists. Now, instead of having dedicated curb ramps that take them directly across the road down to the traditional route, the curb ramps have been taken away. What Council wants them to do is navigate down a side footpath, which they've dubbed a shared pathway that, at points, this shared pathway is barely a metre wide because of the infrastructure


- 59 -

that has been placed on the footpath in the form of bins and seating, and all the rest of it.

So it is not a safe alternative from an active transport perspective. Once again, active transport needs in this city have been relegated a far, far last well behind what Council is trying to achieve in terms of opening up access to their Howard Smith Wharves project. That was the motivating reason for this intersection upgrade.

It would have been great if we had have been able to come up with a solution, that actually enhances pedestrian and cycling access down to Howard Smith Wharves, rather than setting up a situation that makes it more difficult and complex for those cyclists using this route and for those pedestrians using this route, to actually access that venue and other routes that they may be taking.

As I said, I acknowledge and I don't dispute what Councillor COOPER will say about the engineering specifications and the technicality of that, but these things also have to be designed in a common sense way that takes into account the desire lines that people have always travelled and are wanting to continue to travel.

I make the appeal to Councillor COOPER today to have another look at it to see whether or not we actually can get a better outcome. The cyclists in this petition and it wasn't just cyclists that signed it I'm sure. I'm sure—it was a range of other people as well. I know that they have proposed banning vehicle access in one of the lanes in Ivory Street and I understand that there's complexity in doing that and what that would do to the broader network as well.

So I acknowledge that that may well not be a solution but we do need to get a better outcome here because as it stands, this intersection I believe has been made practically unsafe by these changes based on the users. I was there for some time with a Space for Cycling representative. We didn't see one pedestrian that used the footpath that Council is now wanting pedestrians and cyclists to use.

Everyone that crossed at that intersection, crossed where they have always crossed, across the two refuge blocks and along the grass patch where the footpath has now been removed. That's not a sustainable option for this intersection and further changes need to be made so this can be corrected and made safe for everyone into the future.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes just—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SUTTON: Sorry, Councillor JOHNSTON. Through you—

Seriatim - Clause BCouncillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause B, PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO NOT PROCEED WITH THE PLANNED REMOVAL OF THE FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BOUNDARY STREET IN FORTITUDE VALLEY AND CONSIDER BANNING VEHICLE ACCESS ON THE INBOUND LANE OF IVORY STREET TO PROVIDE DEDICATED CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO AND FROM THE STORY BRIDGE, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.


- 60 -

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. I was going to do that too, Councillor SUTTON. I rise to speak briefly on item B. When I read the Infrastructure Committee report, I found it difficult to believe what I was reading. It says here that Council is undertaking or has already undertaken to great extent a road upgrade—a road upgrade which removes a footpath, and a road upgrade that does not include any dedicated off-road cycling facilities.

Now, I don't think that meets Council's standard in any way, shape or form. This Council has to make provision for residents to walk, public and active transport, and also ride around the city. I'm even further disturbed by what Councillor SUTTON said about the width of the footpath on the other side of the road, which no one is using. So I can't fathom why Council considers this to be an upgrade.

I don't support removing footpaths. I mean for god's sake it is so hard to get a footpath to start with in this city and here is this Administration ripping them out—well used footpaths are being ripped out. The result is we now have an unstable, probably muddy, footpath area when it rains where people are walking along a verge without a stable footpath. The photos are shocking. To not include bike facilities in some way I think is certainly not appropriate.

Now I'm not sure that the petitioners' response is something quite—I'm not sure that's exactly what I was thinking, close a lane and all the rest of it but there is absolutely no question we can't be removing footpaths. This is an Administration that claims that the previous administration closed libraries. Well, for god's sake you people are closing playgrounds and footpaths all over the city.

It's not good practice. Clearly something is wrong here when this many people are telling you what you are doing is unsafe. So I won't be voting for this, and I urge the Administration to fix this problem.


Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to item B in the Infrastructure Committee report today. Madam Chairman, for many years I've been working with body corporates and individual residents in this section of Boundary Street in the city to get the intersection of Ivory and Boundary Street upgraded.

From my discussions with residents, officers then reconfigured the traffic lights in Ivory and Boundary Street so that vehicles can turn right into the Ivory Street tunnel from Boundary Street. This means that from last month, the hundreds of residents who live in River Place, Quay Terraces and the Oakwood Hotel at this cul-de-sac of Boundary Street can now access the Story Bridge more quickly and the northern suburbs of New Farm, Newstead and Teneriffe with a great deal more ease.

Prior to my securing this change, to access the Story Bridge and the northern suburbs, these hundreds of residents had to turn left at Boundary, wait at the lights at Adelaide Street to go straight ahead, proceed into the very narrow, historic Diddams Lane, turn left into the steepest part of Macrossan Street, wait at the Adelaide Street lights, turn left into Adelaide Street, wait at the Adelaide and Boundary lights and then turn right again into Boundary. All before they get back to their original position to head into the Ivory Street Tunnel.


- 61 -

This massive circle that current residents had to complete, meant that there were hundreds of vehicles circulating unnecessarily in these streets that was all able to be solved by a simple right-hand turn. I am glad these hundreds of cars are now not using all of these other streets because of our sensible changes.

I am glad these hundreds of cars are not circulating at the busy intersections of Adelaide and Macrossan, and Adelaide and Boundary. I am glad that as the area develops with the Howard Smith Wharves build that the construction vehicles and the future users of the site, won't have to do that great big inner city circle in the future.

Council has received much praise for the build and I read you from one of the residents. ‘It is a fortnight already Vicki since the low-key opening of our wonderful Boundary Street right turn into Ivory Street Tunnel. Credit where due. I would like to express our wholehearted appreciation to you and the Council for making this timely and much needed improvement to our challenging Boundary Ivory traffic situation’.

So I support this intersection upgrade and the professional officers who designed the changes. I appreciate that there are residents and, from what I'm hearing, Opposition Councillors here in City Hall who don't like the lights upgrade and want to ban access by vehicles into Ivory Street to the Story Bridge.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SUTTON: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you?

Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: I appreciate that they have petitioned but the modifications to the footpaths, the newly created safer crossing point in Boundary Street for pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicular access to Ivory Street are here to stay. They are here to stay because as the report says, the new crossing point enhances safety by directing pedestrian movements away from the intersection while providing clear sight lines for vehicles traveling along Boundary Street.

As the report goes on to say, a signalised pedestrian crossing could not be incorporated at the Boundary Street intersection due to the constraints of the site. As such, the existing section of footpath on the northern side of Boundary Street between the new crossing point and the intersection will be removed and turfed to deter pedestrians from walking through the intersection.

I think it's important to highlight there are no traffic engineers within Council that are legally prepared to sign off on the modifications that the petitions would like to see. Now I know that Councillor SUTTON and the petitioners may find this situation difficult but if there is no support from the professionals in traffic engineering then Council must respect that position.


- 62 -

In parallel to their request for footpath changes that officers can't agree to, I also see that there has been a request to drastically alter an arterial roads operation. I see that the report outlines that arterial roads serve an essential road function in the traffic network providing important intra-city connections between principal and major regional activity centres, suburbs, major destinations and areas outside of Brisbane.

As an arterial road, Ivory Street from the Story Bridge carries a significant volume of traffic of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day, and that the petitioners request to close off Ivory Street from the Story Bridge would have a significant adverse impact to the operation of the road network and impact on local access including to All Hallows' School which has over 1,500 students. The subsequent redistribution of traffic across the inner city would result in significant congestion and major delays for road users throughout the city.

Again, I realise that the petitioners won't be happy with this assessment but I am determined to keep our streets and roads in Central Ward operating as freely and openly as possible. Operating to their best ability to keep residents and commerce moving. Operating to keep emergency service access as clear as possible. Operating so that we can continue to tackle traffic congestion, not to force thousands of legitimate road users into other parts of the network.

I know that many of these 5,000 vehicles per day are Central Ward residents coming home from working on the southside. So following the completion of today's debate, I'll be contacting these city residents and All Hallows' with the outcome of the debate including the position of the Council's traffic engineers, this Administration, and the position of the Opposition.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, you had misrepresentation.

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, Councillor HOWARD tried to indicate that I had been advocating against the right-hand turn down into the Howard Smith Wharves. That is not what I said at all. I had been talking specifically about what that change had done to the active transport access into that area and—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SUTTON

Councillor SUTTON: —I called on the Administration to make further changes to improve that.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, you had misrepresentation.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. I certainly hope this part’s reported as well. I certainly did not agree with all the petitioners' requests and my concern is that this Administration has closed a footpath, an existing footpath—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —and has closed cycling facilities—

Chairman: You know that you don't debate on a point of misrepresentation.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —and I've been misrepresented.

Chairman: Thank you, resume your seat.

Further debate?

Councillor SRI.


- 63 -

Councillor SRI: Thanks Madam Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on item B. I've listened with interest to the debate from Councillor HOWARD, and also both Councillor JOHNSTON and Councillor SUTTON. I tend to share the concerns of the petitioners that the pedestrian and cycling access and safety through this intersection has been unnecessarily and inappropriately reduced.

I do understand your argument Councillor HOWARD, and the benefits of installing that right turn to allow cars to get up onto the bridge, but overall I don't think the public interest is best served by the loss of that direct pedestrian connection. I think the other Councillors are right that this—the pedestrians will continue to cross there because it's the shortest and most direct route for pedestrians.

To me it seems a little bit—I guess I'd go so far as to say a little bit silly to suggest that pedestrians are going to walk all the way around and then cross over again rather than just taking that direct route across the traffic islands.

I think the outcome with this particular intersection is symptomatic with a broader problem within Council, which is that there is an anti-pedestrian cultural bias that effectively filters down from the top, which influences transport planners and the design teams where if we say to them your project brief is to redesign this intersection to make it safer for pedestrians, the unspoken qualifier is we want you to redesign this intersection to make it safer for pedestrians but we don't want you to slow down or inconvenience private motor vehicles in any way.

I don't think that's a sustainable or justifiable approach particularly in the inner city where volumes of pedestrians and cyclists are so high. It looks like in this case we've effectively reduced safety and convenience for pedestrians and in exchange for improving the convenience and reducing travel times for motorists. I think that's the wrong around.

I think in the inner city we actually need to be saying that whenever we're called to make a decision between preserving or improving access for pedestrians or improving and preserving convenience and access for motorists, we need to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and other forms of active transport. I think this is just a step backwards. Looking at the designs I'm quite surprised that there wasn't an alternative solution that allowed that pedestrian crossing to be preserved.

I wonder if there was significant consideration given to the idea of shared zones or raised platforms that allow pedestrians to cross safely there while still slowing down the traffic. I'm not actually sure what the speed limit is on that street and I'd appreciate guidance from Councillor COOPER as to what the speed limit is through there.

I'd be interested to know whether if the speed limit had been reduced, that would have given the designers more flexibility in terms of being able to preserve that pedestrian crossing on that island. Overall, I just think this is a really poor outcome and I think if Council's justification is that oh well the designers had to stick to the design manual rules and that's the only outcome they were able to deliver then it's clear that those design manual rules are deeply flawed and Council should be advocating for those to change.

Yes, I reiterate my general comment that I don't think it's appropriate for Council to be reducing pedestrian access in order to improve vehicle access. I think we should actually be doing things the other way around. I definitely looking at this intersection don't understand why it wasn't possible to install a safe right-hand turn onto the Ivory Street onramp without reducing that pedestrian crossing. It baffles me and it's a really bizarre outcome and a really


- 64 -

disappointing outcome for all the active travel users who move through that area.


Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item C which is the petition to Council on the Belmont Road upgrade and funding in the 2017-18 budget. Madam Chairman, this was a petition which was presented to Council on 30 May 2017. I actually ran this petition for one month—only from 21 April to 21 May, gathering 375 signatures, the vast majority of which came from within Doboy Ward.

The petition not only calls for implementation of a fast diamond style intersection at the intersection of Belmont, Manly and Wynnum Roads, but also a package of other works to decrease congestion along Belmont Road. So in April 2017 of this year, officers implemented a combined in the Wynnum Road inbound movement with the Belmont Road right turn onto Manly Road with a fast diamond configuration, which showed incredible results at reducing traffic congestion at the intersection.

We reduced the am queueing from 239 metres down Belmont Road to 143 metres, which is a 96-metre reduction. The PM queueing which is particularly bad when mums and dads are going to pick up their kids from school in the area from 356 metres to 218 metres, which is a 138-metre reduction.

So we've implemented these changes and the feedback so far has been fantastic but there has always been more to be done with that intersection and that's what this project was about. So to continue to reduce congestion on Belmont Road there's really three things that need to be done. We need to remove some additional parking on Belmont Road and we need to relocate or rationalise Bus Stops 47 and 43.

There is the potential and very controversial closure of Palgrave Street to right turn, which we are considering as part of that process as well, which will allow us to expand the right turn pocket on Belmont Road into Manly Road to allow for additional storage for cars trying to make that movement.

Ultimately, this requires funding and hence the petition timed just before the last Council budget. I'm very pleased to say that it worked and the LORD MAYOR did listen, allocating $381,000 towards the intersection improvements at Belmont, Manly and Wynnum Roads. So, Madam Chairman, this is a huge win for all the residents particularly in Belmont and Tingalpa, but also to all those commuters in the eastern suburbs that use that intersection to travel to and from work and around the suburbs going about their business.

This just goes to show our commitment to tackling traffic congestion is not only in the major infrastructure projects across the city but also in the smaller ones that matter out in the suburbs like you were referring to before, Madam Chairman, at Stapylton Road. It also goes to show that the LORD MAYOR listens to the community out there when they write him a petition asking him to do something that he does consider that and dutifully responds in a timely fashion.

Councillor SUTTON said that there was a call in response from me to Councillor COOPER, well it certainly was a call in response, Madam Chairman, but the call was from my community through to the LORD MAYOR, and the LORD MAYOR and this Administration have listened to that call absolutely.


- 65 -

Councillor SUTTON actually knows about this process because the Thorpe, Apollo and Lytton Road intersection I think was very much the same thing where Councillor SUTTON and her community asked for a project, the LORD MAYOR responded and he allocated funds. You drive down Lytton Road right now and you can see a wonderful completed piece of infrastructure there. That's a Labor Councillor and an LNP Administration working together to get a great result for the community.

So I think that just goes to show, Madam Chairman, what's possible when Councillors work with the community and the Administration in a collaborative way, not coming in here and screaming or trying to be the loudest person or make the most noise but just working with the Administration to progress projects. It doesn't always happen overnight. Sometimes, yes there has to be traffic investigations and reports and counts done, but everything you can do to build a case for an infrastructure project it ultimately does add up and you will be listened to.

So I want to thank again the LORD MAYOR, I want to thank Councillor COOPER and the officers who have been doing the work on this project for some years now. This is a great result but most importantly, Madam Chairman, I want to thank all those members of the community who signed this petition because they have well and truly been listened to by this Administration.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just to respond to the commentary that has been undertaken this evening, Councillor SUTTON suggested that there were whole heaps of issues that this particular project had actually resulted in. I would completely and utterly dispute that.

There has been an ongoing—and I thank Councillor HOWARD for her very clear absolutely straightforward presentation of what is currently happening in that particular precinct. Petrie Bight as it's commonly referred to is very, very constrained. The vast majority of development in that particular precinct was actually approved by the Australian Labor Party.

