TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4640 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 23 February 2021
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
City Administration and Governance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
PRESENT: 1
OPENING OF MEETING: 1
MINUTES: 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1
QUESTION TIME: 7
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: 22
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 22
A ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2020 32
B BRISBANE METRO PROJECT – REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION 33
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 35
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – POSITIVE PUBLIC REALM OUTCOMES 41
B Petition – Requesting Council reject the development application for a childcare centre at 18-22 Ernest Street, Manly (application reference A005594986) 43
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 45
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BUS DECORATING COMPETITION – CHRISTMAS AND STATE OF ORIGIN 45
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 46
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ROCHEDALE ROAD AND PRIESTDALE ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE 47
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INVESTIGATE MEASURES TO DISINCENTIVISE NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS FROM USING WOODHILL AVENUE, COORPAROO, AS A SHORTCUT BETWEEN CAVENDISH ROAD AND LEICESTER STREET 48
C PETITION - REQUESTING COUNCIL PERMANENTLY CLOSE THE LEFT-HAND TURNS FROM LOGAN ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS, INTO LONDON STREET AND LIVERPOOL STREET 51
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL SOLID YELLOW LINE MARKINGS AT ALL INTERSECTIONS ALONG LONDON STREET, LIVERPOOL STREET AND MANCHESTER STREET, EIGHT MILE PLAINS, AND A U-TURN FACILITY AT THE EASTERN END OF LONDON STREET, LIVERPOOL STREET AND MERSEY STREET 53
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 55
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – DRAFT BRISBANE OFF-ROAD CYCLING STRATEGY 60
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REMOVE FIVE LEOPARD TREES LOCATED AT 40 TO 46 HUTTON ROAD AND 48 SUMMERFIELD STREET, ASPLEY, AND REPLACE THEM WITH MORE SUITABLE TREES PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2020 61
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RELINQUISH TRUSTEESHIP OF LAND ADJOINING BALMORAL STATE HIGH SCHOOL AND RETURN IT TO EDUCATION QUEENSLAND AT ZERO COST 62
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHADED SEATING AND EXTEND AND REFURBISH THE SMALL DOG OFF-LEASH AREA in NATHAN ROAD PARK, 346 DAW ROAD, RUNCORN 64
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE 65
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PARTNERSHIPS IN ANIMAL MANAGEMENT 66
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE 68
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE GREETERS 70
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REINSTATE AND FUND THE BRISBANE GREETERS PROGRAM 71
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE 72
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FIRST HOME OWNER'S REMISSION UPDATE 73
B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – DECEMBER 2020 74
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 74
GENERAL BUSINESS: 75
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 78
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 82
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER) – LNP
The Chair of Council, Councillor Andrew WINES (Enoggera Ward) – LNP
|LNP Councillors (and Wards) |ALP Councillors (and Wards) |
|Krista ADAMS (Holland Park) (Deputy Mayor) |Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (The Leader of the Opposition) |
|Greg ADERMANN (Pullenvale) |Kara COOK (Morningside) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) |
|Adam ALLAN (Northgate) |Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) |
|Lisa ATWOOD (Doboy) |Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) |
|Fiona CUNNINGHAM (Coorparoo) |Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake) |
|Tracy DAVIS (McDowall) | |
|Fiona HAMMOND (Marchant) | |
|Vicki HOWARD (Central) | |
|Steven HUANG (MacGregor) | |
|Sarah HUTTON (Jamboree) | |
|Sandy LANDERS (Bracken Ridge) | |
|James MACKAY (Walter Taylor) | |
|Kim MARX (Runcorn) | |
|Peter MATIC (Paddington) | |
|David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) | |
|Ryan MURPHY (Chandler) | |
|Angela OWEN (Calamvale) | |
|Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) (Deputy Chair of Council) | |
| |Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Jonathan SRI (The Gabba) |
| |Independent Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) |
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chair, Councillor Andrew WINES, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.
Chair: I declare the meeting open.
Are there any apologies?
There being no apologies, Councillors, minutes please.
MINUTES:
507/2020-21
The Minutes of the 4639 meeting of Council held on 16 February 2021, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Chair: Councillors, I draw your attention to the agenda item Public Participation.
We will be addressed by Dr Ian Scott, who will address us on development in Kangaroo Point.
Dr Scott. Welcome, Dr Scott. You have five minutes to present today. Your time begins when you begin, and you can sit or stand, whichever is your preference. Welcome.
Dr Ian Scott – Development in Kangaroo Point
Dr Ian Scott: Mr Chair, LORD MAYOR, Councillors. What do we want our city to be? Is the question. Many would argue it is a city that promotes a sense of community and belonging, respects our natural environment and our heritage, addresses the challenges of climate change, future pandemics and other threats to public health and wellbeing, blends greenspace with architecturally aesthetic buildings, displays a love of charm, culture and modernity. Is that what we have, or even aspire to?
Sadly, in Kangaroo Point, the answer is definitely no, and it could soon be no for much of Brisbane. The cancer killing our suburb and spreading to all parts of the city is unbridled overdevelopment by rapacious, arrogant developers driven by profit and taking us, the ratepayers, and taking you, the Council, for a ride. We are told Council needs to contain urban sprawl, which imposes unsustainable transport and infrastructure costs. The State Government demands that 188,000 new dwellings be established in South East Queensland over the next few years to meet expected population growth.
The answer seems to be to just cram as many people as possible into a five-kilometre radius within the Brisbane CBD. Kangaroo Point, which is my suburb, is the epicentre of these imposts. Despite already being the most densely populated suburb in Brisbane, it’s going to be jammed even tighter with more high-rise, despite already having several multistorey buildings that are half empty or completely empty more than a year after completion.
We have no less than 26 development applications approved or pending within our boundary. More than half are concentrated around Lambert Street, set to cram an additional 1,000 apartments into an area with winding, narrow streets, no shops, no schools, little public transport after 7pm, no community services, hardly any greenspace or parkland, very few remaining pre-1946 buildings, no riverwalk link, and more traffic and congestion along the green vein that’s going to link the new green bridge with the eastern suburbs, thus posing risk to cyclists and pedestrians. Is this really liveable Brisbane? Council is asking us to have density, but without the benefits.
Now, perhaps this sorry state of affairs was never intended by Council. I refer to the twin evils of the 2016 State Planning Act and the 2020 Kangaroo Point neighbourhood plan, both of which in our view need to be revoked and rewritten, with extensive and representative community input. The Planning Act allows considerable latitude in what can be classed as code assessable for any new development, in that, if certain, very flexible rules are met, the developer can apply for almost automatic approval by the Council. Less and less of these applications are deemed impact assessable, which calls for an assessment of their impact on the surrounding community.
Code assessable blocks us, the community, out of the approval process, even though we have to live with the impacts of these developments long after the developers have taken their profits and departed the scene. Approval can still be granted if it comes close or if developers, using highly paid town planners and lawyers, can argue that their proposal meets the overall intention of development in the area, according to the neighbourhood plan.
As a result, Council is pushed into approving applications which subsequently prove very unpopular. We then find ourselves in situations where ratepayers, including some aged in their 80s and 90s, are forced to participate in street marches and public demonstrations to let the Council know just how much they dislike a particular application. And then, when the Council does have the gumption to refuse an application, these code assessable rules result in court proceedings between Council and the developer, costing ratepayers time and money which could be better spent elsewhere.
For our part, we are not against development, per se, but it must be responsive to community opinion. Neighbourhood plans are contracts between the Council and the community as to how their suburbs are to evolve. In developing these plans, the Council must adequately consult the community through the medium of representative Community Planning Teams and public meetings, and then the agreed plan must be enacted. It can’t be concocted, manipulated, ignored or violated under duress from developers.
The 2020 Kangaroo Point plan raised code assessable building heights from 10 to 15 storeys, amongst other things, but with inadequate community consultation and with undue influence from developers. How so? Well, first the draft plan attracted fewer than 214 community submissions, less than two per cent of the population, compared to more than 50% for West End. When we ask our fellow residents, did you know about this plan, the answer is no.
Second, the Council has confirmed that from 2016 onwards, a developer, Pedro Pikos, was on the Kangaroo Point Community Planning Team. Because he owned a lot at 108 Lambert Street. Mr Pikos, it was argued, had as much right to be on the team as any other local resident or shopkeeper or small business owner. But Mr Pikos did not live in a house or conduct a business on this lot.
The lot was one of several he subsequently acquired in order to amalgamate them into a parcel of land on which he intended to erect three apartment towers, initially 10 storeys with 199 apartments, but with the change in the building heights in the new plan, Mr Pikos then applied for 15 storeys with 300 apartments and removal of three pre-1911 workers’ cottages. His potential profit from the change of the plan is in the many millions of dollars, far in excess of any gains to be held—
Chair: Dr Scott, your time has expired.
If you wouldn’t mind taking a seat and I’ll invite, I believe, Councillor ADAMS to respond to you. No, please—no, you’re welcome to stay.
Councillor ADAMS.
Response by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Mr Scott, for coming today. I’d like to thank you, Laurie and James, who came to see me in my office again earlier this month, as well, and I know from our discussions there that went for quite a while that there are many things we agree on and there are many things we disagree on. With regards to today, you’re here again around the application on 108 Lambert Street, and with regards to this application, there are two that we have been dealing with in this area. One was approved in July 2020, that was for the three 10-storey buildings. The second one, that was refused in December 2020, that was the proposal for the three 15-storey buildings.
In addition, we have applications for the three pre-1911 homes. Two of these, which have been approved to allow the houses to move to—TBC (to be confirmed) area in Old Cleveland Road in Camp Hill, and another one that is still under assessment and proposed to be relocated to Allen Street in Hamilton. As you know, the application for the 15 storeys which has been refused is now being appealed and sitting in Planning and Environment Court, so I do need to limit my comments in regard to this.
However, I would like to go through to provide some detail again about how we got to this stage, because you seem to be questioning again the process of the neighbourhood plan and the Community Planning Team when it came to that neighbourhood plan. You mentioned that during our meeting, as well, and following our meeting, I took a much closer look into it—as I wasn’t Planning Chair at the time—to make sure that we had followed the processes that we have in every single neighbourhood plan across the city—
Councillor interjecting.
And I am confident this is exactly what occurred. For the benefit of the Chamber, the request to be on the Community Planning Team for the neighbourhood plan were open from 6 October 2016. They closed on 4 November 2016. We had over 80 people who wanted to join the team, but for the sake of them managing the process, we usually keep it around 30, so we can actually get very decent conversation and one-on-one drilling down on what the Community Planning Team would like to see. Again, as I mentioned earlier to you, it’s regrettable that neither yourself, Laurie or James nominated to be on the team, but it was out for a month in the local area.
Regardless, there were 30—12 female, 18 males—that were appointed to the Community Planning Team between the ages of 20 and 70, and they came from a wide variety of professions. We had a restaurant manager, an architect, lawyer, surgeon, retired accountant, finance manager, student, public policy specialist, real estate agent, professor, landowners, those who live in the area and owners who lived outside the area, a very large range. The idea of the CPT—the Community Planning Team—is to represent a cross-section of interests and be in a position to represent and feed back to larger community networks.
The Council officers look at all the nominations received and make sure that they reflect the diversity of the community that the Community Planning Team are representing. I think the thing to make a clear note of is that we did have 83 nominations to be in that CPT, so it was heard about in the local area, and the other thing to take note is that the Community Planning Team is not the decision-making body. They are not the 30 people who decide what happens in the neighbourhood plan. So they contribute to the discussion and the draft with the town planners who work in Council.
Then, on top of that, there was first consultation of the draft strategy from 27 October to 8 December 2017, two in-person public information sessions in Captain Burke Park and C.T. White Park, sent to the State Government for review to make sure that they were comfortable with what was actually being suggested, and then a second round of public consultation from 5 October to 19 November 2018. Overall, more than seven weeks of consultation in between the two drafts, as well as it being up on Council for the entire time, and then the next six months of Council very carefully going through every single submission that was received during this period and outside the period, to make sure they got the balance of the entire community, as well.
Finally, it was sent back to the State Government for the second check, and they did tick that off. It was here in the Council Chamber on 19 November 2019. So, this is not something that was done overnight. It is not—it took three years from inception to its completion, with major consultation across the community and the State Government having two opportunities to make sure that they saw what was happening in Kangaroo Point as a reflection of their Planning Act that you mentioned of 2016, and of the South East Queensland Regional Plan and the dwelling targets that they set for us.
In terms of infrastructure for the area, obviously, the conversation we had earlier in the month, we are full steam ahead with the Kangaroo Point Green Bridge. It is going to take 83,000 cars off the road every year. It’ll be a crucial link for residents in Kangaroo Point wanting to get across the river. The Riverwalk, it’s in our long-term infrastructure plan but the State Government, I believe, have begun to promise delivering the missing links during their election, as well.
We are working on the ferry terminals in the area and currently, we have already gotten together, building setbacks along there to make sure that the river work and the ferry terminals can work together, as well. I know yourself and Laurie and other members of the community have written a number of letters to the LORD MAYOR since our meeting and they will be fully responded to in due course. Thank you for coming into Council today, and I appreciate the very strong interest you have in your local area.
Chair: Thank you, Dr Scott. Mr Peers will assist you.
Councillors, you will see there is a second public participant today, Mrs Kristie Clarke, who’ll be discussing the Norman Park ferry discontinuation.
Welcome, Mrs Clarke. You have five minutes, beginning when you begin.
You can sit or stand, whichever is your preference, and begin when you’re ready.
Mrs Kristie Clarke – Norman Park ferry discontinuation
Mrs Kristie Clarke: Thank you. Mr Chair, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, good afternoon. If there is one thing you take away from my address today, it is that, with respect to the removal of the Norman Park ferry service, Council has failed in meeting its own Code of Conduct. The code commits to transparent and effective processes, decision-making in the public interest, meaningful community engagement. There has been zero community consultation, no consideration of alternative options, no assessment of the impact this decision has on community stakeholders.
Decision-making has not been in the public interest. Of the 1500-plus signatories to community petitions, or the 350 people who recently attended a public meeting which LORD MAYOR SCHRINNER and Councillor MURPHY declined to attend. Council has displayed further ineffective processes by contracting the incompatible KittyCat boats, then running a duplicate service with the only remaining monohull ferry at Bulimba, where a KittyCat could have been utilised, allowing Norman Park service to continue until proper community consultation was carried out.
The Councillor’s Code of Conduct also relates to management of assets and infrastructure, and excellence in service delivery. Council has let the heritage listed ferry terminal degrade. Council did not maintain the wooden monohull ferries. Council ran the Norman Park ferry service on set-and-forget. LORD MAYOR SCHRINNER and Councillor MURPHY are negatively manipulating patronage figures to suit their own agenda, averaging that less than one passenger travelled on each service of the Norman Park ferry. The facts are, the boat crossed the river an excessive number of times per day, almost 50,000 people took this ferry service each year. They’re your statistics.
Council is running public transport services which are much less patronised, including bus services with less than 2,000 passengers per year, congesting our roads. The $7 million Council is quoting as the cost to upgrade the Norman Park ferry terminal is equally as fabricated. The facts are that $7 million buys a terminal the size of the New Farm Park facility, which accommodates two CityCats at the same time. Yet, the new river hub at New Farm Park could accommodate numerous ferries and cost only $2.5 million, but, this facility is not for public transport, but for the benefit of private boat owners—misuse of funds—which could have been allocated to delivering on Council’s public transport plan objective to reduce traffic congestion.