I remember back in the day that Councillor Hinchliffe used to rue the amount of traffic that was locked in this particular precinct and was very concerned about the impact on his then constituents. I think it's taken Councillor HOWARD to actually come up with a solution working, of course, with the LORD MAYOR that will make a significant improvement to those residents who abide in this beautiful part of our city but very, very complex environment there.

So there's a lot of activity in that precinct and every project we do has to consider a whole range of users, and in particular we note that there will be additional impacts with the Howard Smith Wharves proposal and we wanted to make sure that we were delivering infrastructure before it became even more congested. Currently at the moment it is a difficult particular precinct to get through and this is going to make a very large difference for hundreds of local residents up there and I know they're very appreciative of the work that Council has done.

Just in relation to the commentary that was made by Councillor SUTTON, she said that there was a desire line and people are ignoring new infrastructure and they are crossing wherever they choose to do. Well unfortunately through you to Councillor SUTTON, Madam Chairman, people cross in all sorts of places across each and every road in this city. Council doesn't actually put up fences


- 66 -

and say to people thou shalt not cross here. We have to rely on people using common sense.

If we put infrastructure in place then it has to be signed off as safe. There seems to be a number of people in this Chamber who have now become engineers. I'm not sure what their actual qualifications are but I am always guided by people who actually have gone to university, who actually do have a degree, and are prepared to put their professional reputation on the line to say something is safe or not safe.

I don't profess to be somebody who can look at an intersection and say that I am 100% confident that it's safe and there won't be any potential danger posed to any of those people that use that intersection. I'm not an RPEQ. I don't know anyone in this Chamber who is an RPEQ. If there is a Councillor in this Chamber who is an RPEQ and you're willing to sign off these sorts of projects then I'm happy if you want to step forward, happy to take your feedback on board.

If you're telling me that you get a sense that it's safe I'm pretty much not confident that that would be safe. If you're just telling me people like to cross there, if it's about the vibe, I'm not confident that that necessarily is a safe outcome. This Council must make decisions based on evidence not on what we feel like, not on you know the vibe, the sort of feeling that we might have that suits us.

We have to make very serious decisions about when we do things and when we don't. I would very much dispute that Council officers—because I know because I absolutely put them through their paces on this one. I had them doing every possible way to try and improve the outcome. The only option that they felt was a safe outcome was relocating the pedestrian crossing.

So it's not something that we have taken lightly and I would say through you, Madam Chairman, to Councillor SUTTON, I made it very clear at Committee last week that I had asked officers to try every possible permutation to try and get the outcome. They said to me categorically that it was not possible. It is not a case that we don't care about these sorts of things. We care and care very passionately.

I always say one thing, lots of people are drivers, lots of people are cyclists, and every single one of us is a pedestrian—every single one of us. I particularly am very keen to make sure that we deliver good outcomes. I was extremely disappointed with Councillor SRI's comment and I quote, ‘reflects an anti-pedestrian cultural bias from the top.’ That is absolutely and utterly wrong. Utterly wrong.

I would say through you, Madam Chairman, to Councillor SRI, that is your view. It is not the view of the majority of people in this Chamber. We do everything we can to make sure our city is a great one. It's about mobility; it's about getting around safely and efficiently. We have no prejudices about any forms of mobility. We have delivered projects and look at all of our projects. Our road projects deliver on road cycle lanes. They deliver improved pedestrian access.

Everything we do is about making sure that the people of Brisbane get a better outcome and we absolutely are proud to stand on our record. The commentary is ill-informed and I think just really shows that Councillor SRI does not in any way, shape or form give us any credit for the work that we have done, and that is very disappointing because I am absolutely confident on our record we have a great record of achievement for our city.


- 67 -

So noting Councillor SUTTON's comments, we have done everything we can. Councillor HOWARD knows that we have done everything we can. She is the local Councillor. She has very much lobbied on behalf of her community and we think that this is a good outcome. We know that the feedback we've had has been very, very positive and we look forward in the future to increased improvement in this particular area for all users of this intersection. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor COOPER.

I will now put items A and C.

Clauses A and C put

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

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 Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.

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


AYES: 18 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

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


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Kim Marx, Ryan Murphy and Shayne Sutton.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION –MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

34/2017-181. Marie Gales, Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy and Congestion Reduction Unit, Brisbane

Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). She provided the information below.

2. The MUTCD sets the overarching standards for managing traffic on roads, ensuring State and nation-wide consistency for safety. The signs and road markings contained in the MUTCD are designed with a focus on legibility for motorists. In addition to the Federal MUTCD, Queensland has its own MUTCD which is administered by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). Council uses the MUTCD in conjunction with:


- 68 -

- the Queensland Government’s Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (which requires Council to follow MUTCD standards)

- the Traffic and Road Use Management Manual (published by TMR)- the Road Planning and Design Manual (published by TMR)- Austroads guides and manuals- TC signs (non-standard traffic control signs developed by TMR).

3. The MUTCD contains several parts which deal with various types of traffic devices. It is updated regularly and reviewed to reflect best practice and technological advancements. Parts of the Queensland MUTCD were updated as recently as May 2017 and there is an ongoing trend to align it more closely with the Federal MUTCD. Members of the public can contact TMR to provide feedback.

4. Speed limits are determined in accordance with Part 4 of the MUTCD. When deciding on a speed limit consideration is given to the road function, types of vehicles using the road, and prevailing traffic speeds. An environmental assessment and independent speed limit review are conducted to assist in decision making. Changes to speed limits must be approved by the Queensland Government’s Speed Management Committee. The positive aspects of this process are that it is thorough, comprehensive and transparent, and determines safe speed limits based on extensive research and engineering expertise. However, the process is lengthy and can be costly, and speed limits are sometimes not accepted by the community. TMR is currently reviewing the speed limit review process.

5. Council is providing feedback to assist with improvements to the speed review process and public education. As an example of a potential improvement, two signs indicating a speed limit of 60 km/h were shown; one of the signs was mandatory and the other was advisory. It was pointed out that some motorists may not be able to distinguish between the two signs and improvements could be made to distinguish their messaging.

6. A number of issues are commonly raised by the community regarding changes to speed limits. Works on roads such as Kingsford Smith Drive can cause frustration for motorists who do not understand that significant speed limit reductions are imposed with considerations given to the safety of workers. Council often receives requests for speed limit changes from people who do not understand the assessment guidelines. Motorists also sometimes disagree with the location of ‘stop’ and ‘give way’ controls.

7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Gales for her informative presentation.

8. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO NOT PROCEED WITH THE PLANNED REMOVAL OF THE FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BOUNDARY STREET IN FORTITUDE VALLEY AND CONSIDER BANNING VEHICLE ACCESS ON THE INBOUND LANE OF IVORY STREET TO PROVIDE DEDICATED CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO AND FROM THE STORY BRIDGECA17/364334 and CA17/367659

35/2017-189. Two petitions from residents requesting Council to not proceed with the planned removal of the

footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street in Fortitude Valley, and consider banning vehicle access on the inbound lane of Ivory Street to provide dedicated cycle and pedestrian access were presented to the Council meeting held on 2 May 2017, by Councillor Vicki Howard, and received.

10. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.


- 69 -

11. The two petitions contain a total of 127 signatures. Most of the signatories are from Brisbane City Council’s local government area with 33 signatories from the southern suburbs, 33 signatories from the eastern suburbs, 37 signatories from the northern suburbs and 22 signatories from the western suburbs. Two signatories are from Logan City.

12. Ivory Street provides through-traffic flow to and from the Story Bridge and Fortitude Valley into the Brisbane Central Business District (CBD). It is a significant link to the southern and eastern suburbs, connecting residents to the CBD, citywide specialist centres, and employment. Boundary Street connects the New Farm Riverwalk to the CBD via Howard Smith Wharves, and also provides access to residential and commercial premises, as well as serviced apartments and All Hallows’ School.

13. The aim of the project is to facilitate improved access through the Ivory Street and Boundary Street intersection, which will assist in addressing access, safety and congestion issues. The works being undertaken by Council will provide a right-turn movement from Boundary Street into Ivory Street and the Ivory Street tunnel entrance. Currently, only a left-turn facility is permitted from Boundary Street into Ivory Street.

14. Construction on the upgrade to the intersection started on 26 April 2017 and was completed by late June 2017.

15. The existing footpath extends from Ivory Lane along the northern side of Boundary Street to the Ivory Street intersection where pedestrians cross at the traffic island. The project will improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists with the installation of new kerb ramps on Boundary Street, and connection to the existing footpath on the southern side of Boundary Street. This section of road is two lanes, approximately 10 metres wide, and does not require a centre median.

16. The new crossing point will enhance safety by directing pedestrian movements away from the intersection while providing clear sight lines for vehicles travelling along Boundary Street. The existing section of footpath on the northern side of Boundary Street, between the new crossing point and the intersection, will be removed and turfed to deter pedestrians from walking through the intersection. A signalised pedestrian crossing could not be incorporated at the Boundary Street intersection due to constraints of the site.

17. During preliminary investigations for the project, Council investigated a range of alternative options to achieve the desired outcome of improving egress from Boundary Street. Closing one lane of Ivory Street to provide dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities is not considered feasible as Ivory Street is classified as an arterial road within Council’s Brisbane City Plan 2014.

18. Arterial roads serve an essential road function in the traffic network, providing important intra-city connections between principal and major regional activity centres, suburbs, major destinations and areas outside of Brisbane. As an arterial road, Ivory Street (from the Story Bridge) carries a significant volume of traffic of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day.

19. The petitioners’ request to close off Ivory Street (from the Story Bridge) would have a significant adverse impact to the operation of the road network and impact on local access, including to All Hallows’ School, which has over 1,500 students. The subsequent redistribution of traffic across the inner city would result in significant congestion and major delays for road users throughout the city.

20. Ivory Street is regarded as a local cycle route, with a purpose of linking primary and secondary routes, and installing two-way on-road bike lanes on a local route is not in accordance with Council’s Brisbane City Plan 2014. The primary cycle route is via the New Farm Riverwalk and the City Boardwalk with Ivory Lane being a secondary route. For these reasons, the installation of dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities on Ivory Street is not supported by Council.

21. Due to these considerations, Council has continued with the upgrade to the intersection at Ivory Street and Boundary Street, Fortitude Valley, as planned.

22. It is recommended that the information in this submission be noted and the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioners.


- 70 -

Funding

23. Funding was allocated to the project in the 2016-17 annual budget under 2.3.2.3, Major Traffic Improvements – Intersections.

Consultation

24. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

25. The response will address the petitioner’s concerns.

26. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed with Councillors Steve Griffiths and Shayne Sutton dissenting.

27. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition Reference: CA17/364334 and CA17/367659

Thank you for your petitions requesting Council to not proceed with the plan to remove the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street and consider banning vehicle access on the inbound lane of Ivory Street, to provide dedicated cycle and pedestrian access to and from the Story Bridge, as part of the Ivory Street and Boundary Street intersection upgrade project at Fortitude Valley.

Council is upgrading the intersection at Ivory Street and Boundary Street to improve access through the intersection, which will assist in addressing safety and congestion issues through the area. Safe pedestrian and cycle access will be enhanced with the installation of new kerb ramps on Boundary Street, with connection to the existing footpaths providing a safer and more accessible route.

The new crossing point on Boundary Street will enhance safety by directing pedestrian movements away from the intersection while providing clear sight lines for vehicles travelling along Boundary Street. The existing section of footpath on the northern side of Boundary Street, between the new crossing point and the intersection, will be removed and turfed to deter pedestrians from walking through the intersection.

During preliminary investigations for the project, Council investigated a range of alternative options to achieve the desired outcome of improving egress from Boundary Street. Closing one lane of Ivory Street to provide dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities, as suggested in the petitions, is not considered feasible as Ivory Street is classified as an arterial road within Brisbane City Plan 2014.

Arterial roads serve an essential road function in the traffic network, providing important intra-city connections between principal and major regional activity centres, suburbs, major destinations and areas outside of Brisbane. As an arterial road, Ivory Street (from the Story Bridge) carries a significant volume of traffic of approximately 5,000 vehicles per day.

The closure of Ivory Street (from Story Bridge) would have a significant adverse impact to the operation of the road network. The subsequent re-distribution of traffic across the inner city would result in significant congestion and major delays for road users throughout the city.

Ivory Street is regarded as a local cycle route, with a purpose of linking primary and secondary routes, and installing two-way on-road bike lanes on a local route is not in accordance with Council’s Brisbane City Plan 2014. The primary cycle route is via the New Farm Riverwalk and the


- 71 -

City Boardwalk with Ivory Lane being a secondary route. For these reasons, the installation of dedicated cycle and pedestrian facilities on Ivory Street is not supported by Council.

The current design was determined to be the most feasible option to enhance connectivity for all road users and improve the overall efficiency of the local road network by implementing a right turning lane from Boundary Street into Ivory Street.

Council has continued with the upgrade to the intersection at Ivory Street and Boundary Street, Fortitude Valley, as per the design that was provided to the community.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Lisa Laney, Communications Officer, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MANLY, WYNNUM AND BELMONT ROADS, TINGALPACA17/475757

36/2017-1828. A petition from residents, requesting Council prioritise funding for improvements to the traffic signals

at the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads, Tingalpa, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 30 May 2017, by Councillor Ryan Murphy, and received.

29. The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy and Congestion Reduction Unit, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

30. The petition contains 374 signatures; of which 369 petitioners live in the Brisbane City Council area and five petitioners live outside of the Brisbane City Council area.

31. The petitioners request the implementation of a new ‘fast diamond’ intersection configuration, re-alignment of lane markings on Belmont Road, relocation of a bus stop on Belmont Road, possible right turn bans for Palgrave Street and phase changes across all intersection movements.

32. Belmont Road is a 60 km/h suburban road connecting to the arterial roads of Manly and Wynnum Roads, which are 60 km/h at the intersection. Suburban roads connect district centres and are the key access roads between suburbs with speed signage up to 70 km/h. Arterial roads connect major centres of the city with speed signage up to 80 km/h. Both suburban and arterial roads provide an important link in the freight and public transport network. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows the current intersection configuration.

33. In April 2017, prior to this petition, Council undertook a study into the Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads intersection operation. The study identified that if Council combined the right diamond turning phases from Wynnum Road inbound and ran these in the same phase as the Belmont Road into Manly Road right turn phase, the benefits to Belmont Road would be a 96-metre reduction in queuing in the AM peak (239 metres down to 143 metres) and a 138-metre reduction in queuing in the PM peak (356 metres down to 218 metres). Therefore, to improve congestion, the right turning phases from Wynnum Road inbound were combined with Belmont Road into Manly Road in April 2017 and now run together. These changes have resulted in a significant improvement to the delays on Belmont Road with a slight worsening to delays for Wynnum Road.

34. Council is committed to reducing congestion across the city and, as such, has also allocated $381,000 in its 2017-18 Arterial Road Program (ARP) to finalise the design and construct improvements at the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads. The ARP is aimed at delivering low-cost, high-impact projects to tackle congestion on the road network. Currently, this project is in the design phase. Council will shortly commence discussions with the local ward councillor, Councillor Ryan Murphy, on the details of the proposal.

35. Concept designs for the project have been developed that could include:


- 72 -

- the removal of parking to allow lane realignment and extension of the right turn lane from Belmont Road into Manly Road

- the relocation of bus stops 47/43 to allow lane realignment and extension of the right turn lane from Belmont Road into Manly Road.