Cancelling the Norman Park ferry service is in direct contradiction to Council’s own strategy. Brisbane is the second most-congested city in Australia, yet Council is reducing access to non-road-based public transport options. Norman Park ratepayers are charged extraordinary premiums on rates. Excuse me, LORD MAYOR, but what are we getting for our rates money? The Councillors’ Code of Conduct also commits to social inclusion. The events of the past 12 months have been unprecedented, at a time when many people in our community are experiencing mental ill-health, the Council has chosen to cut off a vital lifeline for so many without consultation, without regard for the community.
River transport opens up a wealth of opportunities for connection, but Council has divided the city in half and increased isolation for so many. For many people in our community, our decision to live in Norman Park was heavily influenced by the existence of the ferry service, because it’s a core factor in liveability. The lack of access to the river reduces liveability, and likely erodes property values. A conservative estimate of the total land value in Norman Park climbs well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Rates revenue is directly linked to property value. Removing the Norman Park ferry service is very short-sighted.
On behalf of the Norman Park community, I urge LORD MAYOR SCHRINNER and Councillor MURPHY to refresh your memories as to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. We ask that you discontinue your generic communication and manipulation of the facts. We request proper consultation without further delay. We ask that you uphold your responsibilities as elected representatives of the River City. Thank you.
Chair: Mrs Clarke, I will invite Councillor MURPHY to respond to you.
Response by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mrs Clarke, and thank you for taking the time to come in and address Council today on the closure of the Norman Park ferry. First and foremost, can I assure you we take absolutely no pleasure in removing public transport services. I assure you that, when we do so, it is in the public interest. I’d like to take some time to address some of the key points that you’ve raised here today.
Firstly, around the lack of community consultation, as you may recall, the situation with the timber ferries was not one of Council’s choosing. It was a situation that was forced on Council suddenly. We had to pull every ferry service in the city overnight with zero consultation. Any subsequent decisions around the future network have been made with an understanding that, even if we wanted to provide the services to those terminals today, we could not do so as we only have five replacement vessels out of an original fleet of nine. So, announcing an intent to close this service and closing the service would have, in effect, been the same thing. I suspect the community response would have been the same, regardless.
In any case, I’d like to make the point that this is not the first time the Norman Park ferry has been discontinued. The cross-river ferry has never been highly patronised. It operated from 1912, primarily in private ownership, and then it came into Council’s direct control in the latter part of the 20th century. Due to low patronage, it was closed in 1996 by the Soorley Labor administration when CityCat services were first introduced. The terminal was closed until December 1998, when the Norman Park terminal was reopened on a trial basis and residents at that stage were told, use it or lose it, again by the Soorley Labor administration. Then, due to low patronage, the service was again cancelled.
The terminal was closed in December 2000, once again by the Soorley Labor administration. I know this was a long time ago, and fortunately, we have one Councillor here in this place who was around at the time. Councillor CUMMING was in the Soorley administration and he may be able to tell you the history of low patronage and—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: No, no, Councillors, Councillors, this is a public participant.
No, no. No interjections, please.
Councillor MURPHY: He—
Chair: A member of the public has come here to address us. She will be shown due respect.
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Chair, he may be able to tell you why they took a similar decision to the decision that we have taken today. The service was reopened in January 2007 on a trial basis by the then Liberal Lord Mayor Campbell Newman. Unfortunately, that trial has now lasted 14 years, and we’ve only seen a steady decline in patronage, particularly when compared to the rest of the ferry fleet. The question must be asked, how long is long enough for this trial to go on? If we can’t consider a service sustainable after 14 years, how long should we wait?
Secondly, you’ve questioned the veracity of Council’s costings and made a comparison to the less expensive river hubs. However, a recreation hub or a river hub is for short-term recreational vessels. For recreation hubs, a general accessibility standard applies. When it comes to ferry terminals, the disability standards for public transport apply, which is a much higher standard of construction and, therefore, a much higher estimate of cost. The cost estimate for the Norman Park ferry was based on a similar terminal design as to what has been developed for the Dockside terminal. So, comparing recreation hubs to public terminals is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. They seem similar, but they are vastly different.
I also know that you’ve questioned the patronage data that we have provided. The patronage data that you are quoting is TransLink ticketing data, and we have willingly shared this with the Friends of the Norman Park Ferry. It demonstrates, I believe, why the service was cancelled three times. I understand there are some residents in Norman Park who enjoyed access to New Farm Park. I’m sure there are many residents across the city who would enjoy that, but it’s clearly not feasible as a commuter route. Even one of the public speakers who came to Council last week later admitted on radio that he only used the ferry to occasionally access the markets and the Powerhouse.
This is, I think, the whole point behind the cancellation in the first place. Interestingly, the LORD MAYOR and I have received very little feedback from residents who live on the other side of the river, which leads us to believe that there’s very little reciprocal travel, i.e. New Farm residents travelling over to Norman Park, which is part of what makes a service sustainable from a cost perspective. This, coupled with the sustained low patronage over many years, shows us that this was a bespoke service, not in keeping with the principles behind public transport. Of course, 50,000 trips sounds very significant, but in context, the Bulimba to Teneriffe service services approximately 210,000 passengers every year.
Now, Ms Clarke, you stated that there were bus services with low patronage, and this is true. We do run buses with low patronage. This is usually because there is limited access to public transport in areas in which these services run. Norman Park, for example, has 29 bus stops, 14 routes comprised of 11 regular routes and two district routes, a NightLink bus service, as well as a major train station on the Cleveland line. It’s perhaps for this reason that the ferry has been unpopular over the years, because there are many other ways to travel using public transport within Norman Park. Now, whereas buses can be rerouted, ferry services require far more infrastructure to build. Terminals themselves require multiple levels of government approvals and specialised construction methodology.
Finally, I note that you raise your concern for property prices in your area and the liveability, and I note that Norman Park is considered a high-demand area for property as compared to the rest of the State, and indeed in Brisbane. So, I can’t agree that the loss of one ferry service would have a material effect on the housing market within Norman Park. In any case, compensation for any real or perceived loss due to public transport decisions is not a service the Council provides or is obligated to provide.
Now, whilst I appreciate the time that you have taken to address us today, I can assure you that Council will not be reversing this decision. We remain committed to further dialogue with residents on the future of the site. I want to thank you for taking the time to address us today.
Chair: Thank you, Mrs Clarke. Mr Peers will attend to you.
QUESTION TIME:
Chair: Councillors, we will now begin Question Time.
Are there any questions of the Lord Mayor or a Chair of any Standing Committee?
Councillor OWEN.
Question 1
Councillor OWEN: Thank you. My question this afternoon is to the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY, in the last couple of weeks, there have been two more instances of chroming reported on our Council buses. What is Council doing to keep our bus drivers safe and what can other levels of government do to help?
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you for your question, Councillor OWEN, and through you, Mr Chair, the crime that is occurring on our buses is absolutely shameful. We were all in shock at the horrific acid attack that occurred on a driver in Loganholme earlier this month. I’m sure I join with everyone in the Chamber to condemn the repulsive actions of the person who attacked this bus driver. I’m pleased to hear that he has suffered no permanent damage to his face and is expected to make a full recovery.
This attack underscores, I think, Chair, the complexities of the work that our bus drivers do, dealing with tens of thousands of members of the public every day. They see them at their best and they also see them at their worst. Brisbane City Council is one of the largest bus operators in the country, employing more than 2,200 bus operators, servicing 6,000 bus stops, and as the city’s major provider of public transport, we are absolutely committed to the safety of our staff.
Our buses carry more than 73 million passengers annually, and our bus drivers and our passengers deserve to feel safe when they travel on public transport. Now, it’s impossible to predict the random nature of each assault that happens against a driver, which is why we’re doing everything we can to protect our valued bus drivers, but this is clearly a complex issue and it’s not a problem that Local Government can tackle alone. So we’re calling everyone to help, from the residents that catch our buses all the way to the Premier’s office. Everyone needs to do their part to help our bus drivers.
The old saying, if you see something, say something still applies. We want to encourage passengers to record and report any crime or suspicious activity on public transport. That’s why today, I can announce that we’ve partnered with Crime Stoppers to develop a targeted campaign aimed at supporting safe travel on Brisbane’s buses. Over the next few months, keep your eyes peeled for important Crime Stoppers advertisements on the back of Brisbane’s buses. We want people to tell us what you know, not who you are, and we use the slogan, everyone deserves to feel safe while travelling.
Working with the public, we’ll make sure that antisocial behaviour on Brisbane’s buses is reported, and that the perpetrators face justice, but Chair, we read that this is an issue not just in Brisbane, but across the entire State, with unions like the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and the Bus and Coach Drivers Association not afraid to speak out about the State Government dragging their heels on important legislation. One of the biggest issues that our hardworking bus operators face is exposure to volatile substance use, commonly referred to as chroming.
This year alone, we’ve had 23 incidents reported on Brisbane’s buses. In one incident recently, a bus operator had to go home after suffering an asthma attack. This is why, today, I’ve written to the Attorney-General, Shannon Fentiman, to ask that the State Parliament take action to make chroming on public transport illegal. Mr Chair, as you would expect, Council has robust measures in place to manage the aftermath of chroming on our bus services, but we are unable to prevent incidences from occurring. Currently, chroming is not an offence, nor is it an offence to be in possession of volatile substances, even if it has or is intended to be misused or inhaled. In the eyes of the law, these people are doing nothing wrong.
In my letter to the Attorney-General, I am pleading with her to make chroming illegal on the public transport network, including on buses, ferries and trains, and at bus stops, railway stations, busway stations and bus interchanges, for the safety of our employees and the commuting public. Currently, it is an offence to consume food or drink, to occupy more than one seat, to play a musical instrument on a railway, to spit in or on a vehicle or infrastructure, and to take an animal—other than an assistance animal—on a public passenger vehicle, other than a CityCat. So, I’m sure that you would agree that there is scope to create a specific offence for chroming.
I, like many of my Council colleagues, including the LORD MAYOR and the DEPUTY MAYOR, have written to Transport Minister after Transport Minister, calling for an increased presence of Senior Network Officers on the Brisbane bus and ferry network, as per the Council recommendation. As a result of our campaign, they have now provided 11 new Senior Network Officers, and I welcome that. We’re now calling on the Attorney-General to help us to protect hardworking drivers from chroming.
This is a request that I know is supported by our bus drivers and many members of the Rail, Tram, and Bus Union (RTBU). Like the TWU and the Bus and Coach Drivers Association, you won’t ever hear from the RTBU leadership about chroming or about the—anything that will criticise the State Labor Government, because that would be a bridge too far, but we know that their members care about this issue. We’ve seen recently the State Government has come under fire for passing less legislation and spending less time in Parliament than any other administration this century.
Well, now is the time, Chair, to make up for lost time and to protect our bus drivers from the appalling youth crime issues affecting our workforce. If you can’t drink a coffee on a bus, you shouldn’t be able to huff paint. If you can’t bring a cat onto a bus, you shouldn’t be able to sniff glue. It doesn’t pass the pub test, Mr Chair. So, now is the time for the State Government to take action on this very important safety issue for our bus drivers—
Chair: Councillor, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor COOK.
Question 2
Councillor COOK: My question is to the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY, when will you meet with Norman Park residents in person to discuss the termination of their ferry service as you promised last year?
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Well, thank you very much, Councillor COOK, and thank you for the question. I can assure Councillor COOK that I am more than happy to take meeting requests from members of the Norman Park ferry association. I to date have only had, I think, one request from a member. We haven’t yet found a date, but I’m more than happy to meet with any of the members of the Norman Park Ferry committee in person. As you know, the LORD MAYOR and I were unable to make the public meeting which happened, I believe, two weeks ago, but we have an open-door policy when it comes to Friends of the Norman Park Ferry.
I can tell you, Councillor COOK, that many of them, I’m sure, will be meeting with me on 3 March when we will be going out to the suburbs, to Carina, to the Belmont—ironically, the Belmont Bowls Club, which is in Carina, to talk with members of the Brisbane public about a whole range of issues, not just public transport, but all about our agenda to make the Brisbane of tomorrow even better than the Brisbane of today. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Question 3
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is—when I get my glasses on, sorry, my question is to the Chair of City Planning and Economic Development Committee, Councillor ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, a new tourism campaign has been launched in the southern states with the support of Brisbane Economic Development Agency (EDA). Can you outline how Brisbane EDA and Council are planning to lure visitors back to Brisbane now COVID-19 restrictions have eased?
Chair: DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND, for the question, and yes, through you, Mr Chair, there has never been a more important time to get out there and support tourism right here in Brisbane, after what has been nothing short of a devastating 12 months for the industry. Up until December 2019, Brisbane had experienced 22 quarters of continuous growth in visitation. This came off the back of more than $12 billion invested in tourism, transport, and other major infrastructure projects across the city and the region, more than 5,000 new hotel rooms built since 2014, the completion of Howard Smith Wharves, and of course, the delivery of Brisbane Metro, Victoria Park, green bridges and Queen’s Wharf development on the horizon.
We were well on our way to building a globally recognised tourism brand and world-class leisure destination. Fast forward to the quarter ending June 2020 and we lost an estimated $20.7 million in tourism and expenditure every single day in Brisbane. The Brisbane Economic Development Agency have taken a leading role to help restore the sector, working with city leaders, partners and local businesses to deliver a series of campaigns and initiatives across the visitor economy.
Businesses in the CBD, and particularly those in accommodation, dining, arts and entertainment sectors were undoubtedly the hardest hit when restrictions and social distancing measures were at their highest, making it extremely difficult to plan ahead for venues and secure entertainment or events during what is normally their busiest time of the year, but if one thing we have learnt through COVID-19, it’s that building strength and diversity in our local economy is the key to recovery, and that’s exactly what we did.
Early months of recovery in Brisbane were focused on building confidence in the community to be able to get out and about and discover their own backyard. From December through to February, Brisbane EDA delivered a targeted six-week intrastate marketing campaign, focused on drawing visitors from the outskirts of Brisbane into the city to stay a few nights and experience our city’s diverse summer calendar. Indicative results show the campaign drove more than 40,000 clicks direct to retailer booking platforms and around 35,000 views on the Visit Brisbane page.
With over 300 days of sunshine a year, we are a city that spends most of our time outside, enjoying the sights and the scenery, and that’s what we’re promoting, from bay to the river and up to the hinterland, we definitely have a competitive advantage over other cities. Major events are a key tourism driver for Brisbane, and in the past few weeks alone, we’ve launched a series of events including Curiocity Brisbane, World Science Festival, Brisbane Cycling Festival, Nitro World Games, and of course, in May, the NRL (National Rugby League) Magic Round. These events attract interstate and intrastate visitation to the city and are a huge economic boost to our local economy, but the private sector is also working with us to make sure that they support the local economy.
We see developments in new breweries across the city, new experiences for people to experience in Brisbane. And at a Committee last week, we saw the building and construction industry going above and beyond to provide—public plaza and realm outcomes that are fantastic, not just for people that live in Brisbane, but for when you bring friends and relatives or people visiting Brisbane, as well. The outcomes that we see at Coronation Drive where we have a beautiful heritage house restored with the public plaza and Fish Lane with Town Square and the connection it’s going to have to the fantastic Metro project, as well.