36. There is an existing ‘no right turn’ restriction in place from Belmont Road into Palgrave Street between 3pm and 7pm, Monday to Friday. The current concept plans propose no changes to the turning ban already in place.

37. Further phase changes to the traffic signals will be explored as part of this intersection upgrade. Any time savings gained from the extension of the right turn lane from Belmont Road into Manly Road can be redistributed to the other traffic signal phases, thereby improving the overall intersection operation and reducing congestion.

38. In response to the petitioners’ request for a new ‘fast diamond’ intersection configuration to be constructed at the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads, this type of configuration is more commonly used at the intersection of higher order roads such as motorways. An intersection with this configuration has a primary road which crosses the secondary road in the form of an over or underpass. A summary of the Queensland Road Planning and Design Manual is contained in Attachment C, submitted on file, along with some potential disadvantages of this type of intersection.

39. The implementation of a new ‘fast diamond’ intersection configuration would require significant redesign and infrastructure changes to Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads to meet the Queensland standards for this type of intersection. Therefore, Council does not recommend or propose further investigation into the installation of a new ‘fast diamond’ configuration at the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads.

40. It is recommended 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.

Funding

41. Funding has been allocated to the project in the 2017-18 Arterial Road Program.

Consultation

42. Councillor Ryan Murphy, Councillor for Doboy Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

43. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

44. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

45. 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.


Petition Reference: CA17/475757

Thank you for your petition requesting Council prioritise funding for improvements to the traffic signals at the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads, Tingalpa.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by Council at its meeting held on (DATE). It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.


- 73 -

In April 2017, prior to this petition, Council undertook a study into the Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads intersection operation. It was identified that a reconfiguration of the right turn phases from Wynnum Road into Manly Road and Belmont Road into Manly Road would improve local congestion.

Therefore, to improve congestion, the right turning phases from Wynnum Road inbound were combined with Belmont Road into Manly Road in April 2017 and now run together. These changes have resulted in a significant improvement to the delays on Belmont Road with a slight worsening to delays for Wynnum Road.

In addition, Council has allocated $381,000 in its 2017-18 Arterial Road Program to finalise the design and implementation of improvements at the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads.

A concept design has been developed and Council will shortly commence discussions with the local ward councillor, Councillor Ryan Murphy, on the details of the proposal. Further phase changes to the traffic signals will be explored as part of this intersection upgrade.

The investigation has also concluded that the intersection of Manly, Wynnum and Belmont Roads is not suitable for a new ‘fast diamond’ interchange. This type of configuration is more commonly used at the intersection of higher order roads such as motorways. An intersection with this configuration has a primary road which crosses the secondary road in the form of an over or underpass.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr Steffan Thomas, Traffic Network Manager, Congestion Reduction Unit, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.

ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just to speak about the presentation received in the City Planning Committee last week which was the development application at 26 Belgrave Road, Indooroopilly. A residential development plus a new access ramp for the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre. For the Chamber's information, the development application for material change of use on behalf of Eureka Funds Management was submitted on 20 May 2016.

The application was for a two stage development, Stage 1 comprising a new egress ramp from the shopping centre, commercial tenancy and the basement car parking for Stage 2. Then Stage 2 which then comprises 98 units across the two towers.

The application was impact assessable on land zoned mixed use city frame and major centre zone within the Indooroopilly centre neighbourhood plan. The two towers are 16 storeys and 10 storeys high with the high tower having the bottom seven storeys as the egress ramp exiting onto Grosvenor Road.

The small tower has a shared deck and outdoor area including a pool to be used as a communal open space for residents. The proposal also has three basement levels of car parking exceeding the number of car parks required under the City Plan.


- 74 -

The application was referred to Energex as an advice agency who advised that they were comfortable with the approval of the application. The application was subject to public notification with 29 submissions received during the notification period with 12 of those submissions being properly made but, of course, all of them considered.

The presentation attracted debate in the City Planning Committee about the outcomes in terms of height as this was a performance outcome. For a site of its location of between 1,200 and 2,500 square metres, the acceptable outcome is 12 storeys. For a site 2,500 square metres or over, the acceptable outcome is 15 storeys. This particular site area is right on the border, 2,437 squares metres.

Considering that there are only eight storeys of residential units within the tower less than even the 12 storeys which would be allowed on the smaller site, it was considered that given it's so close to the 2,500 square metres in terms of the impacts on the local residents, that a 15-storey tower was acceptable in line with the zoning. The 16th storey is a technical storey which is where the basement level protrudes slightly more than one metre out of the ground which is a technical definition.

It is also important to note that the height was reduced from 20 storeys when it was originally lodged in May 2016. The City Planning Committee supported the proposal and the recommendation from the officers which was to approve the application with Councillor SRI dissenting and Councillor SUTTON abstaining. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on the proposed extension to Indooroopilly Shopping Town (shopping town). I will flag that this is a question and there is an implied criticism if my question is correct, but firstly I am seeking to clarify information in the first instance. In looking at the plans, if I understand them correctly this development application is seeking to close the existing Grosvenor Road car park entrance and then install a new ramp entrance through a residential building into the shopping town.

So I'm not being screamed down as a liar or an idiot by the Planning Chairman so I must be on the money. So I can only presume, Madam Chairman, that that is what is happening here. So I make that very clear, I do not support this application. The single biggest problem with the shopping town is the way in which this Council has allowed the new owners to botch the traffic management and parking arrangements in that shopping centre.

Well I can tell you now that the level of complaints is extraordinary about the incompetent traffic and parking plans in this shopping centre. They happen on a regular basis. People who go to the shopping town report they can wait up to two hours to get out of the car park. So this is an Administration that cannot be trusted to deliver improvements. Now my concern here is that these car parking arrangements are going to further exacerbate an existing shocking parking situation and access situation.

I've never seen anything quite like this where we have an entrance to a public shopping centre through a private car park. I just think it's all very odd. I think that we have an existing car park entrance to the shopping centre on Grosvenor so I'm not quite sure why. If the existing Grosvenor one is being kept open and a new car parking entry point is being installed, that might be alright because that would increase access to the parking but that's not the way I read these plans.


- 75 -

So I have serious concerns that based on the past development practices of these owners that they have botched the parking and traffic management arrangements for the shopping town and it is hurting the traders. Shops have closed. Traders report that shopping is down. There are huge complaints in the media quite regularly and by the traders themselves about how the problematic parking and traffic arrangements are hurting trade in the shopping centre.

As someone who goes there occasionally, I either walk from my place at Sherwood or I'll park in Chelmer and walk across the road, because it is a shemozzle to go into that shopping centre. I don't know how people do it. Unless the owners there recognise that jamming more development in and with really weird access arrangements is not a good idea—so I absolutely do not support this and I hope there's a division, because I'll be voting against it. I also have a question, I think, about the development itself, which is there a shared roof deck?

So we've got two big towers, two really big towers—who are developing 400% of the site, so 26 stories across two buildings, and there's going to be one deck—one deck. I'm just a little bit concerned that the residents who will be living in the 26-storey tower will have one tiny, tiny, tiny little rooftop terrace with a pool and a barbecue—oh, is there a pool? Yes, there is a pool. I thought there was a pool. It's accessed from both towers by one of the towers. I mean, this Council is not even requiring both towers to have separate recreational areas for the residents. So I just think that there's a problem here.

There's a little park across the road. They're spending a squillion dollars on the Witton Army Barracks. Getting to it might be a bit of an issue, but surely with these developments we can include in each of the towers dedicated recreational space for the residents in tower 1 and tower 2. And I think it is short-sighted to restrict and to limit the amount of recreational space for a 26-tower—a 26-level tower and that's two buildings with one—one—recreational area. And I just think that's way, way, way not enough. That's really, really problematic.

I'm interested in the fact that Council's allowing a ground level commercial tenancy here as well for a food outlet, health care shop, et cetera. I would have thought that a better outcome here would be to provide some additional community space, because the shopping centre is just gigantic as it is. There are empty shops in the shopping centre now as it is, so I'm just not sure whether another retail space is necessarily the best outcome here. But my concern very much is about the traffic and parking and certainly I won't be voting for anything that makes the access to this development even harder than it has for other residents.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I just rise to speak briefly on the development mentioned in the report and to restate our—or my strong and continued insistence that we need to adhere strictly to the height limits in the neighbourhood plan, except where there's a very strong, clear and demonstrable public benefit in allowing performance outcomes and in terms of height and density. In this case, the height—the significant increase to the height of this building is not justified by the supposed and, to my mind, somewhat questionable traffic improvements that this development supposedly delivers.

There's—we've had the neighbourhood plan in process. We've had the height limits sort of, to some extent, decided by the community. I still have a lot of questions about the extent to which the neighbourhood plans to genuinely reflect community consensus. But the Council's Administration position is that the


- 76 -

height limits do reflect the needs and interests of local residents and local businesses, but then you're still allowing developers to ignore them. In this case, the developer is—I don't think it's delivering any significant benefit to the community.

Maybe there's some immediate development—immediate benefit to the developer themselves and to the project proponents, but that doesn't flow to the surrounding residents. It doesn't flow onto the broader area. We seem to be again and again falling into this trap of just bending and acquiescing to developers where they make an ambit claim for a manifestly ridiculous building height and then we say, okay, no, no. We're going to knock back the height a little bit in line with community expectations. But you never knock them back to the height limit in the neighbourhood plan.

They end up somewhere in the middle, so they ask high and haggle you down and it seems to me that the Council Administration does a really poor job of haggling or maybe just don't bother because you want to do what the developers want you to do. I think for residents who are feeling frustrated about unsustainable development, every one of these projects reinforces the sense that Council doesn't listen to their concerns and is only paying lip service to the planning outcomes and the strategic goals stated in the neighbourhood plans and the City Plan.

It's allowing the developer to build four storeys higher than the neighbourhood plan allows is a significant gift in terms of real estate values to that developer. That's a gift that potentially represents hundreds of millions of dollars in increased real estate value. You're handing that gift over without getting anything meaningful in return.

You're giving them 16-storey views, 16-storey apartments that will sell for much more than a 12-storey apartment would, particularly because nothing else is anywhere near that height in the surrounding area, but you're not getting anything back in return. Maybe—I'm saying this with a strong emphasis on the word maybe, maybe if there were some component of affordable housing or public housing as part of this development, there might be some public interest argument in favour of allowing these sorts of performance outcomes.

But all you're giving them is a—all they're giving the community—and I use that word loosely—all they're giving us is a big internal traffic ramp. Like, it's just a car park access. What benefit does that provide to the broader residents? Anyway, I've made my point. The height limits, I understand the justification for performance based process, but we've been far too lax with the development industry and this is just yet another development in a long list of examples of projects where Council is too soft, it is not bargaining and sticking up on behalf of residents and community interests.

It's falling over to—bending over backwards to please the development industry and I think that's a mistake and it doesn't represent a sustainable planning approach for this city.


Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look, I just stand to probably put a bit more clarity into this discussion about the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre. It is one of the only, actually, this side of the Brisbane River mega-shopping centres in the western corridor, which is utilised by specifically the whole of the Pullenvale Ward, plus many other areas out there in the west. Now, that


- 77 -

shopping centre has had car parking issues its whole lifetime, but where they really came in was when the shopping centre chose to do paid parking.

So in particular the issue that was raised earlier about car parks taking cars two hours to get out of the shopping centre, that related to actually a Mother's Day event this year at the shopping centre, which did create some chaos. So, Madam Chair, just to be specific, you know, it's great that there is a developer that's interested in supporting exit from that car park by supplying a ramp, because it's certainly going to assist that western side of the centre for the western corridor residents that go there. But in particular, Madam Chairman, look, this proposal really a far less burden on the roads around that area.

The proposed solution by putting an additional ramp in there for the users of that shopping centre will certainly support them getting-in and out of that centre. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to briefly speak on this and, to some extent; my comments on this application are already on the public record as a result of last week's Committee meetings. But I just do want to point out the fact in the Committee debate, Councillor SIMMONDS actually as a local Councillor for the area this development application falls within, he actually said he supported the neighbourhood plan in the local area and that he supports, obviously as the chair, the principles of neighbourhood planning.

But in voting for this application, he's actually showing that he doesn't support the neighbourhood planning process at all and he doesn't support the neighbourhood plan in this area, because if he did, he would be advocating for this development application to stick to the height limits. So what I want to ask Councillor SIMMONDS is why do you hate neighbourhood planning so much and why do you hate the Indooroopilly neighbourhood plan? Because if you actually supported that document, you would actually not support this application today.

You'd certainly not support the questionable traffic report that claims that some kind of traffic benefit will be achieved with this application, because it is questionable at best. So, Madam Chair, I also concur with the fact that when you give and you allow a developer extra density or extra height, they get an economic benefit from that and Council has no share in that. Yes, infrastructure charges are levied, but only to a certain extent. Madam Chair, I just think that we should be saying that if you are going to get that extra density, the public benefit should be made clear.

In this case, I don't think a questionable traffic benefit that we'll just have to suck it and see in this particular situation, because I don't think it's going to deliver the benefits that they are claiming it will deliver. I don't think that's enough for what the developer is ultimately getting out of this application. So we won't be supporting it.


Nothing further?

Councillor SIMMONDS, please.


- 78 -

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Perhaps just to correct a few things that had been raised in the debate. First of all, Councillor SUTTON said there was a questionable public benefit to what has been approved. In fact, the public benefit is very clear and very stark. First of all, there are only eight storeys of residential units instead of the 12 that could have been allowed under the neighbourhood plan. So there is, in fact, less impact on the surrounding infrastructure.

There are less amenity impacts than what could have been done if the letter of the law, the neighbourhood plan, had been stuck to and we'd got the 12 storeys of residential. So how Councillor SRI can claim that there's a financial benefit in them building only eight storeys worth of units instead of the 12 storeys worth of units allowable under the plan is beyond me. It shows his very, very thin, if not non-existent, grasp of economics. He also made the spurious claim that 16 storeys will be the most impressive units in the area, because it's the highest. It's not. The site next door is zoned for 20 storeys.

So, again, what we need to do, what we need from our Councillors is to read the plans; to read the plans so they can talk in an intelligent and knowledgeable way rather than making things up. Speaking of making things up, doesn't that bring me to the Independent Councillor who claims she had read the plans and that an access would be closed? That is incorrect. No accesses will be closed. So there we go. I look forward to her support of this particular application, as she has now been shown and admitted that she was wrong. She raised the issue of communal open space.

This application complies with all the communal space requirements contained in the neighbourhood plan and the City Plan. It exceeds the car parking. Councillor JOHNSTON also raised the issue of shouldn't we have some more community space? In fact, I've—we have just gone to purchase new community space at Witton Barracks, a significant amount of it in those heritage listed buildings, and she opposed the purchase of it.

So the last time we tried to get more community space in Indooroopilly, Councillor JOHNSTON opposed it. So it just depends what day and what Councillor JOHNSTON you get as to which particular side of the debate she may fall. But in any way, in any case, I think it goes very clearly to prove the LORD MAYOR's point earlier in the Council Chamber today that when Councillor JOHNSTON says something, you really have to make sure you check your facts. You can't take it at face value, because she's been proved again to have said something that is very, very false. So there is absolutely a public benefit to this.

Councillor SUTTON, you asked me a question. I respond to your question with my own and that is: why do you hate your Labor government's performance-based Planning Act? Why do you come in here time and time again every week and take and pick your Labor colleagues apart like that? What will—that's no way to get ahead in the Labor Party. What will Terri Butler and Di Farmer think of you when you next go to do one of those joint flyers?

How disappointed in you they will be, because this is what—this is why the Labor Government, State Government, has instituted—or has got in place performance-based planned, so that we can make this kind of benefit decisions. As I said, here we have a proposal, which is less units, less impact on the surrounding infrastructure than what is allowed on the neighbourhood plan and, on top of that, it will assist with a traffic solution that we need for the shopping centre. I note that there was a lot of amateur traffic specialists, as there was for you, Councillor COOPER.

There's a lot of amateur traffic specialists over there in the Labor Party and on the cross benches. I am going to take the actual traffic engineers at their word, that this will assist, and I think where we've got traffic engineers telling us that


- 79 -

this will assist traffic in the local area, we sure as heck won't be standing in the way of reducing congestion in the local areas. As the local Councillor, I'll sure as heck be supporting reducing traffic congestion in Indooroopilly and that's why I urge all Councillors to support this application tonight. Thank you.

Chairman: I will now put—

Councillor JOHNSTON: A point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to be clear, because I looking at the plans right now, could Councillor SIMMONDS clarify that the existing Grosvenor intersection ramp where coming out the shopping is definitely not closing?

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, that's not a point of order.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Okay.


Chairman: Thank you. I'll now put the report.

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

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


AYES: 18 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

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


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Angela Owen, Jonathan Sri and Shayne Sutton.

A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EXTENSION TO SHOPPING CENTRE (EGRESS RAMP), FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, HEALTH CARE SERVICES, OFFICE, SHOP (STAGE 1), AND MULTIPLE DWELLING (98 UNITS) (STAGE 2) AT 26 BELGRAVE ROAD, 8 HENDERSON STREET AND PART OF 322 MOGGILL ROAD, INDOOROOPILLY – EUREKA FUNDS MANAGEMENT LIMITEDA004385438


- 80 -

37/2017-181. The Acting Team Manager, Planning Services City West, Development Services, City Planning and

Sustainability, reports that a development application was submitted on 20 May 2016, by Urbis Pty Ltd on behalf of Eureka Funds Management Limited. The application was properly made on 25 May 2016.

Development aspects: Material change of use – Development permit – Stage 1Material change of use – Development permit – Stage 2

General description of proposal: Stage 1: Extension to shopping centre (egress ramp), food and drink outlet, health care services, office, shopStage 2: Multiple dwelling (98 units)

Land in the ownership of: Commonwealth Superannuation CorporationAddress of the site: 26 Belgrave Road, 8 Henderson Street and part

of 322 Moggill Road, IndooroopillyDescribed as: Lot 207 on RP42746, Lot 2 on SP246593 and

part of Lot 147 on SP265257Containing an area of: 2,437 m²

2. This impact accessible application is over land included in the Mixed use (centre frame) zone and Major centre zone under the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the City Plan). The site is located within the Multi-purpose centre precinct and the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre Mixed use 1C sub-precinct of the Indooroopilly centre neighbourhood plan (ICNP).

3. The site benefits from three street frontages including Belgrave Road, Henderson Street, and Grosvenor Road, which are classified in the City Plan as neighbourhood roads. The site adjoins the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre, and is located within walking distance of the Indooroopilly train station, and Indooroopilly bus interchange.

4. The site is located in an area that has experienced rapid change over recent years with the expansion of the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre and the development of medium-high rise residential development. The site is within close proximity to a number of services and facilities including a range of high frequency public transport options, the Western Freeway, and the University of Queensland.

5. Details of the development are summarised below:- two stages of development- Stage 1 – Construction of an egress ramp for the existing Indooroopilly Shopping Centre

enabling vehicles to exit to Grosvenor Road. Stage 1 also includes construction of the basement levels for the proposed multiple dwelling, the podium of the northern tower, and a 52 m² commercial tenancy

- Stage 2 – Construction of two separate residential towers comprising of the southern tower (16 storeys) and the northern tower (10 storeys)

- proposed gross floor area of 9,418 m² (being 386% of the site area)- a rooftop recreation area on level 10 of the northern tower that includes a shared deck area,

BBQ area, and a pool- the ground level commercial tenancy (52 m²) is proposed to be utilised as a food and drink

outlet, health care services, office and/or shop use- three basement levels for car parking (113 residential spaces and 15 visitor car spaces, totaling

128 car spaces)- bicycle parking consisting of 114 resident and visitor spaces- vehicle access to the basement levels is gained from Henderson Street- provision of two service vehicle access points via Belgrave Road and Grosvenor Road- hours of operation for the commercial use(s) limited to 6am to 10pm in the Mixed use centre

zone- requirement for the lodgement and approval of additional detailed plans of the podium façade

treatment to ensure that the as-constructed podium will be of high quality architectural design- requirement for acoustic certification of the façade for the egress ramp to ensure it does not

result in adverse impacts on residential uses- requirement for streetscape improvement works including extending the footpath from the

property boundary to the existing established footpath alignment along the full length of the frontages of Belgrave Road, Henderson Street and Grosvenor Street.


- 81 -

6. The uses are consistent with the overall outcomes of the zone code and neighbourhood plan code in that the development creates an integrated and mixed use centre hosting retail and commercial office uses and higher density dwellings that are concentrated around existing public transport nodes to encourage greater use of public transport services. Further, the development is of a height, scale and design that is consistent with the amenity, character, community expectations and infrastructure assumptions intended for the precinct. The proposal has been designed to step down from the south to the north of the site fronting Belgrave Road to ensure an appropriate interface with Keating Park.

7. The application is subject to impact assessment and was required to be publicly notified. Twenty-nine submissions were received during the public notification period, with 12 being properly made.

8. The Councillor for Walter Taylor Ward, Councillor Simmonds, supports the application.

9. The application was referred to Energex as an advice agency, as the site is situated within 100 metres of an Energex substation (pursuant to Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, Schedule 7, Table 3, Item 8). On 12 July 2016, Energex provided an advice agency response, recommending approval of the development (Ref: HBD 5274433 346060).

10. The Acting Team Manager, Planning Services City West, advises that relevant reports have been obtained to address the assessment criteria and decision process prescribed by the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

11. 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 Councillor Jonathan Sri dissenting, and Councillor Shayne Sutton abstaining.

12. RECOMMENDATION:

(i) That it be and is hereby resolved that whereas—

(a) a development application was properly made on 25 May 2016 to Council pursuant to section 260 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, as follows:

Development aspects: Material change of use – Development permit – Stage 1Material change of use – Development permit – Stage 2

General description of proposal:

Stage 1: Extension to shopping centre (egress ramp), food and drink outlet, health care services, office, shopStage 2: Multiple dwellings (98 units)

Land in the ownership of: Commonwealth Superannuation CorporationAddress of the site: 26 Belgrave Road, 8 Henderson Street and part

of 322 Moggill Road, IndooroopillyDescribed as: Lot 207 on RP42746, Lot 2 on SP246593 and

part of Lot 147 on SP265257Containing an area of: 2,437 m²

(b) the Council is required to assess the application pursuant to Chapter 6, Part 5, Division 3, and section 314 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and decide the application under section 324 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009;

the Council—

(c) upon consideration of the application and those matters set forth in sections 314 and 324 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, relevant to the application considers that:i. the site is within the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland

Regional Plan 2009-2031, and the use is consistent with an Urban Activity


- 82 -

ii. the proposal does not cause conflict with the State’s planning policies, planning regulation provisions or regional plan

iii. the proposal is consistent with the general intentions of City Planiv. the proposal would not create an unreasonable traffic problem, increase a

traffic problem or detrimentally affect the efficiency of the road networkv. the proposal would not detrimentally affect the amenity of the surrounding

areavi. the development can be accommodated within the existing essential

infrastructure networks

(d) accordingly considers that where reasonable and relevant conditions imposed on the development, it would be appropriate that the proposed development be carried out on the subject land

(e) issue Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notices for the development pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and Brisbane Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 6) 2017, for the community purposes, stormwater and transport networks.

(ii) Whereas the Council determines as in (i) hereof, THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION referred to above and subject to the conditions in the attached Development Approval Package:

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

(b) notify the Central SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority of the decision and provide the Authority with a copy of the Infrastructure Charges Notices

(c) notify the Councillor for the Ward of Walter Taylor, Councillor Simmonds, of this decision

(d) notify Energex (Advice agency) of the decision (e) notify the submitters of the decision at the expiration of the applicant’s appeal period.

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 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The three items before us, the presentation we had in the Committee last week was on yet another initiative of our team that looks after education and consultation with schools on clean, green and sustainable issues. So this was a presentation on something that I had talked about previously as coming through: the new initiative for local teachers and educators, the Teachers Professional Development Day to talk about sustainability issues. This was a very successful event that was held at the Mount Coot-tha Botanic Gardens.

Over a hundred participants from 60 schools and training institutions across Brisbane and achieving a great opportunity to talk about various issues that are on the schools' curriculum that relate to the outcomes that we need to achieve as a city was well, so a great opportunity to put across what it is that we have as our sustainability objectives to provide information to teachers that they can impart to their pupils that's consistent with the school curriculum. Two other items there before us. A petition relating to Jindalee Boat Ramp and also a park naming in my ward of Hamilton at MacArthur Avenue, the new park to be known as the Old Shoreline Park. Thank you, Madam Chairman.


- 83 -


Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, Madam Chair. I just rise to speak on item B, which is a petition requesting Council remove the bark surrounding the playground at Jindalee Boat Ramp and install artificial grass. Now, essentially is coming down from a number of residents who were concerned about the safety of their children due to the fact that syringes and needles have been found in that location or around that location. They actually thought that it would be safer if there was some other surface put down. It was agreed in this report to put down under-surfacing of rubber, which that sounds like a reasonable request.

The issue that was raised by both myself and Councillor JOHNSTON—and it has been raised before in relation to parks issues, is that there should be some consistency in relation to how this is paid for. So in this particular case, it actually says the current soft fall bark will remain in the play area and will be replaced by soft fall in the future in a future capital budget. Well, both—well, myself and Councillor JOHNSTON feel that this should be—it should give the two options.

All Councillors, as we're constantly reminded, have the ability to spend the $400,000 plus they receive for their parks and from their parks and footpaths trust fund. I would have thought given the serious nature of this, that the Councillor would have actually seen this as a priority and would have suggested, I'm going to use the money. I've got that $400,000 to do this particular piece of work. But more so, more so is the fact that the officers who prepare these petitions should have some consistency.

So it shouldn't be that when a petition comes from a Labor or an independent or a Green ward that it is said that you will use your parks trust fund, but when it comes from an LNP ward, it says that you will get it through capital or you could get it through capital. I think the best way of going is to say that you can get it listed through capital or you have the choice of paying it through your $400,000 a year wards footpath and parks trust fund. Madam Chair, that was raised as a motion last week.

It was obviously voted down by the Committee, but I actually think that that is just about transparency, good practice and about the Administration treating everyone the same. Thank you.

Chairman: Further debate? Councillor McLACHLAN?

I'll now 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, Steven Huang, Nicole Johnston and Andrew Wines.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DAY

38/2017-18


- 84 -

1. Erin Lloyd, Senior Program Officer, Community Initiatives, Green Community Initiatives Team, Major Projects and Asset Coordination, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Brisbane City Council Teacher Professional Development Day. She provided the information below.

2. The Green Heart Schools program (GHS) works with teachers, students and school communities throughout Brisbane, developing and delivering a range of creative and innovative projects which engage young people and support Council’s goals to create a cleaner and greener city. Since 2008, the program has engaged with 229 schools.

3. GHS is also in a key position to lead collaboration across all of Council’s environment and sustainability programs for schools. As such, through this program, Council chairs the School Engagement Group, produces the GHS e-newsletter for Council’s school programs, and delivers an annual school mail-out at the beginning of each year to promote the range of offerings available to local schools.

4. GHS recently delivered a brand new initiative welcoming local teachers and educators to Council’s Teacher Professional Development Day. This event, held on 22 June 2017, attracted more than 100 delegates from all education sectors in a one-day program of keynote speakers, workshops and networking with the purpose of showcasing the range of Council programs and resources available to support environmental learning in, and out of the classroom. It was a fun-filled successful event and received an overwhelmingly positive response from delegates and partners alike.

5. GHS partnered with other areas of Council including Waste and Resource Recovery Services, Active School Travel, Lessons in the Gardens, the Mount Coot-tha Library, the Youth Development Team, and Environment Centres for the success of the Teacher Professional Development Day.

6. The event objectives included showcasing the positive outcomes of Council programs to schools, successful promotion and delivery from multiple programs to shared stakeholders, and showcasing Council’s commitment to achieving a clean, green, sustainable Brisbane.

7. The successful outcomes of the event included an increased awareness of Council’s range of support for schools across a target audience, increased networking and relationship building with teachers/school staff who are influential members of their communities, and increased participation from single-program users to become multiple-program users.

8. In addition to the local educators, representing 60 schools and training institutes across Brisbane, the event also reached more than 70,781 people via social media. The event also provided a market research opportunity to gather feedback on stakeholder experiences when accessing Council’s school programs.

9. The event provided value for educators with interactive workshops, connecting curriculum to real life learning and showcased the numerous ways Council programs can enhance community building and leadership, minimise waste, and increase active travel to reduce congestion at the school gate. It was free of cost and provided an opportunity for professional recognition to the educators.

10. The day’s program was shared with eight Council program areas and three external partners also assisting in the delivery. This included a welcome address by Dale Ardvisson, Curator, Brisbane Botanic Gardens, and a visit by the participants to the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium, for a Cosmic Skydome show.

11. The other keynote speakers included:- Richard Louv, the acclaimed environmental educator. journalist and author of nine books

including Last Child in the Woods, which was responsible for introducing the term ‘nature deficit disorder’ into the common lexicon

- Hyahno Moser, Program Manager from Nature Play Qld, partners to Council and advocates for the positive and practical ways children participate in unstructured play in nature

- Steve Liddell, a fully qualified science educator and founder of Street Science, an organisation that delivers engaging science education sessions in schools and in public spaces.

12. The Teacher Professional Development Day was an important event to showcase Council’s sustainability actions to the delegates, including Council’s Sustainable Events Guidelines detailing the


- 85 -

pre and post-event audits, reduced collateral and disposable promotional material, and the concept of reusable over disposable.

13. Council worked with vendors to achieve outcomes together including composted organic waste, donation of excess food items to OzHarvest and the promotion of public transport.

14. The positive feedback from teachers was shared, including their inputs for such events in the future.

15. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Harvey for her informative presentation.

16. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE THE BARK SURROUNDING THE PLAYGROUND AT JINDALEE BOAT RAMP PARK, JINDALEE, AND INSTALL ARTIFICIAL GRASSCA17/485199

39/2017-1817. A petition from residents, requesting that Council remove the bark surrounding the playground at

Jindalee Boat Ramp Park, Jindalee, and install artificial grass, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Matthew Bourke, and received.

18. The Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

19. The petition contains 57 signatures.

20. The petitioner has made reference to needles being found around Jindalee Boat Ramp Park, and is concerned that the softfall bark around the play equipment could be hiding a potential danger to children. Jindalee Boat Ramp Park is a high profile park situated on the banks of the Brisbane River. The park embellishments include a boat ramp with connected pontoon that routinely collects debris from the river. It is understood needles have been found in the collected rubbish at the boat ramp only.