Even more exciting at the moment, under assessment, we have the world’s greenest building. Now, that has the ability to not only provide exemplar residential and public realm outcome, but to attract tourists for its architecture and its design. This building has even had a double thumbs-up from Sir David Attenborough about its green credentials and going above and beyond when it comes to building and construction, in making icons an important part of the city—
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: I think the Chair is misleading the Chamber. That wasn’t actually David Attenborough’s account—
Chair: No, I don’t think so. That’s not a point of order. Not a point of order.
Councillor ADAMS.
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: I take the note, Mr Chair. I’ll take the interjection that the Green Councillor is against green buildings—
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Brisbane EDA’s new campaign, called Brisbane. Even Better With You will run over the next month and is primarily aimed at Sydney, regional New South Wales, and Melbourne market, but will also reach Canberra, Hobart, Darwin, Adelaide, Perth, and the Gold Coast, delivering a series of high-impact TV, radio, cinema, and paid social and video ads. We are confident that the multichannel, tactical campaign will provide a much-needed boost to tourism over the next few months and will look to continue this into the winter periods. Brisbane is getting better all the time and this campaign is about capturing the essence of how Brisbane has evolved as a visitor destination with more to see and do for holidaymakers and residents alike.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor COOK.
Question 4
Councillor COOK: Thank you. My question is to the Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, Councillor HOWARD. Councillor HOWARD, late last week, your Community Facilities team sent out a request for stakeholder feedback on a proposal by Easts Rugby Union to redevelop and commercialise C.P. Bottomley Park. This site has been the subject of an ongoing dispute between Easts, this LNP Council, and Coorparoo Cricket, which ultimately last year saw Coorparoo Cricket booted out of their home of over 20 years.
My local community and Labor Councillors have rallied behind Coorparoo Cricket, signing petitions, attending rallies, launching urgency motions, so that they could stay in their beloved clubhouse and on their grounds, which has a very rare turf wicket. Despite this, they remain without a home ground and feel abandoned by this Council. This Council and you, personally, have attacked the club and dragged their name through the mud with numerous allegations, many of which have now been exposed as mistruths.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Two minutes and a question would be nice.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Hang on. Hang on. No, no, no. No commentary, please. Councillor COOK has 45 seconds. I trust she will ask the question within that time.
Councillor COOK: Thank you.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: No, no, Councillor JOHNSTON. Allow Councillor COOK to ask her question, please.
Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: Councillor HOWARD, you and your team have clearly known about Easts’ redevelopment plans for some time, so my question to you is this, did this knowledge influence your decision to kick Coorparoo Cricket out of their home of over 20 years, or do you plan to stick to your story that it’s all the club’s fault?
Chair: Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank Councillor COOK through you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, as has been said many times in this Chamber, Coorparoo Cricket Club undertook unapproved works at C.P. Bottomley Park in the first half of 2020, causing an estimated $100,000 in damage. The club had an informal agreement with the head lessee at C.P. Bottomley Park to operate on the site, but this has since been terminated. So, Council supported the club to try and find another location to operate. However, the suggestions put forward were declined by the club.
Should the club want to explore any further opportunities for lease arrangements at existing Council lease sites, they are welcome to apply through the normal processes. It is not Council’s responsibility to mediate between head lessees and those in higher agreement arrangements. We want to see cricket continue at C.P. Bottomley Park, and we will continue to support this. Easts Rugby Union have submitted an application for works to Council which we are yet to review. As part of the standard application for works process, once we receive an application for works, this first step is to consult with internal Council stakeholders.
As part of this, Councillor COOK has been sent a copy of the Easts Rugby Union’s application for works. Once Councillor COOK provides her feedback, Council will assess the application, so there is no decision through you, Mr Chair. I might also add that East Rugby Union has an arrangement with Churchie to utilise the fields for the next cricket season, this 2021-22, and that works are continuing in this space.
Councillor COOK: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor COOK.
Councillor COOK: Very interesting history, but did this knowledge influence the decision to kick the club out of the grounds?
Chair: Thank you, Councillor COOK.
Councillor HOWARD, please proceed.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. The answer’s no. The answer is—we received the application for works just last week, which has been—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HOWARD: Which has just been—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, Councillor HOWARD is answering the question. It was a long question, there was much to it, and Councillor HOWARD is answering it. Please allow her to do so.
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t know that they actually want to hear the answer. I think they’re more interested in throwing barbs across the Chamber, and it’s a great shame, Mr Chair, because—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I’m hearing a low murmur from you, but it would be very loud, I suspect, to Councillor HOWARD, who’s very close to you. Please allow her to answer the question that Councillor COOK asked.
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: So, through you, Mr Chair, the Easts Rugby Union is the head tenant for the whole of C.P. Bottomley Park and they have held that community lease over Council land at 31 Halifax Street, Norman Park, and it’s been associated with the site for more than 50 years. The club has 4,000 members, of which 1,000 are juniors. Can I just say through you, Mr Chair, that this opportunity that has been afforded to Councillor COOK to have some input into what Easts Rugby Union are proposing is the proper way for local Councillors to have their say on a local sports field.
We’re very much looking forward to hearing what Councillor COOK has to say about the proposed plans. As I said, the application for works has been submitted. We will await all stakeholder input and then a decision will be made. Thank you.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor HUTTON.
Question 5
Councillor HUTTON: Thank you, Chair. My question is for the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. Councillor McLACHLAN, the Schrinner Administration is currently upgrading a number of dangerous intersections across the city to make travel safer for all. Can you please update the Chamber on the progress of some of these intersection transformations?
Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, I thank Councillor HUTTON for the question. I’m always pleased to have the opportunity to update the Chamber and those listening or watching on YouTube about the progress of our infrastructure upgrades. All works that Council undertakes are to make our roads safer for walkers, for cyclists and for drivers, so we can all have confidence about how we choose to move around our city. One of the most recent projects to reach completion is the Black Spot project in Belmont. The Black Spot program funds several critical safety upgrades in Brisbane each year. This is a really important, federally funded grant program that helps Council target the most dangerous intersections across the city.
In the current financial year, we have been successful in receiving funding for four locations with a high number of serious crashes across the road network. TMR, Transport and Main Roads, assess these locations and approve them for funding, which is provided by the Australian Government and flows through the State Government to Council. The intersection of London Road and Stanbrough Road in Belmont used to be a four-way priority-controlled intersection featuring two stop signs. Severe crashes were happening here because drivers on London Road were failing to give way to through traffic on Stanbrough Road.
This intersection has now been transformed into a roundabout, which is providing much more controlled and coordinated traffic flow and better visibility. This work took about four months and finished up in the last couple of weeks. I understand, Councillor MURPHY, you’ve inspected and given your thumbs up to the roundabout, and I’m sure this community will also appreciate the outcome here. Mr Chair, in previous meetings, I’ve given a number of updates on the intersection upgrades currently underway in Councillor SRI’s ward, the Montague Road and Victoria Street improvements in West End.
We started work at this location in October 2020 to install traffic lights with signalised crossings and new on-road cycling facilities and new footpaths. Although there were some wet weather delays, I’m glad to see and to say we’re very close to seeing this one wrapped up with practical completion expected in April. For those who don’t recognise the intersection by its street names, it’s at the intersection of Aldi, West End, on one of the corners. Our project is a real win for pedestrians, in particular. Although, there’s a pedestrian refuge a little further down the road, signalised crossings were really needed here to prevent more people taking chances walking across the intersection, which had previously very poor visibility.
Mr Chair, I’m also pleased to report that April will see the start of construction on the Chelsea Road and Rickertt Road intersection upgrade in Ransome, in Councillor MURPHY’s ward, again. This project is jointly funded by Council through our Better Roads for Brisbane program, which is a joint $500 million commitment with the Australian Government through their Urban Congestion Fund to deliver safety and congestion improvements right across Brisbane.
The Chelsea Road and Rickertt Road intersection will transform the stop sign controlled intersection to a much safer traffic light intersection with signalised pedestrian and cyclist crossings. We’re anticipating that we’ll be able to finish the intersection upgrade by the end of the calendar year. The new Wakerley Bikeway will also be delivered at the same time through the public and active transport program, which will allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely ride and walk along Rickertt Road.
Mr Chair, another Black Spot project also due to finish up in the coming days, the new traffic lights at the intersection of Ipswich Road and Ponsonby Street in Annerley will be operational by the end of the week, weather permitting. This intersection used to be controlled by give way and stop signage, and the significant volume of traffic on Ipswich Road was resulting in drivers making risky manoeuvres to access the side streets. Again, this work will have taken about four to five months to complete, another safety improvement delivered for Ipswich Road. We also have Black Spot projects in the suburbs of Wacol and St Lucia that will be constructed this financial year.
More broadly, other infrastructure projects that will kick off in the first half of 2021 include the Melton Road and Hows Road intersection upgrade in Nundah, main construction works on the Norris Road upgrade, so pedestrian improvement upgrade for the Vulture Street East in East Brisbane and main construction works on the replacement of the Gresham Street Bridge in Ashgrove. Wherever possible, Mr Chair, I’ll update the Chamber on our great suite of safety upgrades, all of which are helping to make the Brisbane of tomorrow better than the Brisbane of today.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor SRI.
Question 6
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. While the connectivity benefits of new inner city footbridges are obvious, many residents have raised legitimate concerns about how impacts to public greens—about impacts to public greenspace, noting that if a bridge landing takes up an area of public parkland, this must at least be offset by the creation of new parkland nearby, rather than just spending a comparatively small amount of money on extra furniture and landscaping within existing parks.
If the preferred locations for new footbridges are likely to result in a loss of public greenspace, can you confirm that budget allocations, cost estimates, and business cases for these projects will factor in the cost of creating new parkland in the local area to offset the loss?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, Councillor SRI for the question. Look, this is something that we’ve discussed in person, and I’m very proud that we’re out to consultation on the next two green bridges that we have put forward. So, obviously, Kangaroo Point, Breakfast Creek, well underway. We’re in procurement with construction to start as early as this year on those exciting projects, and then we’re doing further planning work when it comes to our future green bridges, as well, and two in particular that link in key destinations with West End to Toowong and West End to St Lucia.
This is part of our agenda to increase connectivity across the city, to support public and active transport, and to connect parts of the city that do not have connections in a way that we know there is big demand for. This is definitely the case when it comes to the green bridges that we’re talking about at the moment and planning with the community on. Obviously, there’s been a number of options put forward. There’s been several options for each location put forward, and we do genuinely want to hear the community’s feedback. I do think, though, that there is some significant overstating of somehow the claim that there’s going to be a loss of greenspace.
This is public infrastructure in public parks. This is what we’re building here. It’s like if you built a toilet block in a park, saying, oh, there’s a loss of greenspace there. This is public infrastructure we’re building here. This is not some kind of private infrastructure. This is not something that will reduce the usability of a park, but they will increase the usability and connectivity, in fact, parts of greenspace that are currently not connected. So, I dispute the idea that somehow, a green bridge causes a loss of greenspace. What we are talking about here is maybe a footprint of a pylon of the bridge.
So, we’re talking a few square metres of land here, where a pylon will land on each side of the river, and a series of pathways that connect into it. Now, pathways, last time I checked, are infrastructure you would expect to see in a park. We would expect to see pathways. The area even under the bridge is still area that can be used by the public. So, I think it’s quite deceptive and misleading to suggest that this will create a loss of greenspace. I don’t think that is the case, and that’s certainly not the way I see it, because this is fundamentally sustainable infrastructure.
This is fundamentally infrastructure that helps reduce traffic congestion and supports sustainable methods of travel. Yes, there will be views on where it should go. Yes, there will be some residents who don’t want green bridges. I get that. This is one of those cities where everyone can have their say, and it is a fantastic thing, but to suggest that a green bridge will cause a loss of greenspace, I think, is misleading. I think that’s a misrepresentation of what these things will actually deliver.
They’ll deliver great benefits to the community, and I would be careful, Councillor SRI, in overplaying that component of the project because we know that one of the things, unfortunately, we’ve seen time and time again with Green politicians is that, because they will never, ever be in Government—certainly not in my lifetime—they can promise everything and they can say, oh, we would do that if we were in, but then when it actually comes to the decision-making point, I would hope that Councillor SRI would support green infrastructure, just like I would hope he’d support green buildings, as well, just like I hope he would support green methods of travel and public transport improvements.
So, this is where the rubber hits the road, Councillor SRI, through you, Mr Chair. There’s an opportunity to support a greener future for our city, but opposing green bridges is not a way to do that. So we shall see. We will, obviously, listen to the community’s views. There will be decisions made on where the appropriate locations are, but this is infrastructure that enhances the city, infrastructure that enhances connectivity and sustainability, and enhances the opportunities for people to use parkland on both sides of the river and have connections between both. So, these are fantastic bits of infrastructure, and I look forward to working with the community to deliver them.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor DAVIS.
Question 7
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability (EP&S) Committee, Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM, in your Committee report today is a petition from Di Farmer MP, asking Council to hand back a parcel of land at Balmoral State High School to the State. For the benefit of the Chamber, can you outline Council’s response to the petition and clarify any other public statements made in relation to this matter?
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, thanks to Councillor DAVIS for the question. Indeed, in today’s EP&S Committee report, we’ll have the petition response for Di Farmer’s last-minute campaign to remove Balmoral Sports Park and return it to the Education Department, but where do we begin, Mr Chair? Well, as we know, when the LNP Government was elected in 2012, they were left a basket case of an Education Department.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: No, no, no. Councillors, please allow the answer to be heard in silence.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: With a massive 300—
Chair: No, no, no.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM—
Just, as soon as I stop speaking is not an invitation for others to interject. Please allow the answer to be heard.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Well, we know that they were left a basket case of an Education Department with a massive $300 million maintenance backlog and crumbling facilities right across the State. Following lobbying from local residents—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: —and the local MP, Aaron Dillaway, in 2014, Council was appointed as trustee for one of Balmoral State High School’s ovals, meaning the State saved money on field maintenance. At the time, The Courier-Mail reported that the local Councillor, then Councillor Sutton, had said the sports and recreational needs of the community were growing. Clearly, at the time, this was a good outcome for the community. Since then, the park has been available for use by residents. It’s also been used by a number of community cricket clubs, like Holland Park Junior Cricket and Bulimba Cricket Club. Then, out of the blue, last year, we saw Di Farmer start a petition—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: —calling for Council to hand back the land to the State—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: —at, quote, zero cost. Well, Mr Chair, what Di Farmer failed to mention was that Council doesn’t own the land to hand back. The State owns the land, and that never changed, but she didn’t want to let her residents know that.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: What changed is that a school with land deemed to be surplus at the time had some land granted to Council as trustee for sport and recreation purposes. Council maintains this land, and we know that this field has had a number of seasonal licences over the years, providing much-needed inner city greenspace for our local clubs, including cricket clubs. The petition was a desperate, 11th hour attempt by the Labor Party to create an issue out of nothing ahead of a State election.
If the State really wanted to have a discussion on this, they could have started by writing to Council, maybe even picking up the phone, but instead, they engaged in a misleading Facebook post and petition. It was only after the LNP’s candidate for Bulimba, Anthony Bishop, pointed out to residents that the State already owned the land—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: —and had full power to do what their petition called for that we finally saw some communication from the State. I can just imagine the scrambling behind the scenes.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Quick, who do we know in Minister Grace’s office? Well, it took two days after Anthony Bishop called out Labor’s hypocrisy and incompetence before they finally found someone in the Education Department to write to Council.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: The Member has done her constituents and Balmoral State High School a great disservice by turning this into just another political game.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: She could have looked at the issue months earlier, but she chose to wait until the very end of her term to raise the issue with the Council via a hostile petition. Council—I am very proud that Council has a no net loss policy when it comes to our greenspace, and I would hope that the community does not lose out in any future development of this land, should the State revoke Council’s trusteeship. This Administration is often told that residents are calling for more parks. Well, here we have the Labor Party saying that they think the Morningside Ward has got enough parkland.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: No more parkland needed. In fact, they think there should be less. Indeed, we had the Leader of the Opposition admit in Committee last week that it was a fait accompli and the State would be taking the land back, regardless of the response.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: I do hope the State Government will engage with residents soon about what it plans to build on this parkland. Since the matter was raised in Chamber last year, Di Farmer has made some interesting comments to her constituents about the matter. Di Farmer has said that, unless Council agrees to transferring the land back, it will be, quote, ‘a long and torturous legal process for the Government to get it back’. Mr Chair, this does not align with the legal advice that Council has received. The Minister does not need Council to agree to the revocation. The Minister may revoke all or part of the reserve if they determine it to be in the public interest. That is their call.
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 8
Councillor CASSIDY: Oh, thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, Councillor ALLAN. In recent Questions on Notice, the Labor Team asked how much money this LNP Administration has spent on graphics and flythrough animations of big CBD projects like Victoria Park and the Brisbane Metro, and we got no response to those questions. We then asked the CEO directly and the response we got was this, and I quote, the request to identify conclusive costs associated with artists’ impressions and/or animations on projects would take considerable time.
So, basically, the LNP has spent so much money on promoting themselves in these inner city projects that they have lost count. It would be great if they spent these countless dollars on improving suburbs or actually getting on with these projects, Chair. So, my question to Councillor ALLAN is, as the Finance Chair, can you tell us here today how much this LNP Administration has wasted on artists’ impressions and flythroughs of these inner city projects?
Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you thank Councillor CASSIDY for the question, but I think the whole notion of, or premise of, his question is flawed, in that he sort of seems to suggest that our communication activities with the residents of Brisbane are somehow pointless and worthless. We know for a fact that the communications that this Administration undertakes with the community are very well regarded. Now, whether that’s publications that we send out to the community, whether it’s features we put on our website, whether it’s videos that depict some of our key projects, all of these have value to the residents of the city.
So, I think the notion that this is not money well spent is inaccurate. I think that the community values these things. I think they are important because we’re obviously spending a lot of money on some very significant projects for the benefit of this city, and it’s important, where possible, that we depict what these types of services are going to look like. The Metro flythrough, as Councillor CASSIDY described, are key to this communication. We have to put this information out, these videos out, to support the consultation that we’re going to have with the community. If you walk into a meeting or a consultation with the residents and you’ve got a blank piece of paper, you cannot have a valuable consultation.
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, the Committee Chair has been debating the question for his entire answer, but it was specifically about costs. So, I get he’s got commentary on what I said, but the question was about how much has been spent on these items.
Chair: I appreciate that. Councillor ALLAN has a great deal of time remaining in his answer, and he is addressing elements of your question, I’m confident in that.
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. So, with the context of the amounts that are spent on these things, they’re all budgeted through the various allocations within the budget. Any of the elements that are associated with Metro or other communication activities, for example, are included in the budget. After we—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: Councillor CASSIDY, do you want to hear the answer or not? Okay, so, Mr Chair—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: Mr Chair, these are all covered in the budget. The Councillors, in the information sessions after the budgets are handed down, have an opportunity to ask questions about the costs and the usage of the costs that are embedded in the budget. So, I think the opportunity is here for Councillor CASSIDY to review the budget, perhaps review some of the answers from the information sessions, and his answers will be embedded in that. So, thank you very much, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor HUANG.
Question 9
Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, Councillor ALLAN. Councillor ALLAN, Council is rolling out an upgrade to two of our SES (State Emergency Service) depots. Can you update Council on the Brisbane SES units and outline how these expansions will ensure SES depots are prepared for the next potential disaster?
Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor HUANG for your question. Obviously, this morning’s Committee presentation about the Brisbane City SES units has been a catalyst for your question. The Brisbane City SES form an integral part of the city’s ability to cope with weather events and also support the efforts of certain State agencies, such as the police and fire services. The SES, as most would know, is a volunteer organisation which provides support to the community in times of emergency and disaster. I’m pretty sure we’re all familiar with their bright orange uniforms, synonymous with the SES.
Functions of the SES include providing damage repairs to areas of people’s houses while they’re still habitable during a storm, emergency sandbagging during floods, assisting Queensland Police with missing person and forensic searches, to name a few. With Brisbane City’s SES units spread out across north, south, east and west, residents and businesses should be comforted knowing that these volunteers are strategically located to support our communities at a moment’s notice. This is a significant operation and I just want to put into perspective the size of our SES unit. There are 807 volunteers. These volunteers are broken into active, probationary and reserve.
There is a further 700 people who are on the waiting list to join, which shows that the community certainly support this service and wants to be engaged. The SES have 42 vehicles, including medium trucks, vans and utes, seven ATVs (all-terrain vehicles) and 11 flood boats. Our SES units are well resources to carry out their important functions. On average, each year, SES volunteers will attend 538 tasks, of which, 495 are storm-related, and then, to assist the police and ambulance services with 43 tasks. As an interesting fact from the past, during the 2014 storm, there were 3,500 tasks undertaken by the SES.
Being a volunteer isn’t just about waiting for a call-up to assist. Volunteers are continually training and honing their skills. Generally, volunteers dedicate one night per week for about two to three hours and one weekend per month, for a total of about 16 hours of training. In terms of a little update about a couple of the SES facilities, the Salisbury SES unit will be relocating to the Richlands depot as part of the south-western group. Salisbury depot is closing due to Cross River Rail activity. With approximately 128 members, as well as equipment transferring to Richlands depot, an extension is warranted.
The Richlands SES extension project will construct and connect a new, seven-bay garage, including storage facilities, to the existing garage. In total, more than 190 members and equipment will call the Richlands depot home. At present, the facility at Ascot is above capacity in storing new equipment due to the increase in team members. Additional equipment, including watercraft and vehicles, are required to support its operational needs. The Ascot SES carport extension project involves extending the existing caged carport and constructing an additional caged carport, as well as associated concrete works.
This expansion will accommodate the increase in vehicles and equipment and ensure the Ascot SES can successfully service and respond to the needs of the Brisbane area. I know the LORD MAYOR and the whole Council team are always appreciative of our SES units across the city and for all of those who volunteer. Whilst we may not want to have a visit from the SES, because typically, it’s when we’re in need, we are nonetheless delighted that they can respond to these events when we need them. So, in summary, I’d like to thank the SES, the SES volunteers, and obviously, their families who allow them to go out every week and undertake their training. Thank you.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 10
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is once again to Councillor ALLAN, the Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee. Following on with the theme of refusing to be transparent with Brisbane residents, this LNP Administration has repeatedly refused to reveal its intended rates hike for July. Rates were hiked, of course, in January and they will be increased again in July. Despite repeatedly asking for a previous suburb-by-suburb breakdown of both rises, the LNP has kept them secret. So, my question to Councillor ALLAN, given that you have budgeted for revenue increases in the forward estimates of the current budget, just how bad is this second rates hike going to be?
Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, thank you, Councillor CASSIDY, for the question. Now, we’ve had the discussion on rates in this Chamber a few times in recent weeks, so I will go back and just provide a little bit of background. There was a rates increase in July 2020 that was outlined in the LORD MAYOR’s budget speech, and it’s been evident on people’s budget—sorry, rates notices since then, but the rates increase for the first two quarters of this financial year was fully offset by the COVID-19 rebate, which the LORD MAYOR also announced in the budget. In the first quarter of this calendar year, the rates increase are largely offset for many ratepayers—certainly, in my case, fully offset—by the Kingsford Smith Drive rebate.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: So, in the context of this year, we will have one rates increase. That’s obviously likely to be considered in the forthcoming budget. Councillor CASSIDY is obviously keen to know the scale of that increase, but ultimately, we won’t know that until we’ve finished the budget development process, and that’s what we’re doing right now.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: It would be remiss to even speculate on what that increase might be until we’ve had a chance to go through a very thorough process of considering what the city’s revenues are likely to be, what the costs are going to be over coming years, and obviously, in this environment, where we’re coming out of a very difficult economic environment off the back of COVID-19, it’s made our budgeting efforts even more difficult and more complex than ever before. Certainly, while I haven’t been in this place for a long time, I do know that this budget is probably going to be one of the most challenging that we’ve had in the past decade. So, while I recognise that the—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: No, no more.
Councillor ALLAN: —that Councillor CASSIDY is keen to know what the increase is, I might remind him as to Labor’s history with rate rises.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: When they were last in administration, they increased rates by six per cent on four occasions. That’s something this Administration has never gone close to, and—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: —certainly, when looked at—in recent years, we’ve had very modest rate increases, nothing like what they did when they were in administration. So all I can say to the residents of Brisbane, we will continue to go through the budget development process diligently. We will look to minimise any rate increases, but obviously, we have a big, growing city to support, and that will need to be reflected in any rate increases. Thank you.
Chair: That concludes Question Time. Councillors—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.
508/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Jared CASSIDY moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion—
That Brisbane City Council reinstates kerbside collection using the windfall highlighted in the Quarterly Financial Report tabled today.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, you have three minutes to urgency. Please wait one moment while we adjust your clock. Please proceed.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you. Thanks very much, Chair. This is urgent today because it has been revealed in the Quarterly Financial Report that is before us today that this LNP Administration can well and truly afford to bring back this vital community service, and what it confirms is that it could have afforded to continue it all along. That’s why I think we should be discussing this issue today before us. Chair, the net revenue for Council in these papers is up a whopping $23 million. Revenue from Development Services is up $10 million. This is a huge windfall for this Council. It even shows the rates and utility charges in that quarter are up, as well.
So, while this LORD MAYOR is basically printing money, he is cutting basic and vital services. Rates are going up, Chair, but services are going down. Now, this is urgent because we know that the LORD MAYOR has been telling mistruths to Brisbane residents. We need to fix this today and we can do that as a Chamber and set the record straight. We all have this information before us. He certainly could have afforded kerbside collection all along in his budget.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, many of your points are substantive. Can I please ask you to return your comments to the procedural matter at hand, please?
Councillor CASSIDY: Of course, Chair, this is urgent for us to not only debate but decide on this today, to reinstate kerbside collection, because Brisbane streets are becoming dumping grounds. We’ve seen that from information released recently in questions on notice and we’ve seen that over the last many months in other information released by this Administration. Their own figures suggest their decision to cut kerbside collection has led directly to an increase in illegal dumping. So we note before us today that the papers are here today. This is fresh information and we can act on this as a Council Chamber and reinstate this vital community service.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: On the matter of urgency.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Steve GRIFFITHS 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 Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 19 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: Councillors, we will proceed to the reports. The Establishment and Coordination Committee report, please.
The LORD MAYOR.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), Chair of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Krista ADAMS), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 15 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, there is. Is my microphone on? Yes, there it is, Mr Chair, thank you. First of all, I just wanted to, on behalf of all of us, welcome Councillor COOK back and also baby Arlo, as well, who’s ridiculously cute. It was great to see her in the Chamber today. Moving forward, I did want to talk about the function that we had on Sunday here in City Hall which many of our Councillors were at, including Councillor CUMMING, in relation to the COVID-19 Direct Assistance grants.
It was a fantastic event here in the building where we saw hundreds of representatives of local community, arts, culture and sporting organisations come together to give us the opportunity to thank them for their efforts during what has been an incredibly tough year that we’ve been through with COVID-19, with their difficulty in being able to raise funds, with a lot of things being shut down. The COVID-19 Direct Assistance program was able to support them at a critical time with the payment of grants of up to $10,000 to help them with the bills that were continuing to roll in or with essential maintenance jobs.
So, we saw more than 300 different organisations benefiting from that and we also saw around 158 different maintenance projects that were able to be provided, as well. As I was talking to the attendees—and, as I mentioned, these are from the community organisations, sporting and cultural organisations, right across the City, in every ward. After the official part of the event had finished, it was just incredible to hear all of the stories of how that targeted funding at the right time had made a difference in their organisation.
It’s interesting, because we heard Labor bagging this program out as they do, they just oppose everything, but from the perspective of these organisations, it was money at the right time to help them through at a critical time, and there was a great level of appreciation for the support that Council was able to provide and, in particular, the fact that this funding was turned around very quickly. In most cases, we were aiming to try and get—once we’d received an application and it was determined to be a compliant application, the money was paid usually within a week, and that was a great outcome so that it got the funds quickly to support their organisations.
So, there was story after story coming from those organisations about how that targeted funding had helped during a critical time. Obviously, we’ll continue to work with those organisations to make sure that we see them through, but things are looking up this year. There was a great level of excitement in the room about how things are getting reactivated again, and whether that’s sporting, cultural activities, the arts and other community organisations, even things like C&K community kindies were represented there, as well. So, it was a great outcome and you can be assured, all Councillors, that the program that was introduced in the budget last year made a very big difference where it mattered at the right time.
I did want to just refer to the issue that was on everyone’s lips in the last week, and that’s the issue of Facebook. Obviously, it’s impacted on many different organisations, including Brisbane City Council having—we all woke up that morning to see that our website had been—our Facebook page had been taken off. We discovered quickly that we were not the only ones, and so there were many organisations that were impacted. I very clearly spoke out at the time. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. This is not the way to conduct a negotiation, by bullying a whole range of organisations, and that we should absolutely support the right of journalists and the organisations that they work for to be funded for the news that they produce.
This is something we should all support. We have seen our community newspapers closing down and going online, and we have seen that big move to online. For an organisation like Facebook then to put the sharing of that news in jeopardy, even though, I have to say, the sharing of that news on their site generates massive traffic and, therefore, massive revenue for them indirectly. It is something that was obviously a shock to all of us. We made the decision then very quickly to make sure that we stop, as an organisation, any kind of advertising on Facebook, and that stoppage has continued. I do see today that Facebook has issued a statement saying that they’re close to reaching an agreement with the Federal Government on this.
I always knew that there would be some kind of agreement reached. We’ll be interested to see the details of that agreement, and hopefully, it’s one that supports quality journalism and the production of quality news for our community because that is something that we all support and that I know we’ll get a good outcome if that occurs, but credit to the Government for standing strong. There are not too many governments that have the guts to take on a multinational like Facebook. So, it was the right thing to do, and I hope we get the right outcome here that supports the production of quality news for our community.
I just did want to say that, as an aside, though, it was interesting because Facebook, through their algorithms, took down news sites, and as we’re looking through all the news sites that disappeared off their Facebook page, there was one so-called news site that escaped Facebook’s attention, and that was the BrisbaneNow fake news site.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, even Mark Zuckerberg knows that this is not real news, this is just fake news, and he’s like, yeah, no problem there, that’s just fake news.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: That’s not real news, that’s fake news, so BrisbaneNow, that can stay up, no problem.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Meanwhile—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Well, I must be the only one because no one else reads that rubbish.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: All right, look, it’s something that sticks in my craw that they actually claim that this is some kind of legitimate news source when we’ve got legitimate journalists right here in the Chamber covering Council and they all do a fantastic job. They don’t always say nice things about us, but that’s the nature of the news. So, Labor’s fake news didn’t fool Facebook. Facebook knew that it was fake news, and so the fake news site on Facebook continues.