21. Council’s Asset Services undertake quarterly inspections of the play equipment to ensure it is in good working condition. These audits include inspection of the mulched areas and periodic rotary hoeing of the softfall bark. Council’s Urban Amenity parks team undertake a weekly visit of the park, and a visual inspection of the play area forms part of this inspection.

22. It is recommended the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner advising that the current softfall bark will remain in the play area, however it will be listed for replacement with rubber softfall matting in a future capital budget. In the interim, Council will undertake weekly visual checks on the playground to ensure it is safe and clean.

Funding

23. Future capital listing.

Consultation

24. Councillor Matthew Bourke, Councillor for Jamboree Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

25. The current softfall bark will remain in the play area and will be replaced by rubber softfall matting in a future capital budget.


- 86 -

Amendment motion

26. Councillor Nicole Johnston moved a motion proposing an amendment to the recommendation to include the following words: “or from the Jamboree Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund” at the conclusion of the first sentence in the recommendation.

27. The recommendation would then read: “That the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that the current softfall bark will remain in the play area, however it will be listed for replacement with rubber softfall matting in a future capital budget or from the Jamboree Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund. In the interim, Council will undertake weekly visual checks on the playground to ensure it is safe and clean”

28. The Committee debated the motion and upon being submitted to the Committee, the motion was declared lost, with Councillors Nicole Johnston and Steve Griffiths voting in favour.

29. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

30. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT THE CURRENT SOFTFALL BARK WILL REMAIN IN THE PLAY AREA, HOWEVER IT WILL BE LISTED FOR REPLACEMENT WITH RUBBER SOFTFALL MATTING IN A FUTURE CAPITAL BUDGET. IN THE INTERIM, COUNCIL WILL UNDERTAKE WEEKLY VISUAL CHECKS ON THE PLAYGROUND TO ENSURE IT IS SAFE AND CLEAN.



Thank you for your petition requesting that Council remove the bark surrounding the playground at Jindalee Boat Ramp Park, Jindalee, and install artificial grass.

Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.

The current softfall bark will remain in the play area, however it will be listed for replacement with rubber softfall matting in a future capital budget. In the interim, Council will undertake weekly visual checks on the playground to ensure it is safe and clean.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Shane Klepper, Regional Coordinator Parks, West Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.


C PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS MACARTHUR AVENUE PARK, HAMILTON, TO ‘OLD SHORELINE PARK’161/540/567/155

40/2017-1831. The Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following

information.

32. As part of the Northshore Hamilton development by the Queensland Government, a new park was constructed by Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) which was referred to as ‘P8 Park’ due to its location in Precinct 8 of the Northshore Hamilton development. It is located at


- 87 -

351 Macarthur Avenue, Hamilton (Lot 806 SP273062), and is known as Macarthur Avenue Park (D3754). This land was not officially transferred to Council until 15 February 2017.

33. The park was completed for public use in August 2016 and features a number of facilities such as- landscaped park with park shelter- dog off-leash area- pedestrian and cycle walkways, including a link to Curtin Avenue via a bridge over an

adjacent waterway.

34. The location of the park forms part of an overall green link connection through the Northshore development and provides valuable public space for nearby residential and commercial land uses.

35. The list of names proposed was largely based around the historical nature of the land prior to significant modification of the landscape. The changes started in 1898 with the construction of a training wall and were carried on for the next 70 years through reclamation works. Prior to the construction of the training wall, the river was wide and shallow and could be traversed by foot at low tide. The location of ‘P8 Park’ is along the original shoreline of the river as shown in Figure 1 (submitted on file).

36. The current physical features, such as the waterway adjacent to the park along with the location of the existing shoreline, can be seen in the photograph as per Figure 2 (submitted on file), demonstrating how the landscape has changed.

37. A recent aerial photograph, as per Figure 3 (submitted on file), showing the development of the park, further demonstrates the correlation between the adjacent waterway as shown in Figure 2 (submitted on file).

38. Suggested Names for ‘P8 Park’ by EDQ include:

Name JustificationOld Shoreline Park The site is historically where the shoreline of the Brisbane River was

surveyed (recorded) in 1895.Old Shore Park As above.Apollo Park Linkage to a ferry that crossed between Hamilton and Pinkenba.Anchorage Park Nautical reference that ties into the theme of the existing shoreline.

39. It is proposed that the name ‘Old Shoreline Park’ be selected due to the connection with the historical landscape. It also provides the opportunity to inform the community about the changed form of the landscape in the area with an interpretive historical panel at the park. The name ‘Old Shoreline Park’ provides a linkage with the historical panel.

40. Councillor David McLachlan, Councillor for Hamilton Ward, wrote to all residents in the vicinity of the park about the proposed name and received no objections.

41. It is recommended that approval be granted to name the park currently known as Macarthur Avenue Park, located at 351 Macarthur Avenue, Hamilton, as ‘Old Shoreline Park’, in accordance with Council procedure OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks. It is also recommended that a name sign and information panel be erected on the road frontage of the park.

Funding

42. Funding for the name sign and the history panel is available in the North Region, Asset Services, recurrent budget allocation for 2017-18.

Consultation

43. Councillor David McLachlan, Councillor for Hamilton Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact


- 88 -

44. It is believed that the park name will engender a feeling of community ownership and celebrate the historical significance of the area along with the existing natural form.

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

46. RECOMMENDATION

THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO NAME THE PARK CURRENTLY KNOWN AS MACARTHUR AVENUE PARK, LOCATED AT 351 MACARTHUR AVENUE, HAMILTON, AS ‘OLD SHORELINE PARK’, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT A NAME SIGN AND INFORMATION PANEL BE ERECTED ON THE ROAD FRONTAGE OF THE PARK.

ADOPTED

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. There were two items. Firstly, the Committee presentation by Urban Amenities branch in regards to their Landscape Rejuvenation program. It was a very informative presentation looking at rejuvenation programs around major corridors and the significant amount of work that goes into the design and then the implementation of new planting or replanting of existing beds.

All of this, Madam Chairman, working towards improving the amenity visually for residents as they drive down through these corridors, but also, Madam Chairman, they are continuing to show that sense of pride in our great City of Brisbane. The second item, Madam Chairman, is a petition requesting that Council remove mulch and debris from Graceville Memorial Park, Graceville, in relation to a stormwater drainage issue. The recommendation from the officers being that certain works were undertaken to alleviate that issue whilst still trying to find the balance of maintaining and preserving these most significant trees within one of Australia's oldest ANZAC memorial parks. Thank you.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item B and item A. Just item A very briefly. It was very interesting to hear the Council officer come and tell us about the Landscaping Rejuvenation program last year, because he said to us that all Councillors had been approached to nominate sites in their wards—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —yes. This is what he said. Craig Logan, Operations Manager, the person who's noted here, gave a presentation and he said to us that all Councillors had been contacted to nominate sites in their wards. Councillor STRUNK and I were like, I don't think so and I'm shaking my head. You could tell very clearly from the math that there were hardly any—I don't even know if there was one in the south-western suburbs at all. So clearly—and I hope the Council officers are


- 89 -

listening up there at Brisbane Square, some Councillors were consulted, but other Councillors weren't.

I see now Councillor GRIFFITHS is shaking his head. He wasn't consulted.


Councillor JOHNSTON: I don't know if Councillor SRI was consulted. No, he's not saying yes or no. He wasn't consulted. He doesn't know if he was consulted. But, Madam Chairman, at least three Councillors in the south region are saying that they weren't consulted. So it would be really interesting to find out if that was consistent across south region. I presume it is just an oversight and we will be consulted in future, because, Madam Chairman, it's a bit of a worry when a whole region gets left out. Now, I'm really rising to speak today about the petition. The situation has been ongoing for over a year.

We've had two incidences of significant flooding that are a result of debris building up at the drain on Plumridge Street between Graceville Memorial Oval and the residential properties on the other side of Plumridge Street. The trees that are planted in Graceville Memorial Park are heritage listed trees. They were planted in honour of veterans and a nurse who died in the Great War. Those trees are very significant trees in our area. Now, they weren't mulched. So between 1917 and 2005, so for a very long period of time, almost 100 years, these trees weren't mulched.

In 2005 and 2006, in response to one of the worst droughts we have seen in Queensland, Council mulched the trees. Now, that was a good decision at the time I presume to ensure the health and welfare of the trees. But since that time, Council has been continuing to mulch these trees and we are experiencing significant flooding impacts as a result. What is happening is in the low point between these trees, the leaf litter and the branches from the Bunya pine falls, combined with the mulch that is around the base of the trees, and we're talking huge trees, it then washes into the drain.

It blocks the drain and the water then builds up and floods the houses across the road. Now, that's happened twice in the past year. Council has refused to do anything. So the last time it had happened back in March, I went out to the residents and I said, if you want me to ask Council to stop mulching, which is what they wanted, you'll have to sign a petition and I will support your petition in Council. So I made a commitment to them that I would stand up and do what I'm doing today and I'm going to carry through with that.

Some of the residents would like to see the trees being mulched in future and certainly that's something I'd like to see, but clearly in wet season and at certain times of the year, we can be doing better to manage the debris that is falling from these trees around this very specific location. It's not widespread. It's essentially between—there's about three trees where this issue is happening. Council—sorry—residents also had other ideas. They suggested edging around the trees to capture the mulch and—


Councillor JOHNSTON: —yes. Well, they—no. Council refused to do that. They would not consider that. Councillor TOOMEY has suggested netting. He's—apparently out in west region, you can get netting to stop the mulch running off everywhere and that's something I will be pursuing. However, Council has simply planted grass which is immediately covered with mulch and it will not survive, because of the canopies of these trees. What is suggested here will not fix the problem.

It is not reasonable that through maintenance and a minor change to maintenance, that will save Council money, i.e. they can use the mulch


- 90 -

elsewhere, we can fix this problem for residents. So I'm after a practical outcome here. So with that in mind, I've flagged that I have an amendment that I'm moving.

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE B:41/2017-18

It was moved by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK that Clause B - PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE MULCH AND DEBRIS FROM GRACEVILLE MEMORIAL PARK, GRACEVILLE, IN ORDER TO PREVENT STORMWATER DRAINS FROM BEING BLOCKED, of the report be amended as follows:

In paragraph 20, the word “be amended” after hereunder are inserted in the second line and a new sentence is added to the recommended letter as follows:

“Council will cease mulching around the trees between the sightboard and drain to prevent mulch from blocking the drain for a trial period of one year to determine if the tress will remain in good health and the drain remains debris free during the summer storm season.”

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, to the amendment.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I do have copies here if anybody wants them. Madam Chairman, I'm moving this amendment, because I want to see a practical outcome for residents in Plumridge Street. This is a completely preventable flooding impact that is being caused by specific localised circumstances which are the large debris from the Bunya pines and the mulch combining to dam the drain. As a result, residential properties are being flooded. It is messy. It is nasty.

There is a huge clean up activity that has to go on and it is really, really unreasonable that residents have been—are asked to clean up a road—because it's all over the road as well, remove Council's mulch, clean up a drain every time there's heavy rain. So I think we need to find a practical solution and I think that this is one. What I'm asking for is that in addition to the steps that Council has taken, which is the grass, that Council undertakes a one-year trial to stop mulching just around those specific trees between the cricket site board and the drain.

Now, in one year, the health of the Bunya trees will not be impacted. There's plenty of rain going on. There's not a problem there. Between 1917 and 2005, remember, these trees weren't mulched. This is only a recent phenomenon and if after a year there are no flooding impacts, the mulch is not a problem anymore, if we found a solution, we can revise the outcome, but I think that a trial is the practical step that we can take to make sure that we act on the resident's concerns, because what is happening today is completely preventable.

I think Council could make more of an effort to go out and clean up all the Bunya pines and the Bunya nuts that drop and do that on a more regular basis. But the residents are pretty good at keeping that part of the world up to a very high standard voluntarily. What we need is a practical step to be taken here to make sure that this mulch and debris problem does not continue to flood residents when the drain is blocked. A trial period of one year would make sure the trees are okay, it would give clear evidence to the residents that either the drain is functioning well or it gets blocked without the debris.

We would then know and we would have some clear empirical evidence to determine how to go forward. So I am asking that all Councillors support this. This is one additional step that we can take without any cost to Council whatsoever. In fact, it will save Council money. So I'm asking that all Councillors support this amendment before us today.


- 91 -

Chairman: Further speakers on the amendment?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Just really briefly, I think it's a bit sad and silly that 20-odd Councillors have to debate a motion about mulch, but just for the record, I do think it's a reasonable request and I have no problems with a one-year trial. I think we should respect the needs and wishes of local residents.

Chairman: Further debate on the amendment?


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just for the record, so that my residents understand what happened in this debate, the 19 LNP Councillors are simply going to vote this amendment down. They have not stood up. They have not explained their position. They are sitting there silent with their heads down on the other side of the Chamber and yet again this LNP Administration—LNP, are voting against the needs and interests of residents in Chelmer. I cannot tell residents off Chelmer more clearly that this is a group of Councillors who are only prepared to use their massive majority in their own interests.

They are not prepared to even look at—and remember what we're asking for here is a one-year trial of no mulch under these trees—they're not even prepared to look at this amendment and to vote in support of this amendment. Now, I am horrified that they are refusing to even consider this. Not only will they refuse to consider it, the Chairman of this part of Council, that is Councillor Peter MATIC and other LNP Councillors, like Councillor BOURKE and Councillor SIMMONDS who are nearby—

Councillor ADAMS: A point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Could we sum up the debate?


Councillor JOHNSTON, this is your summing up of the amendment. It's not a round the world about which Councillors are here and not here and voting or whatever their situation is. So please come back to summing up the amendment.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —thank you, Madam Chairman. For those who are going to read this transcript, that was Councillor ADAMS who basically is saying hurry up and sum up. I can't, Councillor ADAMS, because—

Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair.


Councillor ADAMS: Claim to be misrepresented.


Councillor JOHNSTON: —okay. They're going to see it all. So that is an LNP Chairman. That's the Finance Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, residents will know in my debate, as they've just heard, that I wanted to save this Council money to put that mulch


- 92 -

elsewhere for the period of one year. The Finance Chairman stood up and said, hurry up, Councillor JOHNSTON. Sum up. Well, Madam Chairman—

Councillor ADAMS: A point of order, Madam Chair.


Councillor ADAMS: Claim to be misrepresented again.



Councillor JOHNSTON: —Madam Chairman, if only they had the courage to stand on their two feet and to speak and to justify their actions in this Chamber. But instead this LNP Council with a massive majority are not interested in finding practical solutions for the residents of Chelmer. They are simply interested in using their big majority for their own political interests. It's appalling.

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

Councillor ADAMS: On both occasions, it was claimed that I was telling her to wrap it up. What I asked, Madam Chair, was her to make her ramblings relevant.

Chairman: Thank you. I will now put the amendment.

The Chairman put the motion for the amendment to Clause B to the Chamber resulting in it being declared lost on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Peter CUMMING 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, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 17 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

Chairman: Further speakers in respect of the Committee report?

No further speakers.

Councillor MATIC, right of reply?

I will now—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I am speaking.

Chairman: I will now put the Field Services Committee report.


- 93 -

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 Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Ian McKenzie, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – URBAN AMENITY LANDSCAPE REJUVENATION PROGRAM

42/2017-181. Craig Logan, Operations Manager, Urban Amenity; Allan Jones, Contract Manager, Urban Amenity;

and Russell Tomlin, Senior Contract Administrator, Urban Amenity, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Urban Amenity landscape rejuvenation program. They provided the information below.

2. The landscape rejuvenation program has an efficient delivery methodology, with sites targeted based on their profile. There has been an investment of $750,000 in 2016-17, and it has been evenly split across all regions. The streetscape appeal of rejuvenated areas has been revitalised, creating city splendour for transient traffic. Improved asset values and reduced maintenance costs, as well as a visual upgrade, benefit the Community. Layered snap shots showing the site distributions from 2015 to 2017 were shown to the Committee.

3. A strategy to put rules in place for compliance and governance for this program included zero harm, traffic permits, service locations, and environmental controls, has been formulated.

4. A large portion of the programs budget is spent on plants, therefore there are hold points during the quality assurance process that include inspection of plants through destructive testing, and a review of plant layout and design. Photographs of plants rejected through the quality assurance process were shown.

5. Before and after photographs of multiple sites including Gipps Street, Calam Road, Wynnum Road, and Manly Road were shown to the Committee. A short video was also played to highlight some key points of the program.

6. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Logan, Mr Jones, and Mr Tomlin for their informative presentation.

7. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE MULCH AND DEBRIS FROM GRACEVILLE MEMORIAL PARK, GRACEVILLE, IN ORDER TO PREVENT STORMWATER DRAINS FROM BEING BLOCKEDCA17/367515

43/2017-188. A petition from residents requesting that Council remove mulch and debris from

Graceville Memorial Park, Graceville, in order to prevent stormwater drains from being blocked, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 2 May 2017, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.

9. The Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, supplied the following information.


- 94 -


11. During high rain events Graceville Memorial Park becomes an overland flow area. Mulch was installed around the base of the heritage-listed Bunya pines to promote tree health between 2005 and 2007. The mulch within the avenue of trees is topped up on an annual basis, as required, by Urban Amenity. Mulching of the area provides a range of benefits to the heritage-listed trees in terms of moisture retention, composting to produce fertiliser and weed reduction.

12. After the recent rain event that occurred on 30 March 2017, as a result of ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie, recommendations were given to Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, by the residents on Plumridge Street, Graceville, to clear two existing mulched areas to allow water to flow freely to the storm water pits on Plumridge Street. Asset Services completed mulch realignment works and the laying of new turf on 1 June 2017. While these completed works were not exactly as outlined in the recommendations provided by the residents of Plumridge Street, Council officers expect these modifications will alleviate the issues that the residents in Plumridge Street have previously raised.

13. In relation to keeping the stormwater drains clear, the Acting Urban Response Coordinator, Urban Amenity, has advised that Council provides a stormwater cleaning service that involves conducting regular visual safety inspections of gully pits, taking into account the functionality of the system that may cause safety issues affecting vehicles and pedestrians within the local area. The stormwater gully pits in Plumridge Street are inspected five times per year and cleared as required. The gully pits in the street were last cleared on 11 April 2017. The next service will be completed by the end of September 2017. An engineer from South Region, Asset Services, inspected the drains in Plumridge Street on 13 May 2017, and advised they were all clear.

14. The Acting Urban Response Coordinator, Urban Amenity has also advised the annual budget for street sweeping in Brisbane is approximately $2.4 million, with a focus on the central business district, major roads, and shopping centres. This level of funding allows for Plumridge Street to be swept three times per year. The street was swept in February and May, with the next service to be completed by the end of August 2017.

15. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council completed works in June 2017 to better allow water to pass between the existing mulch lines on the Plumridge Street frontage of Graceville Memorial Park, Graceville. The turfed areas within the mulch line will allow water to flow between the mulch, directing the storm water to gullies in a more concentrated manner.

Funding

16. Schedule 582, Park Maintenance and Development Funding

Consultation

17. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

18. Works will relieve the perception that mulch is the root cause of the overland flow flooding that occurs in this area.

19. The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Nicole Johnston dissenting and Councillor Charles Strunk abstaining.


- 95 -

20. RECOMMENDATION:

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL COMPLETED WORKS IN JUNE 2017 TO BETTER ALLOW WATER TO PASS BETWEEN THE EXISTING MULCH LINES ON THE PLUMRIDGE STREET FRONTAGE OF GRACEVILLE MEMORIAL PARK, GRACEVILLE. THE TURFED AREAS WITHIN THE MULCH LINE WILL ALLOW WATER TO FLOW BETWEEN THE MULCH, DIRECTING THE STORM WATER TO GULLIES IN A MORE CONCENTRATED MANNER.



Thank you for your petition requesting that Council remove mulch and debris from Graceville Memorial Park, Graceville, in order to prevent stormwater drains from being blocked.

Council has completed an on-site investigation and considered your request.

I am pleased to tell you Council has completed works to better allow water to pass between the existing mulch lines on the Plumridge Street frontage of Graceville Memorial Park, Graceville. The turfed areas within the mulch line will allow water to flow between the mulch, directing the stormwater to gullies in a more concentrated manner. Mulching of the area provides a range of benefits to the heritage listed trees in terms of moisture retention, composting to produce fertiliser and weed reduction.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Cameron Carey, Regional Coordinator Arboricultural, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, just before I get to the items on the agenda that are before us, I just want to add some comments to the comments of the LORD MAYOR last week about the Centenary Rocks! Festival. Of course, this is one of the festivals that is funded out of the Creative Communities budget each year, the 114 community festivals that we fund across this city and the Council has been a proud supporter and sponsor of this festival, not just from the festival funding, but also from LMSIF (Lord Mayor’s Suburban Initiative Fund) in days gone by, Madam Chairman.

The Centenary Rocks! Festival had their last festival on 22 and 23 July this year. It is probably the biggest festival in the south-western suburbs, Madam Chairman. They get over 20,000 in the park across the two days. It started back in 2003, Madam Chairman, run by Centenary Community Connections and they've delivered 14 festivals for the residents of the Centenary suburbs.

Madam Chairman, there is a fantastic hard working and dedicated team behind the delivery of the Centenary Rocks! Festival and I know the LORD MAYOR


- 96 -

paid tribute to the president of Centenary Community Connections, Belinda, last week, but I want to add my congratulations and thanks to each and every volunteer that has worked on a festival and also the organising committee that worked on this last festival. It was the best festival that has ever happened in the City of Brisbane, Madam Chairman. I am happy to stand up here and make that assertion, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I know that, because I've been to 10 of these festivals and, and I know the work and the effort that goes in, the enjoyment from the community, Madam Chairman, at the Centenary Rocks! Festival. It is hard to put on a festival over two days. It is a real significant contribution and drain on time and effort by the individuals involved.

But the smiling faces on the kids; the enjoyment from the adults from the entertainment, Madam Chairman; the benefits for the community groups and organisations that attend far outweigh the effort that has been put in, because at the end of the day, it is about bringing our community together and celebrating everything that makes our local area in the Centenary suburbs special. So it was great to be a part of the Centenary Rocks! Festival final year. I know though, Madam Chairman that Centenary Community Connections will keep going.

Madam Chairman, they've got more and great events. They run our community hub next to the Mt Ommaney Library, Madam Chairman. They put on music nights there. They also run our Santa Sleigh. So it's not the end of Centenary Community Connections, but unfortunately, Madam Chairman, it is the last Centenary Rocks! Festival and once again I just pay tribute to all of those that have been involved.

Madam Chairman, we had no issues with mulch at the Centenary Rocks! Festival and, turning to the first item, which is the pop-up library, I want to rest assure to the Chamber that we do make sure that there's not large amounts of mulch where we put the pop-up library, Madam Chairman. Mulch seems to be the issue of debate in Council Chamber this afternoon, but anyway, I move on. I digress.

Madam Chairman, we had a fantastic presentation about the pop-up library. Madam Chairman, this is an initiative of the LORD MAYOR and this Administration as a new and exciting way to engage with the residents of Brisbane, to help develop early literacy skills and to also promote the fantastic facilities that we have at our libraries and the wonderful staff, Madam Chairman, that we have at our libraries who now man the pop-up library.

It was launched at Backyard Bonanza in Councillor COOPER's ward, Madam Chairman, and it features a vehicle with mobile shelfing and display units as well as shade covers, seating, ground cover options, Madam Chairman, so we can define a space to run the reading programs and other activities in. It has deck chairs, synthetic turf. It has enabling technology, Madam Chairman, so it makes it easier for people to engage. We also have iPads and a mobile printer, Madam Chairman. We also use it to support some of the library programming.

So we have a range of different activities that we run in our libraries, our physical libraries, which can also then be changed and modified to be part of the program that we run out of the pop-up library, Madam Chairman. So the manager of Library Services spoke to us and showed us the design and some photos of where the pop-up library—the pop-up library was at Centenary Rocks! Festival, Madam Chairman, and it's received a great engagement there as well. The pop-up library is also, Madam Chairman, doing the rounds in some of our suburban parks and on a fortnightly basis it visits 7th Brigade Park in Chermside. It also visits the Wynnum Wading Pool, Madam Chairman. It visits Frew Park, Svoboda Park, Rocks Riverside Park and Dorrington Park. So it’s


- 97 -

out there delivering these early literacy programs right across the city, and it's great to see it engaging with all of the residents and providing that opportunity in probably what is a less formal way for people to connect with others, but also to help develop some literacy skills. So a fantastic initiative that is being delivered by the Library Services and I just want to thank everyone involved in that delivery of that program because it really is a fantastic initiative.

Madam Chairman, there's three petitions on the agenda before us and so I'm happy to leave the debate to the Chamber.


Nothing further Councillor BOURKE?

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 Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Fiona King, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – POP-UP LIBRARY

44/2017-181. Sharan Harvey, Manager, Library Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to

provide an update on the Pop-up Library (the library). She provided the information below.

2. The library increases outreach to communities and provides a vibrant and agile presence to support and complement the network of Council’s libraries. The library also aims to expand community literacy through delivery of library programs.

3. The initiative builds on past successful outreach at festivals and events, increasing both capability and capacity of Council’s library services. By having an agile library presence, the library provides a vibrant and engaging library experience, and a space to read, relax and discover. It delivers traditional library services such as membership, and borrowing is activated through the library staff to deliver library programs.

4. The library project commenced in 2016-17, with the purchase and fit out of a customised vehicle and equipment kit. Features of the customised vehicle include a strong Brisbane and library identity through the vehicle livery, two external shade awnings, internal cargo fixtures for safe storage, and a hydraulic lift on the back of the vehicle for safe loading and unloading of equipment.

5. The portable equipment kit aims to establish a temporary presence, support reading and literacy development, and deliver library programs. The equipment kit includes: - mobile shelving and display units used for storage and promotion of the library collection- a variety of shade, seating and ground cover options that define and provide an attractive

usable space for people to relax and engage, including shade umbrellas, stools, deck chairs and synthetic turf

- enabling technology that provides the required connections to support membership and borrowing functions, including mobile circulation software used with a staff iPad and a mobile printer

- other items to support library programming and learning through play such as coding and robotics kits, giant games and early literacy resources.


- 98 -

6. The library experience for customers at festivals is tailored for each event. The customers are able to read and browse from specially selected collections; enjoy the comfortable, vibrant and informal space, and engage with staff about library services and membership; and participate in library programs offered, from early literacy storytime to a drop-in technology tinker table.

7. An important part of the library outreach service is the new children’s storytime in the park (storytime) program which commenced on 5 June 2017. Supporting early literacy development, library staff deliver storytime three days per week at six park locations on a fortnightly schedule, with the library space available between 9.30 and 11.30am.

8. Selected park locations for storytime include Kidspace at 7th Brigade Park in Chermside, Whimsical Whales Playground at the Wynnum Wading Pool Park in Wynnum, Frew Park in Milton, Svoboda Park in Kuraby, Rocks Riverside Park in Seventeen Mile Rocks, and Dorrington Park in Ashgrove.

9. The library had a citywide launch at King George Square on Wednesday 24 May 2017 and a suburban launch by the Lord Mayor at the Bracken Ridge Backyard Bonanza on Sunday 28 May 2017. During the first month, staff delivered 22 storytime sessions in Council parks with 815 attendees, and visited three community events in June, including the Big City BBQ, Banyo Queensland Day celebrations, and Grass Roots community planting event in Brighton (Green Heart initiative).

10. In June 2017, the Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee invited Councillors to suggest one event or festival in their wards to be considered for inclusion in the 2017-18 Pop-up Library schedule and the submissions closed on 31 July 2017. Library Services staff will be confirming these requests from early August 2017. For any future requests for the library to visit an event or festival, patrons are advised to contact Ms Sian O’Shea, Coordinator Community Liaison in Council’s Library Services. Images of the library were displayed and a video was played.

11. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Harvey for her informative presentation.

12. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVOKE THE LICENCE TO USE 18 TRINITY LANE, WOOLLOONGABBA, AS A LIVE MUSIC VENUECA17/460896

45/2017-1813. A petition from residents, requesting that Council revoke the licence to use 18 Trinity Lane,

Woolloongabba, as a live music venue, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 23 May 2017, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.

14. The Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the following information.


16. Under Council’s Local Law (Entertainment Venues and Events) 1999 (the Local Law), certain types of entertainment venues require a permit to operate. This permit is issued under the Local Law and is required for venues open to the public for entertainment, regardless of whether a charge for admission is made. The permit is issued with a number of conditions to ensure the health and safety of the people attending the venue and to limit the impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.


- 99 -

17. On 21 October 2016, Phoenix Collective Pty Ltd, trading as Phoenix Arts Theatre, was issued an Entertainment Venue Permit for 18 Trinity Lane, Woolloongabba. The permit was issued with a condition prohibiting the use of amplified music at the venue. An appeal was lodged with Council by Phoenix Collective Pty Ltd on 28 October 2016 regarding this condition. Upon review of the condition, it was decided to permit amplified music. Noise limits, aimed at regulating the amplified music, were established, outlining the hours of operation as 10am-10pm on any day and to not exceed five decibels above background level. The permit was amended on 3 November 2016.

18. Since 21 October 2016, Council has received seven complaints about the volume of music coming from the site. In response, Environmental Health Officers from Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Services conducted site inspections and noise monitoring on 10, 19 and 20 November 2016. As a result, Council wrote to Phoenix Collective Pty Ltd on 13 December 2016 to advise there was a breach of the permit conditions. The letter noted that should further breaches of the permit be observed, enforcement action would be taken.

19. Phoenix Collective Pty Ltd advised Council that noise mitigation works had been undertaken. Despite this advice, Council continued to receive complaints about the noise levels at the venue and the most recent complaint was received on 8 April 2017.

20. Noise monitoring was undertaken on Sunday 18 June 2017 during an advertised event. Environmental Health Officers attended and undertook noise measurements between 1.00 and 2.45pm and confirmed a breach of the permit conditions, that noise not exceed five decibels above background level during hours of operation, occurred.

21. It is recommended that the head petitioner be advised a compliance notice was issued on 23 June 2017 to the operators of the venue at 18 Trinity Lane, Woolloongabba. This notice directed the venue to ensure noise does not exceed the conditioned limits. Should further breaches be observed, enforcement action will be taken, which may include the revocation of the permit. Until this time, petitioners may be required to contact Council to report excessive noise.

Consultation

22. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

23. Should Council substantiate further breaches, enforcement action, which may include the revocation of the permit, will be taken. Until this time, petitioners may be required to contact Council to report excessive noise.