I also did want to cover, when it comes to the Quarterly Financial Report which is in front of us, a little bit more fake news that Labor is trying to get out there. We heard the terms that Councillor CASSIDY used before, Mr Chair, that we had somehow received a windfall. A windfall, okay, that’s interesting terminology. So, according to Councillor CASSIDY, he’s been going out there saying, ‘oh, the budget’s shot. Shocking financial management. The budget’s—everything’s rubbish’. This is what he says.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Then he thought, ‘oh, but we got a windfall’.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, first of all, that’s counterintuitive, but let’s actually have a look at what he was talking about. There are only two potential items that I think he could be referring to. One of them, Mr Chair, was an early payment of a CBIC (City of Brisbane Investment Corporation) dividend. Now, that’s not a windfall because we were expecting that, anyway, but every dollar of that goes to the Green Future Fund, not to kerbside collection or anything else, but to the Green Future Fund, which is what I made the commitment to the people of Brisbane would happen. When we get dividends in from CBIC, it goes to the Green Future Fund, to enhance and expand our parks and greenspace for the community of Brisbane. That is a priority—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —and will remain a priority. The only other thing that he could potentially be referring to is infrastructure charges, because he has mentioned in his public misstatements about, oh, all this extra money coming in from developers. Now, developers are required to pay infrastructure charges when they go ahead with developments, as they should, as they should, but to suggest that somehow, Council is flush with cash from this is a complete misrepresentation of the reality.
Let me go through the actual figures about infrastructure charges in recent years. So far to date, year to date, in this financial year, so we’re approaching the end of February, there have been around $35 million in infrastructure charges paid. Now, yes, that’s a lot of money, but listen to how much has been paid in previous years. Last year, $94 million. The year before, $99 million. The year before that, $133 million, and the year before that—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
509/2020-21
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, you have a further 10 minutes.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. The year before that, $176 million. So, let me go through those again. So if you go back a few years, that last number I mentioned, $176 million in one year. This year, $35 million. That is down significantly by any measure, by any measure. So, to suggest that somehow it’s a windfall is rubbish. We are down significantly. This is where you see the impacts of economic conditions, building conditions, the construction industry, the property industry, flowing through to Council. This is exactly why there are impacts on our budget, because there’s a whole range of activity out there in the community and in the economy that is down, and this is certainly one of those areas.
So, to suggest we’re having a windfall is just absolutely fake news and misleading. We no doubt will hear from Labor Councillors, as I said, that they’ll claim that the budget is in some kind of terrible situation, but I think, really, you need to start looking at page four where—and this appears in every financial report where you look at the ratios and it talks about Council’s performance for the period ending 25 December 2020. This is a snapshot of a quarter, one quarter in a year. We set ourselves—and there’s—those targets are actually endorsed and assessed by other agencies, as well, external to us, including Queensland Government agencies, targets for various financial ratios.
Every single one of those targets has been met, yet you’ll hear Labor say, ‘oh, the budget’s in a terrible position’. We pride ourselves on responsible financial management. We also pride ourselves on running a balanced budget, which includes a small surplus. Now, why do we have a small surplus? Because we know there will be unexpected things happening during the year that we need a buffer zone for. Why don’t we have a big surplus? We don’t have a big surplus because we want to inject that money back into the economy, back into projects across the city.
So, we have traditionally run a balanced budget with a small surplus and that is our approach going forward. That’s what we always seek to achieve. It has been incredibly difficult in recent times, incredibly difficult, particularly given that our incomes have been down by more than $180 million, including what I referred to before with infrastructure charges and various other revenue coming in that is down, but the budget is meeting all of its targets from a financial ratio point of view. You will not find a better set of numbers anywhere in the country, in particular in George Street, you certainly won’t find one there.
So, we’ll hear a lecture from Labor about financial management and the budget, but that’s like hearing a lecture from Dracula about why he wants to get his hands on the blood bank, basically. So, he will also—Labor Councillors will also talk about projects being delayed, but they won’t tell you about all the projects that are ahead of schedule. They won’t tell you about that. They will be very selective in what they talk about. So, they will not talk about, for example, the almost $3 million for Metro. We’re actually ahead of schedule with Metro and accelerating the project.
They won’t tell you about the $13 million accelerated expenditure in the major bikeways and Suburban Enhancement Fund projects, where we’re powering ahead with important projects. They won’t tell you either, Mr Chair, about the fantastic work being done right across the city in so many areas, like for example the accelerated expenditure in the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade, Newnham Road and Wecker Road, and the Rochedale and Priestdale Road projects, where we’re ahead by $2.4 million.
They will not tell you about this, because they talk about a windfall, but they will not tell you that we collected $2.7 million less in parking penalty infringements than what we anticipated, and they will not tell you that we collected $4.2 million less for on-street parking at our parking stations. Apparently, that doesn’t fit with their narrative of being in a windfall. So, just be very careful about what Labor says because they’re only telling you ever part of the story here, because we are in challenging times—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —but we have worked very hard to manage this situation responsibly and to make sure that, wherever possible, we fast-track projects and move ahead. I’m very proud that we’re continuing to support our community and build infrastructure and create a cleaner and greener Brisbane through the great range of projects that we’re doing. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Oh, thanks very much, Chair.
Seriatim – Clauses A and B
|Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED |
|DECEMBER 2020; and Clause B, BRISBANE METRO PROJECT – REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Chair: Please proceed.
Councillor CASSIDY: I—what’s the saying? I doth—I think, what was it, the LORD MAYOR doth protest too much.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: I think when he spends 15 or 18 minutes or whatever it is, Chair, talking about Labor, the entire time he’s talking about us instead of talking about his record and what is before us today in these papers. I think we all know the reason for that, because he hit the nail on the head when he said that this budget is in a shambles and we would say that because, of course, that is true. This would have to be, Chair, one of the most damning financial reports that we’ve had before us in a long, long time when it comes to quarterly financial reports, and it exposes what this LORD MAYOR and this LNP Administration are really, truly for, and who they are really and truly for, and particularly at a time when we should be all pulling in the one direction.
As we came through COVID-19 and emerged on the other side, largely here in Brisbane, the community came together and they all pulled in the same direction. They would have expected that they had a Council, a Council Administration and a LORD MAYOR that was there to support them, but what is before us today is a pretty damning indictment. Not a single line item in this budget, Chair, is now on track. We have seen a huge surge in rates and a $23 million windfall in Council’s pocket, and that is the reality. The LORD MAYOR mightn’t like it. He was protesting a lot just then at using that term, but it’s the truth. It’s what’s before us today.
There’s also an unexpected $10 million boost from development, and we know the changes this Administration have brought in recently in terms of billing out Council offices at exorbitant rates, and we’ve seen as a result this huge $10 million boost from development. Now, this is all extra revenue that the Administration didn’t think they would have, and yet the LORD MAYOR continues to tell the people of Brisbane that Council can’t afford kerbside collection. He continues to say, time and time again, that Council is so hard-up, and we have so little money coming in, that this Administration can’t afford kerbside collection.
He also says they can’t afford to do ferry terminal upgrades, but can somehow afford a $133 million acquisition of a bus depot. So, it’s all about financial management, Chair, which they’re doing poorly, and it’s all about priorities and we know their priorities are all wrong. It’s clear the excuse of not being able to afford it is a complete and utter fabrication, Chair. LORD MAYOR SCHRINNER can find the money when it suits him, and he usually finds it for himself. Now, the LORD MAYOR’s economic recovery plan is appalling. We didn’t hear him talk about that in his opening remarks, Chair, and I think I know why. Because when the Council should be stepping up and working alongside the people of Brisbane we’re seeing projects fall behind and fall behind bad. There’s a $2.2 million delay in the Economic Recovery Taskforce and a $1.5 million delay in those projects that go alongside that. So, so much for the grand economic recovery that this LORD MAYOR touted that his Economic Recovery Taskforce would be.
Now it seems to me Chair that the dux of economics at school does not cut it when it comes to running a city. He is also heavily neglected in our suburbs. Now bear with me Chair, this is a very long list.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: There’s a $6 million delay to park projects, library upgrades are delayed by $1.4 million. City cleansing and street sweeping by $1.1 million, sports field and hardcourt works by $1.6 million. A $3.4 million delay for community facility works and maintenance and close to $800,000 delayed in public pool upgrades and maintenance. In a year when La Niña hit there was also a $3 million delay in storm water and drainage projects, despite a $21 million windfall in contributed drainage assets as a result of development.
This absolutely blows my mind Chair and every LNP Councillor in this place should hang their heads in shame. There’s a $260,000 underspend on the mosquito and pest services line item as well. So there’s 260,000 reasons why Brisbane residents can’t trust this LORD MAYOR with their money and their health and safety.
Now with the LNP in charge, Chair, this Council doesn’t do what a Council is supposed to do. Local governments get paid by their residents to maintain a city, look after roads, rates and rubbish and do what their community wants and needs. But this LORD MAYOR is upping rates, he’s cutting rubbish collection services and letting footpaths and roads deteriorate.
But guess what’s never delayed, Chair? One thing that’s never delayed, never cut or never cancelled and that’s Council advertising like the Living in Brisbane newsletter that we see each and every month, without fail. With the LORD MAYOR’s face all over the front of it getting bigger and bigger every edition, stuffed into letterboxes all around the city. Costing residents millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars each and every year.
Millions that could and should be spent on shovel-ready projects to get this economy firing again here in Brisbane and supporting the community. Now Chair, I think the LORD MAYOR must be wearing glasses with mirrors on the inside of those lenses sometimes. Because his only vision for Brisbane is a vision of himself.
Now I’m pretty sure I know which room in this vast City Hall is his favourite. I’m sure it’s the Gold Mirror Room up in his office. Because his focus is fairly and squarely on him rather than the residents of Brisbane. Now smart leaders around the world, those who actually have a vision for their cities, are busy doing everything they can during this pandemic to ensure that their cities come out greater than before.
This report proves that Adrian SCHRINNER has no plan for our economy. He cuts basic services, he neglects our suburbs, he ignore residents and he spends millions of dollars advertising himself. We will be lucky if Brisbane just scrapes through this economic crisis under Adrian SCHRINNER’s watch, Chair.
On the Brisbane Metro project, something the LORD MAYOR didn’t touch on too much there. The item B before us today. Another week goes by and more evidence that this project is being handled very incompetently by this Administration. If the proper planning was done in the first place we wouldn’t have these issues. If this busway extension was announced as it was, a busway extension and planned as such, these setbacks and legal challenges and extra costs certainly wouldn’t be inflicted on the people of Brisbane. That’s what we’re seeing here in Clause B, another dispute.
I think if the LORD MAYOR put as much effort into this project and planning this project properly, as he did promoting himself and promoting the project and paying for those glossy artists’ impressions. This busway extension might actually be underway by now and seriously underway. But instead what we’ve got of course is a lot of flythrough videos, a lot of glossy brochures a lot of cost blowouts, a lot of time delays, a lot of disputes. A lot of secret amounts of money being wasted Chair. So this is a very, very disappointing outcome for the people of Brisbane.
Chair: Further speakers, further speakers?
There being none—Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thanks Chair, I just rise to speak briefly about item B, the Brisbane Metro rejection of claim of compensation for 37 School Road, Rochedale. This is an item that’s very similar to last week’s item. It’s part of the Metro Project. We acquired this land in Rochedale because we need the site for the new Metro vehicle depot.
This is one of eight properties that Council required for the depot. We resumed this property in particular on 11 September 2020. It has an area of 1.9 hectares and at that time it was being utilised as a small crop farm. One of the very few still functioning farms left in the Brisbane City Council limits.
This 10 hectare site, the total site of the depot, will house the eventual fleet of 60 Metro vehicles and will be complete by 2023. We know that high level options originally assessed School Road, Rochedale as the preferred Metro depot site after Cross River Rail, the site of that would take the balance of the former Goprint site in Woolloongabba for their tunnel project.
Subsequent to the acquisition of the properties, Council has undertaken an analysis for the future needs of the Metro service and decided to take additional land. Which would increase our ability to service more vehicles and provide us the flexibility for expansion of the fleet in the future. This of course will provide power for all of our electric vehicles and a 1.1 megawatt solar plant, which will be the largest installed solar capacity in Council’s current solar fleet. So it will be a very significant depot.
We know that last week Council awarded the design and construction contract for construction of the depot to ADCO Constructions. They are based in Brisbane in the Gold Coast and they will employ local people through the design and construction phase of the depot which was due to start mid-way through this year.
We had a couple of glib lines from Councillor CASSIDY which really don’t— aren’t worth responding to. But I do know that Councillor CASSIDY did say that the LORD MAYOR was looking at things through his glasses. I’m not sure about you Chair but the LORD MAYOR doesn’t wear glasses. So I don’t know what glasses he’s talking about there.
He also mentioned that the project—we wouldn’t be doing this if it weren’t for—if he was in and he’d done proper planning. Look I don’t know what kind of project that Councillor CASSIDY would run. But I would say to you respectfully Councillor—Chair, that it would be very difficult to run a project like Metro without property resumptions being a part of that.
One of the inevitable realities of property resumptions is that people generally think their property is worth more than what Council assesses it at. Invariably we land at a value somewhere between what the person thinks their property is worth and what Council thinks their property is worth. That is literally the art of resumptions. It happens all across Council, across State Government, across the Federal Government. It’s never been any different since time immemorial.
So if Councillor CASSIDY has a new and different, exciting way that he would perform property resumptions then I’m sure we would be all ears. We’d love to hear it. We know that he and Wayne Swan have regular catch ups and discussions about all things related to economics. We know Councillor CASSIDY has in fact come into this Council Chamber and claimed that he is a dux of economics.
So I would be very interested to hear it. Maybe one of his colleagues will get up in this debate and tell us what this new plan for fixing land resumptions would be.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, just—Councillor SRI just told me he was dux at his school.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, yes, no that’s pretty cool. Anyway.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: All right.
Councillor JOHNSTON: No, no—
Chair: Interesting aside but back on the topic please.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. Oh no, I think that’s something to be proud of, come on. Look, just briefly on item A the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report. I did listen to Councillor ALLAN a little bit earlier today and I absolutely understand his dilemma. I think he referred to upcoming budget as one of the most challenging that there’d be and I can completely see why.
He’s been the Finance Chairperson now for two, three years? Two, two I think, yes. Yes, he’s inherited a lot of problems from the people sitting directly in front of him, particularly the DEPUTY MAYOR but also the LORD MAYOR. It’s only getting worse under this LNP Administration’s management.
Now they’re quick to point to the big projects, they’re quick to re-announce projects over and over again. But the big problem with this budget and this report is it is held together with a bit of sticky tape and Blu Tack. This Council has—this report shows us that Council has received huge amounts of extra money from the Federal Government. Huge amounts of extra funding from developers and yet just about every kind of essential daily operation whether it’s parks projects or sports fields or whatever, is behind schedule, is underspent.