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

25. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED A COMPLIANCE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 23 JUNE 2017 TO THE OPERATORS OF THE VENUE AT 18 TRINITY LANE, WOOLLOONGABBA. THIS NOTICE DIRECTED THE VENUE TO ENSURE NOISE DOES NOT EXCEED THE CONDITIONED LIMITS. SHOULD FURTHER BREACHES BE OBSERVED, ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN, WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. UNTIL THIS TIME, PETITIONERS MAY BE REQUIRED TO CONTACT COUNCIL TO REPORT EXCESSIVE NOISE.

ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVIEW LEGISLATION TO PREVENT ROAMING AND WILDLIFE ATTACKS BY DOMESTIC PETS, PARTICULARLY CATSCA17/485265

46/2017-18[4533 (Ordinary) Meeting – 8 August 2017]

- 100 -

26. A petition from residents, requesting that Council review legislation to prevent roaming and wildlife attacks by domestic pets, particularly cats, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Matthew Bourke, and received.



29. Council places a very high level of responsibility on the keepers of animals and is committed to protecting the community against the risk of injury from wandering or uncontrolled animals. Council regulates the keeping of animals under the Animals Local Law 2003 (the local law) and the Animals Subordinate Local Law 2003. The objectives of the local law are to regulate the keeping of animals to ensure they are kept and controlled in ways consistent with the rights and expectations of the community.

30. Council’s Animals Subordinate Local Law 2003 sets down minimum standards for the keeping of animals, including cats. Cat owners are required to ensure their cat does not cause a nuisance to other residents, or endanger the health of any person or animal. The local law also stipulates the keeper of an animal must ensure the animal does not wander at large. While the local law stipulates that animals must not wander at large, there are no provisions in the local law that specifies cats must be confined to their owner’s property in a cat enclosure or cat run.

31. Council also proactively recovers and impounds wandering domestic animals, imposes limits to the maximum number of cats and dogs kept at a residential property, and continues its successful feral cat trapping program as part of our efforts to protect wildlife. Impounded wandering animals are taken to one of Council’s Animal Rehoming Centres, where attempts are made to reunite the lost pet with their owners.

32. Council currently does not regulate cats that wander from their yard in the same way it does with dogs. However, Council will investigate reports of wandering or nuisance cats if the complainant can identify the cat owner or property address. Upon receipt of a first complaint, an advisory letter is sent to the alleged offender to inform them of the complaint and outline their responsibilities under the local law. Should further complaints be received, authorised Council officers will continue the investigation. If an authorised officer substantiates an offence, enforcement action is taken under the local law.

33. Council also recognises the need to minimise the impact of invasive pest animals on human health, social amenity, and the environment. Council undertakes invasive species management programs on both private and Council controlled land as a requirement of the Queensland Government’s Biosecurity Act 2014 and the Brisbane Invasive Species Management Plan 2013-17. Feral cats and dogs (not owned by a person) are listed as invasive biosecurity matters under the Biosecurity Act 2014 and are targeted by Council’s invasive species management programs. These programs are conducted in response to complaints from residents, as well as proactively in areas of environmental significance.

34. It is recommended that the head petitioner be advised that Council has a process to review local laws that includes community consultation, and this feedback will be considered when the relevant local laws are reviewed. In the meantime, Council will continue to examine ways in which local laws, education campaigns and enforcement processes can be improved to achieve better outcomes for all residents.

Consultation

35. As this petition relates to a citywide issue, and makes no reference to a specific ward, the Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee was consulted and supports the recommendation.

36. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

37. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL HAS A PROCESS TO REVIEW LOCAL LAWS THAT INCLUDES COMMUNITY CONSULTATION, AND THIS FEEDBACK WILL BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE RELEVANT LOCAL LAWS ARE REVIEWED. IN THE MEANTIME, COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO EXAMINE WAYS IN


- 101 -

WHICH LOCAL LAWS, EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES CAN BE IMPROVED TO ACHIEVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR ALL RESIDENTS.

ADOPTED

D PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO INSTALL A SKATE FACILITY IN 7TH BRIGADE PARK, CHERMSIDECA17/566813

47/2017-1838. A petition from residents, calling on Council to install a skate facility in 7th Brigade Park, Chermside,

was presented to the meeting of Council held on 13 June 2017, by Councillor Fiona King, and received.


40. The petition contains 274 signatures. All signatories, apart from the head petitioner, are students of St Kevin’s Primary School in years prep to six.

41. When planning new skate facilities Council considers the whole of Brisbane to ensure all areas have facilities of various scales and types. Skate facilities range from single skateable elements along existing pathways, through to larger skate parks, to provide a diverse network of quality facilities for all residents of Brisbane to enjoy.

42. Since 2016, Council has made significant investments in skate facilities across the city. Stage one upgrade works on existing skate facilities at Paddington and Inala Skate Parks were completed in January 2016 and a new competition standard, plaza-style skate facility was constructed at Bracken Ridge, which was officially opened on 14 February 2016.

43. In addition to completing stage two of the Paddington Skate Park upgrade and the installation of lighting and pathway upgrades at Inala Skate Park, Council is delivering new skate facilities at Grovely, Balmoral and Ashgrove as well as upgrades to the Murarrie Skate Park facilities in 2017.

44. As 7th Brigade Park, Chermside, is located within 2.5 kilometres of several existing skate facilities, including Zillmere Skate Park, Stafford Skate Park, Nundah Bowl and Wavell Bowl, it is not considered a high priority to install new skate facilities at the requested location.

45. It is recommended that the head petitioner be advised that Council will not be installing a new skate facility in 7th Brigade Park, Chermside, at this time due to the close proximity of existing skate facilities and the high utilisation of the park by community groups.

Funding

46. Funding is not currently allocated for the development of a skate park in 7th Brigade Park, Chermside.

Consultation

47. Councillor Fiona King, Councillor for Marchant Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

48. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jonathan Sri abstaining.


- 102 -

49. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL NOT BE INSTALLING A NEW SKATE FACILITY IN 7TH BRIGADE PARK, CHERMSIDE, AT THIS TIME DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF EXISTING SKATE FACILITIES AND THE HIGH UTILISATION OF THE PARK BY COMMUNITY GROUPS.

ADOPTED

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 1 August 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Committee presentation last week we did look at the results from the—


Chairman: Point of order—

Councillor JOHNSTON: I'm not sure—yes, she's just turned it on now.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS?

Councillor ADAMS: Sorry, thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, we've spoken about the Battle of Brisbane many times in this place over the last couple of weeks as it was just an enormous success, but I think most importantly to note is the analysis that Brisbane Marketing has just released; that last month's World Welterweight Title fight actually generated a $354 million worth of international online media coverage, and actually attracted more global attention to the city than the G20 meeting of world leaders.

So when you consider that the G20—we are still leveraging off the G20 and the exposure that we got to that. This is going to be a fantastic outcome for years to come from the Battle of Brisbane. That $354 million is almost double the $180 million, as I said, from the G20 Summit, and that had Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin there as well. So the success of this boxing bout is absolutely huge.

The economic boom over that weekend—just as I mentioned last week with all the hotels that were actually booked out over that week right through to probably Tuesday for people to get out of the city—it was just quite unfortunate that it wasn't lined up that the State of Origin was on that Wednesday of that week and it was another week later, or else I think we would have just seen an absolutely amazing outcome for our hospitality industry over that week. But it was school holidays and I think a lot of people took that opportunity as well.

Before us today, Madam Chair, there is also a petition that I will leave to the Chamber to debate. Thank you.

Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further Councillor ADAMS?

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.


- 103 -


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Ryan Murphy (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE BATTLE OF BRISBANE

48/2017-181. Anne-Maree Moon, General Manager, Tourism and Major Events, Brisbane Marketing, attended the

meeting to provide an update on the economic benefits of the Battle of Brisbane. She provided the information below.

2. The Battle of Brisbane was the largest ever boxing match in Australia and was held on 2 July 2017 at Suncorp Stadium. The event drew in a record-breaking 51,026 spectators, with 36% of those coming from outside of Queensland, and seven percent travelling from overseas. Brisbane hotels had an 80% rise in revenue that night.

3. The event launch was supported by an Australian east coast media tour in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, which generated coverage across Foxtel, Top Arena, Fairfax Media and News Corp, and appearances on the Alan Jones Breakfast Show, The Project, and The Footy Show.

4. The east coast media tour generated an impressive 10,000 ticket sales within 40 minutes of being released. The media tour to the Philippines in May saw daily international coverage.

5. Between 1 January and 10 July 2017, according to iSentia statistics, there were 9,872 media items on the Battle of Brisbane that reached a cumulative audience of 270,533,567, and had an ASR (advertising space rate) of $40,268,276.

6. The event broadcast featured eight minutes of destination content, which showcased Brisbane’s New World City to global audiences.

7. ESPN’s telecast of the “Battle of Brisbane – Manny Pacquiao vs. Jeff Horn”, is cable television’s highest-rated and most watched boxing telecast since 2006, and ESPN’s highest-rated boxing telecast since 1995.

8. The Battle of Brisbane was broadcast in more than 34 countries, including key tourism source markets such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, India, Europe and the Middle East.

9. A program of events spanning eight days, including training sessions with the media, official media launch and the Championship fight, the winner’s press conference, was created to drive the length of stay for visitors to Brisbane.

10. The Battle of Brisbane was a true destination experience with a week of activities including the media launch in the Queen Street Mall, glove signings in Reddacliff Place, the Queen Street Mall, and Southbank, and social media competitions. Pictures from these events were shown to the Committee.

11. Advertising for the event included gold city lighting, JCDecaux campaign, street banners, television commercials, bollard wraps, outdoor advertising, and a double page spread in Melbourne’s Herald Sun and Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

12. A short video clip of key figures was played for the Committee.

13. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Moon for her informative presentation.


- 104 -

14. RECOMMENDATION:


B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 26 MAY 2017 134/695/317/3-04

49/2017-1815. Paul Oberle, Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services, provided a monthly summary of

Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 26 May 2017.

16. During the May period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per general ledger) increased by $165.2 million to $861.6 million excluding trusts (Ref: 1.4). The net increase is due to proceeds from Queensland Treasury Corporation general purpose borrowings and the effect of receipts during peak rate cycle, partly offset by repayment of working capital borrowings.

17. Council funds as at 26 May 2017 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled $865.4 million (Ref: 2.4 and 3.1). The variance relates to timing differences between transactions recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.

18. Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the period. The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.

19. Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.

20. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED, as submitted on file.ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING THE SALE OF 29 BOURNE STREET, WOOLLOONGABBA, BE STOPPED AND THE SITE BE CONVERTED INTO OPEN SPACECA17/493052

50/2017-1821. A petition requesting the sale of 29 Bourne Street, Woolloongabba, be stopped and the site converted

into open space, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.

22. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, supplied the following information.


24. The property in question was acquired in August 2007, as part of the North-South Bypass Tunnel (NSBT). At the time of purchase the site was 405 square metres, and located on the site was a three-bedroom house. The house was subsequently demolished and the land required for the NSBT excised off. Under Brisbane City Plan 2014 the site was zoned Character (Infill housing). The remaining land not required for the NSBT was deemed surplus to the reason for acquisition and was sold at auction on 19 May 2017.

25. Petitioners believe there is limited green space in the Woolloongabba area. The draft Dutton Park-Fairfield neighbourhood plan was recently released for community consultation. Through this process it has highlighted the community’s concerns regarding the provision of parkland in the area. Therefore, in accordance with the Eastern corridor neighbourhood plan and the Brisbane Priority


- 105 -

Infrastructure Plan, Council has acquired properties at Carl and Tottenham Streets for a future public park. This planned park is approximately 500 metres south of Bourne Street and accessible via the signalised crossing at O’Keefe Street. Once the acquisition phase for this future park is complete, planning will commence on the future design of the park.

26. It is recommended 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.

Consultation

27. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

28. The petitioners may still believe that Council is not meeting its obligations for the provision of parkland.

29. The Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Peter Cumming and Charles Strunk abstaining.

30. RECOMMENDATION:

IT IS RECOMMENDED 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.



Thank you for your petition requesting that the sale of 29 Bourne Street, Woolloongabba, be stopped and the site be converted to open space.

The property in question was sold at auction on 19 May 2017. This property was acquired in August 2007, as part of the North South Bypass Tunnel (NSBT), remaining land not required for the NSBT was deemed surplus to the reason for acquisition. Under Brisbane City Plan 2014 the site was zoned Character (Infill housing).

Council has since acquired properties at Carl and Tottenham Streets for a future public park. This planned park is approximately 500 metres south of Bourne Street and accessible via the signalised crossing at O’Keefe Street. Once the acquisition phase for this future park is complete, planning will commence on the future design of the park.

Please advise other petitioners of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Thomas Buntine, Development Manager, Asset Optimisation, Organisational Services, on (07) 3403 8888.


CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – LGS PROJECT REVIEW:(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Chairman: Councillors I draw to your attention the Notice of Motion at item 6 on the agenda. Councillors, that notified motion is incompetent; therefore we will not be proceeding with it.


- 106 -

Councillors are there any—


Chairman: I've made a ruling Councillor CUMMING. It's incompetent.


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON?

51/2017-18Councillor Shayne SUTTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion of dissent was declared lost on the voices.

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


AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 18 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors are there any petitions?

Councillor SRI you have a petition?

Councillor SRI: Madam Chair, I have a petition on behalf of local residents in West End calling for a derelict building to be demolished.


Councillor STRUNK?

Councillor STRUNK: Yes, Madam Chair. I have a petition from residents in Pringle Place, Forest Lake asking for a dangerous tree to be removed.

Chairman: Councillor RICHARDS?

Councillor RICHARDS: Madam Chair, I have a petition to stop the construction of the footpath in Creekside Street Park in Kenmore Hills.

Chairman: No further petitions?

Councillor WINES, may I have a motion for receipt of the petitions please?


- 107 -

52/2017-18It 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 TopicCA17/702320 Jonathan Sri Requesting the removal of temporary fencing and demolition of

a derelict house at 51 Ryan Street, West EndCA17/697129 Charles Strunk Requesting that Council remove a dangerous tree between

12 and 14 Pringle Place, Forest LakeCA17/702437 Kate Richards Requesting that Council stop the construction of the footpath in

Creekside Street Park, Kenmore Hills

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors are there any statements required as a result of a Councillors Conduct Review Panel order? There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors are there any matters of general business?

Councillor CASSIDY?

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I just rise to talk briefly on the Einbunpin Festival which was held in Sandgate a couple of weekends ago, and I'd just like to place on record my appreciation to a number of people who come together each year to make that festival possible, not least the support from the Brisbane City Council in the way of festival funding.

The success of the Einbunpin Festival is due to the overwhelming support of the local community each year—each and every year. Of course this was the 26th festival in its 25th year. Established in 1992 by the former Councillor, Denise Herbert, and a committee of local people, one of whom is still active on our committee, Betty Wilson, and she's been a steadfast part for the last 25 years and 26 festivals.

I'd just like to thank those committee members who come together six months out from the festival each year and do an awful lot of work leading up to that. They include Avalon MacKellar, our stalls coordinator, Jen Henderson from my office, Walter Kuhn, Mary Todd, Kelly Carr, Anne Gadsby. Fred Krebs, the Sandgate Town Crier, is an integral part of our community and also officially declared our festival open, alongside Councillor COOPER and I, Beth Wild, our entertainment coordinator and, as I mentioned before, Betty Wilson, who's been on the committee for the last 25 years.