So they’ve had more money in than they expected but they’ve been unable to deliver on their program as they promised. Now this is not a new phenomenon, this is what’s been going on for years and years and years. Every key indicator, every quarter that they miss, we get to the end of the financial year and then half these projects are rolled over, re-announced and form part of the next budget.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, hundreds of millions of dollars are being moved around and into programs and projects that have had no public scrutiny. That there’s been no consultation with at the macro-level, this Council, in determining priorities. It is wrong, it is wrong. The way in which this Council is managing the finances of Brisbane ratepayers is incompetent. It is unfortunate, it is inappropriate and it has to stop. This Administration is wasting millions of dollars and we are not seeing the outcomes on the ground.
I am incredibly concerned about what I’ve read in these papers. When we did debate the Sherwood bus depot last year I just expressed incredulity about that. Yes, we bought that land then we sold that land then we leased it back. Guess what? We’re buying that land again and here it is in the budget papers, almost $132 million.
This is the second time we’ve bought it. Do you know what I could do with $132 million in my ward? Pretty much every project I’ve ever wanted to do. Put the backflow valves in, I’d put them in all over the city. Fix up the parks, fix up a few road projects, get some better pedestrian and cycling facilities in. I’d probably have enough left over to give some to every other Councillor in the place as well.
But no, this Administration has chosen, first time round, a financial transaction that wasn’t in the best interests of the city. Now is doing a second financial transaction that’s not in the best interests of the city and just costing us money. No doubt there’ll be some weirdo backend financial deal done again off the back of this bus depot acquisition. Do we see that money, do we see that actual ratepayers’ money $132 million being made available to build a footpath to the Sherwood bus depot that people could walk on? No. Is it going into any kind of local project in my ward? No it’s not.
So this Administration does not have its priorities right. They are dripping in money, unexpected money that they’ve got either from the Federal Government or developers. They are fundamentally unable to manage the delivery of their program. It’s not my program, it’s their program. They’re supposed to be experienced financial managers but that’s not what we’re seeing in the delivery of how this Council operates.
We are seeing big ticket items in the budget that are having adverse impact on the delivery of essential services in local communities. It is wrong, this Administration is going in the wrong direction. It is not a good financial manager and I think that the Finance Chairs, historically and today—Councillor ALLAN —are not serving this city in the way it should be served.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Than you Mr Chair, I rise to speak on item A, the Annual Operational Plan Progress and the Quarterly Financial Report for December 2020. The Annual Operational Plan Progress and quarterly financial reports reflect Council’s financial results for the period ended 25 December 2020 in relation to Council’s budget. And records variances in the delivery of the 2021 Annual Operational Plan.
At the risk of repeating something that’s been repeated in this Chamber many times over recent years. This is a point in time report, it’s halfway through the financial year. As is often the case with projects, we do the design and planning work in the first half and delivery in the second. That often means that at December the spend is below the target for the full year, not surprisingly.
So the report shows the budget position for the year until December 2020. Taking into consideration any changes that were made in the second budget review. In addition this report gives an overview of the commercial operations and financial wellbeing of Council’s business activities. Any financial changes reported that are permanent and require a change in the budget are dealt with through the budget review process. All differences in the final Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for each year are considered permanent.
In terms of Council’s performance against key financial ratios and targets. As the LORD MAYOR suggested earlier, these are all within the targeted range. Not only does this demonstrate effective management of the financial risks. It also goes to the heart of this Administration’s strong focus on sound financial management.
We all know that the COVID-19 effects are being felt across the wider economy with ramifications still occurring through many business sectors. While there are some positive signs emerging, it is likely that economic activity in many sectors will remain subdued for the foreseeable future. From a Council perspective, the flow on effects of COVID-19 have resulted in project delays, decreased revenues and increased cost. COVID-19 has had a very real impact.
In terms of some specific areas of interest. The LORD MAYOR touched upon the increase in discounts and rebates due to the special COVID-19 rebate and that equated to $18.6 million. We continue to experience a decrease in developer contributions and this is largely due to a lower level of developer activities in the current period.
In the statement of financial position, comparing the current period to June 2020, there was an increase in cash and cash equivalents. Due to net cash generated from operations, receipt of capital contributions, donations, grants and subsidies of $100.1 million and proceeds from disposal of capital assets.
You’ll note that we had a very slight increase overall in property, plant and equipment. Due to increases in capital expenditure, non-developer donated assets and asset upgrades for service concession assets. Key projects in this category included the Sherwood bus depot acquisition, roads network resurfacing and Brisbane Metro to name a few.
When comparing the current period statement of cash flows again the prior period’s actuals, you’ll note an increase in the dividends and participation returns due to the timing of the CBIC 2019-20 dividend which was received in 2020. That was in the order of $23 million. As the LORD MAYOR advised, this goes towards supporting the city’s sports parks and greenspaces.
Now I will touch upon a couple of items in Program 8 specifically. In City Governance the quarterly report showed movements in the budget. As a result of increased revenues, rephasing and delays in some projects due to COVID-19. Of note we’ve seen revenues of $5.8 million receipted earlier than anticipated from QIC (Queensland Investment Corporation) and Urban Utilities tax.
Additionally there is $9.4 million favourable expense variation. As a result of higher than anticipated imputed income tax, lower than anticipated bank charges and rephased expenditure in the Revenue Channel Management Improvement project. This variance is partly offset by the phasing of corporate cost allocations to projects. On the whole we’ve seen an increase in actual revenues to the tune of $8.2 million when compared to the year to date budget. Additionally expenses are currently tacking lower than the year to date budget.
So turning to the Annual Plan implementation variances. You’ll note the variance in the timing of the delivery of the Our Agreement outcome. So Our Agreement was formerly known as the EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreements). It’s been delayed due to unresolved claims by two unions. I would note that the agreement is supported by the nine other unions. The draft agreement had in principle support in October 2020. However at the eleventh hour, the RTBU and Professionals Australia stated their differences with some matters.
In the RTBU’s case, a matter which has been supported by them for the past 15 years through previous agreements. Several conciliation conferences have been held since November, however disappointingly no resolution was found. Without the agreement of all parties, neither the RTBU or Professionals Australia matters can be referred to arbitration until 7 April. Some six months after the expiration of the current agreement. So early arbitration is not supported by all unions and therefore that will not occur until that date in April.
Now I did want to touch upon a couple of things that Councillor CASSIDY raised. First of all at the very commencement of his speech he indicated that the LORD MAYOR had said the budget was in a shambles. Now I’m going to go back through the minutes of this meeting and I’m sure he didn’t state that. But a couple of points I did want to touch upon was referencing the Economic Recovery Taskforce and the fact that we are still to spend $2.2 million.
Now I would note this was as at the end of December. I can assure Councillor CASSIDY that the funds that have been allocated to the Economic Recovery Taskforce will definitely be fully expended by the end of the financial year. A number of the projects that we’ve instituted with that funding, were very much in design phase in the first half of the year and delivery will occur in the second half. So rest assured Councillor CASSIDY that money will be spent.
He spoke of the $23 million windfall. Now as the LORD MAYOR indicated, this is just the CBIC dividends coming through. No windfall there. We estimate every year what we think we’re going to receive in dividends from CBIC and so it was certainly no windfall or surprise to us. He’s indicated that there is a boost in—
Chair: Sorry, excuse me, Councillor ALLAN.
I hear a lot of secondary conversations going on, there’s at least three. If you want to have a private conversation please take it to the Antechamber.
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: So he indicated that there’s been some significant boost in rates in the half-year. That’s just not accurate, I just don’t know where he gets this from. You know it’s worth bearing in mind that we had the COVID-19 rebate in the first half of the year. We had the JobSeeker rebate, we had the First Home Owners Rebate. So you know we’ve certainly done a lot to support ratepayers in the city.
When you actually look at the numbers and compare year to year, there’s a $1 million difference in a $3.15 billion budget. It’s extraordinary that he would think that that constitutes some massive boost in rates revenue.
I won’t touch upon the rest, there were quite a number of items that he raised during his speech. But virtually all of them had no substance to them. Or they were just a complete misinterpretation of the financial figures before him. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers? There being none and the LORD MAYOR is absent from the room. We’ll proceed to a vote immediately.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Charles STRUNK and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
Chair: On item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2020
134/695/317/1130
510/2020-21
1. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.
2. Sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 state that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) must present financial reports to Council at least quarterly. The reports are to state the progress that has been made in relation to Council’s budget.
3. The Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report December 2020 (refer Attachment B, submitted on file) separately identifies and reports the financial results of Council’s Program Services (i.e. Council excluding Business Activities) and Business Activities. The written commentaries provide explanation of the figures.
4. Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the CEO must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at regular intervals of not more than three months.
5. The previous financial report for the period ended 25 September 2020 was presented to Council on 24 November 2020. The current report relates to the period ended 25 December 2020.
6. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2020
As:
i) sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 require that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) present financial reports to Council at least quarterly
ii) section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the CEO must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at regular intervals of not more than three months,
then:
i) Council directs that the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for the period ended December 2020, as set out in Attachment B (submitted on file), be noted.
ADOPTED
B BRISBANE METRO PROJECT – REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
112/20/711/1137
511/2020-21
8. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.
9. Protected details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the words [Commercial-in-Confidence] or [Privacy-in-Confidence].
10. By a Taking of Land Notice published in the Queensland Government Gazette dated 11 September 2020, Council resumed the property situated at 37 School Road, Rochedale, described as Lot 8 on SP218996, and shown outlined in yellow at Attachment B (submitted on file), for depot purposes as part of the Brisbane Metro project.
11. On 6 January 2021, the former owners (claimants) submitted a claim for compensation in the amount of $[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus further costs to be advised. The amount claimed comprises the following:
Land $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Disturbance and re-establishment of farming costs $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Professional fees $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Total $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
12. A copy of the claim for compensation is shown at Attachment C (submitted on file).
13. Council engaged valuers to assess the value of the land. The valuers assessed the compensation on a preliminary basis at $[Commercial-in-Confidence] for the land component, exclusive of disturbance. A copy of the valuation advice is shown at Attachment D (submitted on file).
14. The claimant’s assessment is based on the land as a redevelopment site and not as farmland. Accordingly, the claimant is not entitled to claim the re-establishment costs of the farming operation.
15. A claimant affected by a resumption is entitled to claim reasonable professional fees incurred in the negotiation of compensation, however, while the claimant has advised that they have received valuation, accounting, arborist and legal fees, only a combined total of the amount spent has been provided and Council is unable to ascertain if the fees are reasonable.
16. The claim for compensation is therefore considered unreasonable.
17. By letter dated 13 January 2021, the claimants requested an advance against compensation. A copy of the letter is shown at Attachment E (submitted on file). Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 provides that if the claimant requests an advance against compensation, Council is required to pay the amount of Council’s estimate of compensation, attributable to the resumption, as an advance, which in this case comprises:
Land $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Purchase costs on a replacement property $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Total $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
18. The purchase costs on a replacement property represent the transfer duty and Title Office fees payable on the purchase of a property for Council’s valuation amount.
19. It is proposed that Council reject the claim for compensation and pay an advance against compensation in the amount of $[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus interest.
20. The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
21. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO REJECT A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION ARISING FROM THE RESUMPTION OF A PROPERTY AT 37 SCHOOL ROAD, ROCHEDALE, FOR THE BRISBANE METRO PROJECT AND APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF AN ADVANCE AGAINST COMPENSATION
As:
(i) Council, by a Taking of Land Notice published in Queensland Government Gazette on 11 September 2020, resumed the property situated at 37 School Road, Rochedale, described as Lot 8 on SP218996 (the property)
ii) the former owner of the property submitted a claim for compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967,
then Council:
i) resolves that the claim for compensation, as set out in Schedule 1, Part 2, of this resolution is rejected as excessive based on the preliminary assessment of market value, as set out in Attachment D (submitted on file)
ii) resolves to approve the payment of an advance against compensation in the amount of $[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus interest, as set out in Schedule 1, Part 3, of this resolution.
Schedule 1
Private Property Resumed for Depot Purposes
|Part 1 |Details of Resumption |
|Claimants |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Property Resumed |Property located at 37 School Road, Rochedale, described as Lot 8 on SP218996 |
|Purpose of |Depot purposes for the Brisbane Metro project |
|Resumption | |
|Part 2 |Details of Claim |
|Details of Claim |Land | $ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Disturbance and re-establishment of farming costs |$ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Professional fees |$ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Total (plus interest) |$ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Part 3 |Details of Advance |
|Amount of Advance |Land | $ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Purchase costs on a replacement property |$ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Total (plus interest) |$ [Commercial-in-Confidence] |
ADOPTED
Chair: We’ll now proceed to the—
Councillor LANDERS: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor LANDERS.
ADJOURNMENT:
|512/2020-21 |
|At that time, 3:59pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON, that the meeting |
|adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked. |
| |
|Council stood adjourned at 4:01pm. |
Chair: We’ll see you in 15 minutes.
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chair: We have quorum.
Councillors, the City Planning and Economic Development Committee please.
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona HAMMOND, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. This morning’s Committee was around the Brisbane Business Hub, but as I’ve promised each week what’s coming up this week, we’ve got Preparing for post-JobKeeper, BDO is holding that workshop on the 24th from 9am for two hours. Then we’ve got Motivating and Managing Teams in 2021, learning from the experts in understanding team culture and changes in work environments. That’s on the 24th from 3pm to 5pm by Better Health Generation.
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is doing an introduction to. It’s a virtual one, from 11am, ironically for cybersecurity, on the 26th about basic challenges, traps and the impact to small businesses. On 2 March, strategy to action, put a strategy in place and develop a business action plan with Groei, one of our major business expert partners. So again, great workshops coming up this week, let your community know if they may be interested in that at .au.
Last week’s presentation was on positive public realm outcomes as part of development applications. What we have been seeing over the last 12 to 24 months is some fantastic examples of projects, usually within a five kilometre radius of the CBD, producing fantastic outcomes at the ground plain level, or above as well, off their own bat. So it’s notable that these are outcomes that the developer wanted to do from the outset and at their own cost. They haven’t been conditioned as—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: They just understand the value of having great places for not only their residents, because that’s where they live, to relax, but also visitors to enjoy, particularly if they’ve got commercial or retail on the ground plain as well. So the sites we talked about last week were Fish Lane and Town Square in South Brisbane; 23 High Street in Toowong, called The Aviary; 57 Coronation Drive in the CBD; and 144 Logan Road in Woolloongabba at South City Square.
The Town Square application at Fish Lane is completed and it is absolutely spectacular. The outcome we’ve seen here is where we had 40 concrete parks underneath the railway line that are now a completely public open space with subtropical plantings. There is over 400 square metres of publicly available open space, with 3,000 plants. At 57 Coronation Drive there were two buildings that were approved. One building was 30 storeys and the other building was 35 storeys, in a significantly lower code assessable range for these heights.
But we see the concession on height for these projects with such a large public benefit as being a great outcome for the residents of Brisbane, something that this Administration is more than happy to entertain if we get the great outcome from the community. In fact we encourage it because this means that when there’s a new building that is proposed, if the performance outcomes are involved, we expect there to be significant public benefit associated with them as well. Be this local street upgrades or newly created, privately funded but publicly available open space, it’s a great outcome for the residents of Brisbane.
An example of this in Councillor MACKAY’s ward, in High Street in Toowong, was approved in October last year and this has got an over 3,000 square metres of public plaza space. It is going to revitalise that Toowong Village area out of sight. It includes new spaces to sit, water features, plenty of landscaping, places to meet, to greet and just to relax. The fourth one we mentioned was South City Square, which was approved in December last year. Again, an application including a large, central greenspace acting as an urban park. The frontage of the development has a series of entry points and a pretty major road at Logan Road, that has several terraces and plazas and shared vehicle zones.
What these applications show is that privately funded but publicly available open space and upgrades is encouraged in Brisbane. In turn, they help build communities and provide places to relax and spend time in the inner city. We are the capital city of Queensland, we should be encouraging buildings of this calibre, especially within our higher density areas, where increased height is generally expected. I encourage the building and construction industry to think outside the box and make sure that the Brisbane of tomorrow is even better than the Brisbane of today.
We also had a petition before us I’ll leave to the Chambers, around a childcare centre in Manly, which is still being assessed and the Manager, of course, will review all the submissions before they proceed with the outcome there. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair, I rise to speak on the Committee report as well and I want to offer the following comments, not as a direct criticism of the Administration but in the hopes that the DEPUTY MAYOR and perhaps some of the other Chairs will genuinely engage with this perspective. I think reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but I think it’s—I hope that through you, Chair, Councillor ADAMS won’t just dismiss these comments as being the ravings of some crazy greenie and will actually take them on board and reflect on them.
I have two broad concerns about some of the deals Council has done in the past regarding publicly accessible, privately owned spaces. The first one is just around the net value to the community relative to what we’re giving the developer, because often what we’re giving the developer is significantly increased height and density. I guess the concern I hear repeatedly from residents is that while that new little greenspace at the front of West Village or that new greenspace over in Toowong might look nice, it doesn’t really meet the area’s needs in terms of how much new parkland we need to meet the needs of a growing population.
So they’re nice, they’re often of a reasonably high quality, they’re often good for various uses, but they’re not actually meeting the needs of our area. When you combine that with the fact that there’s a rapid increase, a dramatic increase in population associated with those new developments being approved, sometimes they can actually represent a step backwards. I think we saw that with West Village and perhaps also arguably with South City Square, where developers have been allowed so much increased density on those sites that that places even more strain on existing local greenspaces and public spaces, than is offset by the creation of the new public space or publicly accessible, privately owned space.
I hope that makes sense through you, Chair, to Councillor ADAMS. I think, as I said, reasonable people can disagree and there’s a balance to be struck, but I would respectfully suggest that we haven’t necessarily struck the right balance in recent years. In fact there’s been wild divergence in terms of how much land Council is willing to—or how much height Council is willing to trade off in terms of a given amount of land. We see that at the moment with two proposals in my ward.
There’s a quote-unquote ‘green building’ proposed down in Merivale Street which is incredibly car-centric, it’s not at all sustainable typology of building. It’s actually very unsustainable for a range of reasons. It’s proposing a very small publicly accessible, privately owned space is basically underneath the building awnings at ground level. In contrast, there’s a proposal for 297 Montague Road which is actually proposing to hand over 4,000 square metres of parkland back to the public in exchange for increased height.
So with both of those proposals, developers are asking for exemptions to the height limit to build something, 22, 26 storey towers on sites zoned for around 12 storeys. But what they’re offering to Council is very, very different and it seems that often these benefits in terms of oh, great, we’re getting this new public square or town square or plaza or whatever, they’re not directly quantified. We know that the developer is getting a massive increase in real estate value. For each storey that Council approves the developer to build above the acceptable height outcome, there’s a significant increase in profitability for the developer.
They’re getting more real estate. It’s kind of like handing them over another block of land, you’re handing them over more vertical real estate that they can develop and sell. So the developer is, in some cases, getting hundreds of millions of dollars of additional vertical airspace and real estate that they can commodify and the community gets a tiny, dinky little public plaza in exchange. That’s not necessarily a good deal and I want to draw Councillor ADAMS’ attention to the desired standards of service in Part 4 of City Plan and just point to this document as perhaps a good spot to look to when trying to evaluate whether the proposed public benefit of one of these public plazas justifies the increase in height.
Because what you see in that desired standards of service is that in a local area for every 1,000 residents, there should be 0.8 hectares of public parkland per person. So for every 1,000 residents there should be 0.8 of a hectare and then there’s other figures there for 0.6 hectares of natural recreation space, 1.2 hectares of sport recreation space. The point here is that for the number of residents in the area Council is supposed to have a certain amount of parkland, that’s in your own LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan) and desired standards of service. But when you approve a developer to build significantly higher and denser than the neighbourhood plan contemplates, you fall well behind on those parkland targets.
This is what we’re seeing in the inner city, where residents who used to be, in many respects, quite pro-density and didn’t have as strong concerns about rapid development, are increasingly turning against densification because they see that that densification and rapid development isn’t accompanied by the creation of new public parkland. These small plazas and town squares, while nice, they don’t actually meet the needs of that increased population even within that development site. That’s why, I think, residents often feel like Council is not doing a particularly good job at the negotiating table, or is giving developers a very generous concession and very generous deal.
Certainly that’s my view as well. If a developer was genuinely proposing a massive, valuable increase in public parkland, maybe that’s a conversation the community should have. But often what we’re doing is saying to the developer yes, you can build an extra 10 storeys, or you can build an extra 200-300 apartments and all the community gets is a little concrete area with a couple of extra seats and landscaping. I just don’t think that’s a particularly good proposition for Council.
I understand over in Toowong and maybe Councillor ADAMS will correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the neighbourhood plan there required an actual publicly owned urban common, a public park to be provided. It seems like instead of the public park, are we not getting that public park now? I’ll wait for the comments, but it really kind of, I think, raises the question about whether a privately owned, publicly accessible space is the same as a genuine public parkland and I don’t think it is.
There are some things you can do in public parks that you can’t do in these privately owned plazas and spaces. We’ve certainly had experiences in the past where much of Dockside around Kangaroo Point, it has a lot of privately owned open greenspaces. Residents might want to use that to walk their dogs, or for various kinds of recreation. But because those spaces are privately owned by a body corporate, over time there’s an increasing restriction placed on how those spaces can be used and they no longer function as genuine public parks; they function as private lawns.
There’s a difference between a private lawn or a private concrete plaza as opposed to public parkland. I know some lobbyists and some developers argue that there is no difference and that if you’re sitting down by the river having a picnic on a nice patch of grass, you don’t really care who owns it. I think that’s true for a picnic, I think if someone’s just having a picnic on a patch of grass, they don’t really care who owns it. But there are some uses of public space, including public meetings, more active sport and recreation, dog recreation, et cetera, that can’t always occur on those privately owned spaces.
When Council continually makes that trade off and says well, we’re not getting a public park but we’re getting this private plaza or private space instead, that’s good enough, if we keep doing that again and again, over time we don’t have enough of those actual public parks left to be able to meet the needs of a community. So I would caution the DEPUTY MAYOR, while it’s great to seize opportunities where they come along, we need to make sure that they’re actually a good deal for the community.
Because if we’re allowing more density than the neighbourhood plan contemplated, even if we get a bit of a small public park or public plaza, it’s not actually making up for the population growth associated with that development. It’s certainly not helping compensate for the existing shortage of greenspace that many of our suburbs are already facing. As I said, I’m having a lot of trouble at the moment, for example, finding a skatepark—finding a location for a skatepark in West End.
There’s been quite a few new developments built that have publicly accessible open spaces around the edge of the development. But, of course, you can’t use any of those publicly accessible open spaces to put in a skatepark. No developer or no body corporate is going to allow you to do that. So if Council just keep saying well, we don’t need public parks because we’ve got these publicly accessible, privately owned open spaces, over time we end up with a real shortage of genuine public space to locate those community facilities that can sometimes not be so well located really close to residential and maybe even commercial uses. We’re also seeing—
Chair: Councillor SRI, your time has expired.
Councillor SRI: Sure.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Seriatim - Clause B
|Councillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause B, Petition – Requesting Council reject the development application for a childcare |
|centre at 18-22 Ernest Street, Manly (application reference A005594986), be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Councillor CUMMING: Item B of the Committee report refers to a petition requesting Council reject the development application for a childcare centre at 18-22 Ernest Street, Manly. Mr Chair, Ernest Street between the Gordon Parade, Manly Road junction and St John Vianney’s School, a distance of several hundred metres, is an incredibly busy section of roadway. At the western end there’s a busy roundabout built on the junction of Gordon Parade and Manly Road and Ernest Street.
There’s a busy BP garage alongside the roundabout. The proposed childcare centre is close to the garage and the next feature is an entry to the busy Manly railway station car park. Next is a side street, Curtis Street, but next door to that is the Manly State School, which is bursting at the seams with about 710 students enrolled this year. It’s a very busy school and very busy obviously at drop-off and pick-up times as well.
There’s already an existing childcare centre which only opened last year, I think, across the road from the Manly State School, it caters for 86 children. Then adjoining the Manly State School is St Paul’s Anglican Church and finally, on the top of the rise, as you’d expect there to be, is the St John Vianney’s Catholic Primary School which has 487 students and has grown strongly in recent years as well. So you can imagine how busy this section of Ernest Street is when the school drop-off and collection times are.
Ernest Street needs a 108—-places childcare centre, which is what is proposed for this site, with a paltry 23 car parks, it needs it like a hole in the head. Council should be proceeding to a speedy refusal, not dragging out an assessment process and incurring substantial costs itself and causing the developer to pay out tens of thousands of development costs for what should be regarded as a hopeless application. I urge Council to refuse this application and I don’t support the petition response.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair and I thank the Councillors for their contribution. I expected that speech from Councillor SRI and I probably walked straight into it, talking mainly about public realm outcome when it came to these buildings. That’s absolutely the case and I have to say I listened very carefully and I have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe most people that move into apartments in West End move in for the greenspace, I think they move in for the extremely amazing infrastructure and closeness to the city and the beating heart that is the beauty of West End, but also the closeness to South Brisbane, to South Bank, to the CBD, and all of those aspects.
Probably the last thing they’re thinking about is if I have a park, a lot of park very, very close to me, but there is still park in West End. Councillor SRI, I know, always conveniently forgets to add South Bank in his calculations when it comes to open space in the South Brisbane area. But these buildings, yes, they provide some public out realm—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor ADAMS take a question?
Chair: Councillor ADAMS, will you take a question?
No, she’s declined.
Please proceed.
DEPUTY MAYOR: We did focus on the public realm outcome on here, but I think I need to make it clear, this is not the only reason that there are performance outcomes that are approved through these buildings. I just have to make it very clear, Councillor SRI used the absolute terminology that is not correct, saying that they get exemptions. This is not exemptions; this is called performance outcome criteria, based on the Planning Act by the State Government.
The one I know that Councillor SRI mentioned, so I’ll use that, is West Village, about that little patch of public grass that everybody likes. West Village, we approved that at 15 storeys, which was the neighbourhood plan and it got called in from the outrage of the local Councillor at the time and the local State Member no longer with us, maybe not for very long, but they called it in. They called it in and what did they do, Councillor SRI? They made it higher, so I don’t think the State Government has any issues with the height that is being proposed in these areas as well, because they made it higher themselves.
But the point I wanted to make is that this is not just about public realm. That is a bonus, absolutely, but this is also about community benefit. You have a look underneath Metro, for example. Metro are—not look under Metro; under West Village. Metro Arts is there now, they’ve got a theatre, they have got arts, they have got a fantastic community benefit from that building that would never have happened if it wasn’t—and I give them their credit, they called it in, they made it higher. But they got the public outcome for it and that’s what we like to see.
The Coronation Drive example, and Councillor STRUNK agreed with us in Committee last week, great public outcome, yes, but a beautiful pre-1911 house being renovated that the community are going to see and be able to use, with a water feature connecting to the river and, might I say, this building which was 15 storeys in the neighbourhood plan got 35 storeys. It hit 31 out of 31 of the Buildings that Breathe criteria, the things that make buildings sustainable. I’m sick and tired of hearing about car ratios from Councillor SRI, because we know what he would like when it comes to cars and that’s none.
The reality of that is ridiculous, but 31 out of 31 Buildings that Breathe, those are the outcomes we want to see. Less reliance on air conditioning, less reliance on electricity, on cooling, on all of those energy features that make buildings even at that height more like the Queenslanders that we know, that address our subtropical sites. As I said, Coronation Drive’s got the heritage. South City Square, yes, it’s got an urban plaza but there was road widening, there was transport infrastructure that was delivered where the bus bays are indented.
The movement of people through that area, it’s not very far from The Gabba, it’s a highly trafficked area, it’s majorly improved. So yes, the Committee focused on the public realm area and I heard Councillor SRI with the little bits of park here and there that doesn’t count, but they all add up. This is not at Council’s expense, this is not trunk infrastructure. We stand by our Buildings that Breathe and our plan for Brisbane to have the most clean, green, sustainable buildings.
Whether you believe in the commercialisation or not, Councillor SRI, I know it’s a philosophical belief, but when it comes down to it it’s got to be economically sustainable or they’re not going to do it. So we need to realise the performance outcomes of creating maybe taller, slimmer buildings, if at the ground plain we are getting things that the people of Brisbane want, need and make us a better city in the long run as well. On the bonus, to the so-called green building that we’re seeing in his ward at the moment. Something that will bring people from around the world, the only other building like it is in Milan—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS: Says the person who—that Planning Committee, no, obviously not—The only other building like it is in Milan. This would be a tourist attraction, a fantastic outcome.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS: The more they scream, the more they hate the outcome, Councillor Chair—Mr Chairman and I’ll take that as a compliment. I’ll put the report to the Chamber.
Chair: Councillors, on item A.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chair: On item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Peter CUMMING and Charles STRUNK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 18 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – POSITIVE PUBLIC REALM OUTCOMES
513/2020-21
1. The Planning Services Manager, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on positive public realm outcomes. She provided the information below.
2. In 2006, Council commissioned the first master plan for 9 Fish Lane, South Brisbane. Fish Lane was identified for its potential to link the Brisbane CBD and Cultural Precinct to South Brisbane and West End. Previously, the location was used by Queensland Rail for car parking. The first approval was granted on 9 September 2019 for bar, function facility, park, hotel, shop, office, food and drink outlet and community use.
3. The Committee was shown photos of the public realm outcome in Fish Lane under the viaduct.
4. The public realm outcomes for 9 Fish Lane include:
- an area of 415 square metres
- delivering several public art pieces that create a public realm
- Artwork 1 – ground plane pathway and historical art piece
- Artwork 2 – two visual Projectors
- materials that celebrate the character of Fish Lane supported by an art scape of sculptures and lighting
- a planting palette consisting of low-light tolerant species which reflect a rainforest undercroft landscape.
5. The Committee was shown the Fish Lane public realm master plan and a photo of the ground plane pathway and historical art piece.
6. Approval was granted on 19 June 2020 for the public realm outcome at 57 Coronation Drive, Brisbane City, for a food and drink outlet, office, shop, short term accommodation and multiple dwelling. There are two towers at 57 Coronation Drive; Tower 1 is 30-storeys accommodating 168 serviced apartments and offices and Tower 2 is 35-storeys accommodating 255 units. The development contains provision for 48% of the site to be public and outdoor spaces between the buildings, with the re-use of the heritage place as a focal activation point. Landscape planting is approximately 21.7% of the site.