Apart from the Brisbane City Council providing very generous festival funding and SANDBAG being our auspicing partner, we had some fantastic sponsors again this year including ANZ Mobile Lending; Lendlease, who are doing a pretty big project in the local community; Northside Family Law; Bracken Ridge McDonald's—always very generous; the Bayside Star; Kuhn Corp Press and Packaging; Snap Fitness Sandgate, who are a new sponsor and Stirling Hinchliffe, State Member for Sandgate and Federal Member Wayne Swan; having over 130 stalls; four entertainment areas; hours and hours of activities including for the first year the pop-up library and the Jabiru Activity Van for its first outing into the community.


- 108 -

Artrageous, our local community-led art gallery and community art organisation running our Bridge Gallery once again this year; the colouring-in competition which had participation from every school in the Deagon Ward and a couple from the Bracken Ridge Ward for the first time this year; our first poster competition of which Shakia Ibarra, a Year 12 student at Sandgate High took out this year’s prize.

I just want to especially mention—I've mentioned Beth already. She's been our entertainment coordinator for some time and has worked on festivals and events that Council has supported over a long period of time. It was her final year doing that. I'd like to thank her very much and Roger Boum who's a youth worker at Aspley High and has worked at a number of schools across the northside. He is retiring from that position to go and do a lot of surfing I think up the Sunny Coast, and I'd like to thank him for all his work as well.

Again, just to put on record my thanks and the community's thanks to the ongoing support from the Brisbane City Council.

Chairman: Further general business?

Councillor RICHARDS?

Councillor RICHARDS: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak about Moggill Creek Catchment Group celebrating their 20th birthday this year.

The Moggill Creek Catchment Group is a volunteer action group aiming to conserve and improve the natural environment of our catchment on both private and public land that was founded in 1997.

It was early in 1997 that Brisbane City Council's Catchment Management Unit developed a comprehensive 75-page catchment management plan for the Moggill Creek. Many local residents were interviewed and some participated in workshops. The Council plan commented that a broad appreciation of catchment issues has been identified by community members active in vegetation.

A public meeting was then held on 22 October 1997 in Brookfield Hall. Forty-five people attended and all agreed to form the Moggill Creek Catchment Management Group, where the small group formed a committee and was elected.

The minutes of the meeting recorded that the group's objective should be to restore the catchment to a state as practicable as possible to the fauna and flora existing in 1788. Yet a major problem of invasive exotic weeks was soon seen as a priority, and the group were fortunate to win a substantial grant from the Natural Heritage Trust to address this problem, partnered by Brisbane Forest Park.

This cooperative arrangement enabled the group to build their nursery at the end of Gold Creek Road, as well as fund a catchment coordinator who was instrumental in getting the nursery going.

So 1998 was a year of achievement that certainly was the foundation of the Moggill Creek Catchment Group's growth, and paying it forward for our environment today. They achieved mapping the catchment into 13 geographic areas identifying leaders of 11 new sections; an application submitted was successful for the Natural Heritage Trust for three years of funding; incorporation occurred; membership of Landcare was accepted; section leaders commenced their work in designated areas; they had another public meeting which 105 people then attended on their second year; and Brisbane City Council updated to their program to the Land for Wildlife program.


- 109 -

So in terms of the movement they achieved in 12 months was enormous. They also fully established their plant nursery at Gold Creek Dam, thus then freeing-up volunteers who undertook the vital rehabilitation work to then use those plants to support the regrowth in the areas that they needed to address.

So their newsletter first started and of course—I don't know whether everyone knows the show Totally Wild which used to be around—they actually used all of the Moggill Creek Catchment Group's areas for their show.

So 2000 was a big year and it was a year of change as Mr Tom McHugh, a Brisbane City Council officer, was instrumental in arranging for most of the group's geographical sections to become Brisbane City Council Bushcare groups under what now is know the Habitat Brisbane program. This provided sections with additional support for their work on public land, materials, tools, herbicide et cetera, plus access to a diversity of training programs—significantly meant that the sections could work on public land as habitat groups and private land as Moggill Creek Catchment groups.

So 20 years ago a small group of passionate people came together after reading Brisbane City Council's catchment management plan for Moggill Creek. They came together, created and set in motion the Moggill Creek Catchment Group, whereby every year the nursery gives out thousands of plants to members. The annual photographic competition remains. Geographic section leaders still hold regular working bees. Membership has now grown considerably to over 500 people. Additional activities such as the Creek Health Management program, Kids Day at the Cottage and an Annual Calendar are consistent calendar date claimers.

But, Madam Chair, I want to make a special note of five people who were active in those first years of the Moggill Creek Catchment Group's emergence and they're current committee members, being Bryan Hacker, Malcolm Frost, Michael Humphreys, Adrian Webb and Gordon Gregg.

Personally I visited places that 20 years ago, from shown photos, were bare ground, that now thanks to the Moggill Creek Catchment Group work 20 years on, we can walk in the shade of trees that are 15 to 20 metres tall. They bear fruit and seeds for birds to carry off and drop elsewhere.

So it is through the heart of these volunteers who are inspired by Council's foresight in the delivery of the 1997 document that inspired the people to rally, who passionately went about—and are still ensuring our Brisbane in the west is being kept clean and green; that is ensuring the Pullenvale Ward is liveable and sustainable for our children and the children to follow.

So, Madam Chair, a quote by Ivan Scheier states, ‘the broadest and maybe the most meaningful definition of volunteering: doing more than you have to because you want to, and a cause you consider good.’

So thank you Moggill Creek Catchment Group for your cause of aspiring to restore the catchment to a state as practicable as possible to the flora and fauna existing in 1788. Happy 20th birthday. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor ALLAN?

Councillor ALLAN: Madam Chairman, I just rise to give a very quick update on a local festival that was recently held in the Northgate Ward.


- 110 -

The Syro Malabar Catholic Church, which originated in India and is locally known as the Saint Alphonsa Catholic Community, has a growing and active Indian member base in Brisbane. They are one of the largest and rapidly growing ethnic community groups in the city.

Each year they hold an annual feast and cultural festival. I've been fortunate enough to join them in the past few years. Set over two days—there you go Councillor BOURKE, another festival over two days—Saturday 29 July and Sunday 30 July the festival encompasses both cultural and religious elements.

Day one events were held at the Craigslea State High School in the Marchant Ward and included traditional dances, music and drama. The day two events on the Sunday were held at St John's Catholic Church in Northgate. The events included a very colourful street procession with over 1,000 participants ranging from very young children through to elderly members of the congregation.

The procession, led interestingly by a Scottish bagpipe band, commenced at the church and wound through local streets before returning to the church grounds. In the procession there were incredibly colourful saris, umbrellas and flags, along with a somewhat boringly-attired local Councillor. The evening also included a communal dinner and spectacular fireworks.

The event engages the local community with many residents lining the footpath to get photographs of the street procession and securing a good vantage point for the fireworks. Local residents are also invited to join the communal dinner.

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to support this annual event that adds to the city's lifestyle and leisure opportunities, positively highlights our multicultural city, and provides a platform for local community engagement and cultural understanding.

I congratulate the organisers of the event. Thank you.


I declare the meeting closed.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 3 August 2017.

Q1. Can you outline the total infrastructure charges revenue for the 15/16 year?

Q2. Can you outline the total infrastructure charges revenue for the 16/17 year?

Q3. Can you use the following table to detail the park projects delivered through infrastructure funding for the 15/16 year.

Park Scope of Work Suburb Ward Total $


- 111 -


Q4. Can you use the following table to detail the park projects delivered through infrastructure funding for the 16/17 year.


Q5. What was the cost of producing the annual waste vouchers sent to Brisbane Residents for use in the 2016/17 financial year (ie those vouchers valid for use from 1 July 2016 – 31 August 2017)

Q6. What was the cost of producing the annual waster vouchers sent to Brisbane Residents for use in the 2017/18 Financial year? (ie those vouchers valid for use from 1 July 2017-31 August 2018)

Q7. Please list the total number of infringements issued to vehicles parked illegally during the Sylvan Road Peak Period Bike Lane Trial – Toowong.

Q8. Please list the total number of infringements issued to vehicles parked illegally during the Sylvan Road Peak Period Bike Lane Trial – Toowong.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 1 August 2017)

Q1. Please provide a list of all bus routes by number that will be impacted by network changes associated with the Brisbane Metro project?

A1. The Brisbane Metro project will be completed in 2022 so this question is unable to be answered at this time. However, as part of the development of the business case for the Brisbane Metro, current bus routes 66, 111 and 160 will no longer operate once the metro is operational.

Q2. Please provide a list of all bus routes by number that will terminate on the south side that will no longer proceed to or through the central business district and northside destinations as is currently the case?

A2. 66, 111 and 160 (As outlined in the Business Case, these services will not terminate they will cease to operate).

Q3. The Brisbane Metro business case summary notes that there will be 125 fewer buses in the central business district; please provide the route number and times of all services that will no longer proceed to or through the central business district as is currently the case?

A3. 66, 111 and 160 (As outlined in the Business Case, these services will not terminate they will cease to operate).


- 112 -

Q4. Please provide the route number and times of increased bus services proposed as part of the Brisbane Metro project?

A4. The Brisbane Metro project will be completed in 2022 so this question is unable to be answered at this time.


Q1. What is the total amount of all infrastructure charges owing to Council as at 30 June 2017?

Q2. What is the total number of development applications with unpaid infrastructure charges owing to Council as at 30 June 2017?

Q3. What is the total value of infrastructure charges owing to Council that have been in arrears for longer than one year?

Q4. What is the total value of infrastructure charges owing to Council that have been in arrears for longer three years?

A1 to A4.Infrastructure charges are only payable once a development which has infrastructure charges levied against it, is completed. For example, if an application is seeking plan sealing, the charges levied against the approval are required to be paid or secured by way of bank guarantee prior to release of survey plans by Council.

Many development applications that are approved may have infrastructure charges payable in the event that the development is actually undertaken. As most councillors would be aware many development applications that are approved do not proceed and therefore infrastructure charges are not applicable.


Q1. Please provide a list of all intersections in Brisbane that will receive new traffic lights in the 2017-18 Budget year?

A1. Bellmead Street/Warrigal Road, Runcorn (to be funded over 2 financial years)Boundary Road/Whites Hill Reserve, Camp HillHellawell Road/The Avenue, Sunnybank HillsHellawell Road/Borella Road, Sunnybank HillsJohnston Road/Stapylton Road, Heathwood (to be funded over 2 financial years)Kessels Road/Player Street, Upper Mt. Gravatt (Subject to State Government joint funding agreement)Leicester Street/Old Cleveland Road, CoorparooNewman Avenue/Main Avenue, Wavell HeightsShaw Road/Shaw Estate Park, KalingaTelegraph Road/Mustang Street, Bracken RidgeVulture Street/Montague Road, West End (to be funded over 2 financial years)

Q2. Please provide a list of all intersections in Brisbane that will receive an upgrade to existing traffic lights in the 2017-18 Budget year?

A2. Raymont Road/Grange Road, Grange

Q3. How many intersections in Brisbane have been assessed as eligible for new traffic lights and are awaiting funding?

A3. Council undertakes assessment of intersections for new traffic lights for a variety of reasons including responses to petitions and to assist in formulation of funding submissions for the Federal Government Blackspot program. A collation of all intersections that have been assessed is unable to be provided in a time frame that accords with the Meetings Local Law 2001.

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 1 August 2017)

Q1. Did the Brisbane City Council apply for any grant funding under the Federal Government’s $50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs Programs? If yes, please provide a detailed outline of the project(s) for which funding was requested.

A1. Estimate Occupancy of Metered Parking Bays


- 113 -

The project aims to build on a recent in-house proof of concept that shows algorithms used in a business intelligence and analytics system on existing and ongoing parking data sets can appropriately estimate occupancy of metered parking bays.

With further investigation and refinement enabled by this project, it is intended that the resulting data could be published on the open data store, providing access to the technology community in order to enable greater provision of applications and interfaces for public benefit.

Smart Bus Stop Shelters The project aims to investigate and implement a pilot of innovative technologies to design and trial new, best-practice bus stop shelter design to meet rising community demand for cooler, better shaded, more weather protected and more secure public transport spaces.

Smart Neighbourhood, Smart Community, Smart Hub

The project will deliver up to 10 smart multifunction technology poles located in the Kelvin Grove Urban Village to connect and protect the community and provide information to Council to deliver services more efficiently. The outcomes of the project include the potential to promote local events and businesses, provide real time information on parking and transport, lighting control and intelligent waste management systems during events, increased security through better lighting and CCTV cameras and sensors to manage the interaction with the environment better.

Q2. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the total costs of leasing and outfitting for the new Paddington office for Cr Matic.

A2. The lease cost for the Paddington Ward office is $58,000 (plus GST), which represents a reduction in the overall lease costs from the former ward office for the ward of Toowong (which was abolished by the Electoral Commission of Queensland at the 2016 Local Government Election).

The contract for the outfitting cost for a Ward office within the Paddington Ward was $198,800. There was also some internal costs such as provision of ward office signage and provision of standard corporate security.

Q3. How many new footpaths were approved for construction in the 2016/17 Financial year from Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Funds?

A3. 116

Q4. What was the total cost of construction for the new footpaths funded in the 2016/17 Financial year via the Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Funds?

A4. $3.558 million


A5. 118


A6. $5.271 million


A7. 139


A8. $4.894 million

Q9. Can you please outline the total infrastructure spend for parks in the 15/16 year?

Q10. Can you outline the total infrastructure spend for parks for the 16/17 year to date?


- 114 -

Can you use the following table to detail the park projects delivered through infrastructure funding for the 15/16 year and the 16/17 year to date:

Park Scope of Work Suburb Ward Cost

A9 and A10.Following a request received from Councillor Griffiths, Q9 and Q10 have been withdrawn.


Q1. How many ping pong tables will be built/installed in Brisbane parks and public spaces in 2017-18?

A1. At this point of the financial year Council cannot provide a definitive number of tables that might be installed. As with last financial year Councillors may choose to install tables in parks from funds available in the Ward footpath and parks trust or parks trust fund and decisions in that regard are not required to be made at this point in the financial year.

Q2. What the Council budget allocation and the total value of all ping pong tables to be built/installed in Brisbane parks and public spaces in 2017-18?

A2. Council has budgeted $64,000 for the provision of table tennis tables in parks in this financial but as outlined above Councillors may choose to install tables in parks from funds available in the Ward footpath and parks trust or parks trust fund.

Q3. What is the cost of design, construction and installation of one outdoor ping pong table?

A3. An average cost is estimated to be $9,000, but the price may vary either side of that estimate based on site specific installation conditions.

Q4. What is the value of funding for ping pong tables being provided by a grant or other funding mechanism to Council in 2017-18 and who is the donor organisation?

A4. $32,000 from the Office of the Commonwealth Games.

Q5. Please provide a list, in the following table, of expenditure for all Suburban Community Festivals being funding in Service 5.1.1.1.Festival and Events in the 2017-18 Council Budget.

A5.Festival Name Festival Funding $ Amount

2017-18Length of Contract for Festival Funding

Queensland Poetry Festival $6,000.00 3 yearsSlavic Festival $5,000.00 1 year.Brookfield Christmas $5,000.00 3 yearsBNE Organic Growers Fair $5,000.00 3 years


- 115 -

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.41pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Robert Southwood (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer)Emily Blake (Acting Council and Committee Officer)Shivaji Solao (Council and Committee Officer and Acting Council Orderly)


- 116 -

web viewcommittee presentation –manual of ... ipswich motorway to boundary road and boundary...

Documents