7. The Committee was shown perspectives of the public realm outcome for 57 Coronation Drive.
8. The public realm outcomes for 57 Coronation Drive include:
- approximately 48% of the site provided for publicly accessible outdoor space at the ground plane
- pedestrian connection from Coronation Drive to Quay Street, via the podium plaza levels and heritage forecourt space
- verge widening and streetscape improvements for the pedestrian environment along both Quay Street and Coronation Drive
- elevated, layered tower soffits separating the public podium and tower elements, with creative lighting that can be customised.
9. Approval was granted on 16 October 2020 for the public realm outcome at 23 High Street, Toowong, for a multiple dwelling, food and drink outlet, shop, shopping centre, theatre, office and bar. The development involves the re-use of the previously unused tenancies and redevelopment of the existing tenancies.
10. Toowong Town Centre includes two towers, one commercial 20-storey tower and one residential 25-storey tower, as well as a four-storey theatre building. The upper level public realm is approximately 1,560 square metres, and the lower level is approximately 1,780 square metres.
11. The Committee was shown perspectives of the public realm outcome for 23 High Street.
12. The public realm outcomes for 23 High Street include:
- creating a significant central public space which connects Sherwood Road, High Street and Jephson Street
- a water feature that converts to a stage area for food festivals, small concerts and community events
- the expansion and redevelopment of the Toowong Urban Common and the relocation of bus services and facilities
- plantings which will contribute to reducing heat island impacts; insulating and cooling the building facade; reducing airborne dust and pollutants; increasing urban biodiversity; and enhancing the streetscape of Toowong.
13. Approval was granted on 18 December 2020 for the public realm outcome at 144 Logan Road, Woolloongabba, for a multiple dwelling, shop, food and drink outlet, healthcare services, indoor sport and recreation, office, community use, function facility, short term accommodation, theatre and hotel over seven stages. The development provided a privately-owned publicly accessible plaza, with an approximate area of 2,000 square metres.
14. The public realm outcomes for 144 Logan Road include:
- the provision of a large central greenspace, which will act as an urban park
- a designated area for the inclusion of semi-permanent food stalls and a multi-purpose outdoor space, capable of hosting weekend markets
- the Logan Road frontage of the site being highly permeable through a series of accessible entry points, internal pedestrian/vehicle shared zones, terraces and plazas.
15. The Committee was shown perspectives of the public realm outcome for 144 Logan Road.
16. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Planning Services Manager for her informative presentation.
17. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B Petition – Requesting Council reject the development application for a childcare centre at 18-22 Ernest Street, Manly (application reference A005594986)
CA20/1365236
514/2020-21
18. A petition from residents requesting Council refuse the development application for a childcare centre at 18-22 Ernest Street, Manly (the site) (application reference A005594986), was presented to the meeting of Council held on 1 December 2020, by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received.
19. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
20. The petition contains 42 signatures.
21. The petitioners expressed the following concerns.
- There is already a childcare centre on Ernest Street that opened in 2020.
- The potential traffic impact on the local road network.
- The proposal allows for 108 childcare places with only 23 car parking spaces.
22. The site comprises three allotments located within the Low density residential zone under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and is subject to the Wynnum Manly neighbourhood plan (no specific precinct). The site covers an area of 1,374 square metres, contains two residential dwellings (proposed to be removed) and can be accessed from Ernest Street. The properties on either side of the site feature low set dwellings.
23. The site is located approximately 130 metres west of Manly State School, 450 metres west of St John Vianney Primary School and approximately 65 metres west of the access to Manly train station.
24. On 13 November 2020, a development application was lodged over the site for a Material change of use for a Childcare centre to cater for 108 children. The proposed development is two storeys in height (below 9.5 metres) and provides onsite parking for 23 cars. The application was properly made on 20 November 2020.
25. In line with Queensland Government legislation, Council is required to assess every development application it receives. Council does not have the authority to refuse to assess an application. As such, Council’s Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, is currently assessing the application against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act).
26. This development application is subject to impact assessment and therefore the applicant will be required to undertake public notification in accordance with the Act. The 15 business day public notification period cannot commence until the applicant has responded to Council’s information request (if issued) and carried out certain obligations under the Act. These obligations include placing a notice in a newspaper, erecting signs along the road frontage of the site and advising adjoining landowners of the development.
27. All submissions lodged during the public notification period, either in support or objecting to the proposal, will be afforded appeal rights in the Planning and Environment Court. Any matters raised will be carefully considered by Council officers as part of the assessment process.
28. A copy of development application A005594986, including all documents relating to the development application, can be accessed by visiting Council’s Development.i website at and searching for the application reference number.
Consultation
29. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.
Customer impact
30. The submission will respond to the petitioners’ concerns.
31. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Charles Strunk dissenting.
32. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1365236
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reject the proposed development at 18-22 Ernest Street, Manly (the site) (application reference A005594986).
Council notes the following concerns raised in the petition.
- There is already a childcare centre on Ernest Street that opened in 2020.
- The potential traffic impact on the local road network.
- The proposal allows for 108 childcare places with only 23 car parking spaces.
The concerns raised are all matters that form part of Council’s assessment of the development application.
The site comprises three allotments located within the Low density residential zone under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and is subject to the Wynnum Manly neighbourhood plan (no specific precinct). The site covers an area of 1,374 square metres, contains two residential dwellings (proposed to be removed) and can be accessed from Ernest Street. The properties on either side of the site feature low set dwellings.
The site is located approximately 130 metres west of Manly State School, 450 metres west of St John Vianney Primary School and approximately 65 metres west of the access to Manly train station.
On 13 November 2020, a development application was lodged over the site for a Material change of use for a Childcare centre to cater for 108 children. The proposed development is two storeys in height (below 9.5 metres) and provides onsite parking for 23 cars. The application was properly made on 20 November 2020.
In line with Queensland Government legislation, Council is required to assess every development application it receives. Council does not have the authority to refuse to assess an application. As such, Council’s Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, is currently assessing the application against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act).
This development application is subject to impact assessment and therefore the applicant will be required to undertake public notification in accordance with the Act. The 15 business day public notification period cannot commence until the applicant has responded to Council’s information request (if issued) and carried out certain obligations under the Act. These obligations include placing a notice in a newspaper, erecting signs along the road frontage of the site and advising adjoining landowners of the development.
All submissions lodged during the public notification period, either in support or objecting to the proposal, will be afforded appeal rights in the Planning and Environment Court. Any matters raised will be carefully considered by Council officers as part of the assessment process.
A copy of development application A005594986, including all documents relating to the development application, can be accessed by visiting Council’s Development.i website at and searching for the application reference number.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Rory Kelly, Team Manager, Planning Services East, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 4975.
ADOPTED
Chair: We’ll now proceed to the Public and Active Transport Committee please.
Councillor MURPHY.
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Angela OWEN, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MURPHY?
Any other Councillors? Further speakers?
Councillor MURPHY?
We’ll now proceed.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Public and Active Transport Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BUS DECORATING COMPETITION – CHRISTMAS AND STATE OF ORIGIN
515/2020-21
1. The Manager, Bus Operations, Transport for Brisbane, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s bus decorating competitions for Christmas and the State of Origin. He provided the information below.
2. Council’s bus decorating competitions have been running since 1994. Council’s seven bus depots in Carina, Eagle Farm, Sherwood, Toowong, Upper Mt Gravatt, Virginia and Willawong, engage in friendly competition to decorate buses in Christmas and State of Origin themes.
3. Competition rules include a $150 annual budget (many decorations are recycled), participation on a volunteer basis, and the ability to quickly return the buses to roadworthy condition if required for regular service.
4. The Committee was shown pictures of a variety of winning buses over the years, including a video of each bus depot’s entry in 2020.
5. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, judging in 2020 was conducted online rather than in-person by a judging panel.
6. The Chair thanked the Manager, Bus Operations, for his informative update.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Infrastructure Committee.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just briefly, a few items before us, but the Committee presentation item A last week was about—or continuing the theme that I talked to in Question Time today and that is the great projects that we’re undertaking to improve road safety for all our users. The one that we talked about last week in the Committee was right on the border of Brisbane City Council with Logan, the Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road intersection upgrade. This is, Mr Chair, a Better Roads for Brisbane upgrade being undertaken in the suburb of Rochedale.
As I mentioned briefly, this was right on the border of Brisbane City Council and Logan City Council. It’s surrounded by six schools, has an early learning centre, several residential areas and a very busy fruit market. At the moment, Mr Chair, the intersection is a single lane roundabout which isn’t able to handle the 19,000 vehicles it’s carrying each day. As the intersection connects to many schools, there are severe congestion issues happening each day, particularly around school drop-off and pick-up times.
On top of that, there isn’t a great active travel infrastructure that is needed for school students to walk and ride to school. There have been crashes there which can be resolved by the upgrade that we’re undertaking. This will be a change from the roundabout that’s currently there to a four-lane signalised crossing, a $41 million project to replace that roundabout with that signalised intersection. Signalised pedestrian crossings on all these will be included and Rochedale will be widened to a four-lane width at the intersection. In addition to that, there’ll be new cycling, on-road cycling facilities, as well as an off-road shared path constructed to encourage active travel.
So we are, Mr Chair, working with the Logan City Council on this one and in conjunction with the Australian Government, with the support from their respective budgets. The Federal Government is providing $14 million through the Urban Congestion Fund and Brisbane City Council is taking the lead on the design and delivery of this project, which is expected to be started roughly 12 months after the finalisation of design, which will be in the middle of the year. There will be, Councillor HUANG, a community consultation event on Saturday 13 March and local residents will be receiving a newsletter about it in coming weeks.
I’m sure you, Councillor HUANG, and your residents will be looking forward to addressing the issues of traffic, which is essentially traffic coming through to Brisbane from Logan Council. But this is the intersection work that we need to undertake to make that location safer for all users. Mr Chair, there were three petitions in addition to the Committee presentation. I’ll leave it to the Council to see if there’s any debate.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor McLACHLAN?
I’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ROCHEDALE ROAD AND PRIESTDALE ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE
516/2020-21
1. The Program Director, Civil and Transport, Project Management, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road intersection upgrade (the project). He provided the information below.
2. The project is jointly funded by Council, as part of the Better Roads for Brisbane program; the Australian Government, as part of the Urban Congestion Fund program; and Logan City Council, as part of the Major Roads Upgrade program.
3. Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road are both suburban roads, forming the boundary between the Brisbane City Council and Logan City Council Local Government Areas. The Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road intersection provides access to five nearby schools and direct access to two local businesses.
4. The Committee was shown a map of the location of the Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road intersection. The single lane roundabout caters for approximately 19,200 vehicles per day and experiences significant congestion during peak hours in the morning and afternoon, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. Pedestrians and cyclists find it difficult to cross at the roundabout due to the high traffic volumes. From June 2014 to July 2019, there have been four crashes recorded at or near the intersection.
5. The project objectives include:
- catering for existing and future traffic volumes
- improving safety for all road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists
- improving travel time reliability for general traffic, as well as buses through the intersection
- encouraging a modal shift to public and active transport by providing greater connectivity to public transport, local schools and amenities.
6. The project scope includes:
- installing a new four-way signalised intersection to replace the existing roundabout
- providing signalised pedestrian crossing facilities on all approaches to the intersection
- re-aligning and widening Rochedale Road to a four-lane carriageway at the Priestdale Road intersection
- constructing on-road cycle facilities and an off-road 2.5-metre-wide shared path along Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road to provide active transport facilities and improve safety
- upgrading bus stops impacted by the intersection upgrade to be Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compliant
- converting the Netherby Street intersection to be left-in and left-out only at Rochedale Road.
7. The timeline for the project is as follows:
- concept design – completed
- notice of intention to resume – completed
- preliminary design – completed
- community consultation event – Saturday 13 March 2021
- detailed design – mid-2021
- construction to commence – early 2022
- practical completion – late 2022.
8. The project budget is $41.3 million. This will include revenue from the Australian Government’s Urban Congestion Fund of $14 million, and revenue from Logan City Council of $8.3 million.
9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Program Director for his informative presentation.
10. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INVESTIGATE MEASURES TO DISINCENTIVISE NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS FROM USING WOODHILL AVENUE, COORPAROO, AS A SHORTCUT BETWEEN CAVENDISH ROAD AND LEICESTER STREET
CA20/1230058
517/2020-21
11. A petition from residents, requesting Council investigate measures to disincentivise non-local motorists from using Woodhill Avenue, Coorparoo, as a shortcut between Cavendish Road and Leicester Street, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 10 November 2020, by Councillor Tracy Davis on behalf of Councillor Fiona Cunningham, and received.
12. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
13. The petition contains 20 signatures. Of the petitioners, 14 live on Woodhill Avenue, five live elsewhere in Coorparoo and one lives in Morningside.
14. Woodhill Avenue has a 50 km/h speed limit and functions as a neighbourhood road in Council’s road hierarchy under Brisbane City Plan 2014, providing access to local residential properties. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
15. The petitioners’ request for traffic calming devices in Woodhill Avenue has been noted. Traffic calming commonly involves the installation of traffic calming devices, such as speed platforms and chicanes, to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users.
16. The precinct that includes Woodhill Avenue has been identified as a potential location for future investigation, design and community consultation for Local Area Traffic Management which can include traffic calming treatments. All locations are prioritised with funding allocated each financial year in Council’s budget to those providing the greatest benefit to the community.
17. Projects of this nature are generally delivered over two financial years, with design and community consultation undertaken in the first year, and construction in the second. If funding is allocated in a future Council budget to commence with design and community consultation, a review of traffic speeds and volumes for local roads within the precinct, including Woodhill Avenue, will be undertaken as part of design investigations.
18. A review of the data available for Woodhill Avenue did not identify any recent traffic surveys. Therefore, Council requested a seven-day traffic survey to assess the current traffic speeds and volumes on Woodhill Avenue. The results of this survey are shown in Attachment C (submitted on file). The survey occurred between 1 and 7 December 2020 and results identify that approximately 1,174 vehicles travel on Woodhill Avenue each weekday on average and 85% of all motorists are travelling at or below 57 km/h.
19. The results of this survey will be used to inform the future funding priority of any formal traffic calming investigations in the Woodhill Avenue precinct.
20. Council officers have also reviewed the most recent data from the official Queensland Government crash database for Woodhill Avenue from 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2020. There have been no recorded crashes of any kind in the street during this time.
21. The petitioners’ request to consider a decrease in the speed limit has been noted. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This ensures that speed limits are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland. The 50 km/h speed limit is considered the most appropriate for residential street environments.
22. Council evaluates requests for 40 km/h zones based on the guidelines outlined in the MUTCD. Roads identified as potentially suitable for a speed limit reduction are then subjected to a formalised speed limit review process. All speed limit reviews consider the road’s intended function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, a risk assessment of the road environment and analysis of recorded crash data from the Queensland Government's crash database.
23. Under the MUTCD, 40 km/h zones can only be implemented in very specific circumstances. 40 km/h speed zones are usually limited to areas with highly concentrated pedestrian activity adjacent to the road or where traffic calming devices are installed to deter non-local traffic from using local streets, more commonly known as ‘rat running’. Based upon current information and the absence of traffic calming devices at this time, Woodhill Avenue does not meet the requirements for consideration of a 40 km/h speed limit under the MUTCD.
24. The petitioners’ request to close Woodhill Avenue to non-local traffic has been noted. Council must consider the access of local residents and emergency services. The petitioners’ request would reduce local connectivity, which is important for providing alternative access routes and resilience in road networks. Alternative access routes are important in maintaining serviceability of the network and to ensure that emergency service vehicles can directly access affected areas without delay. Furthermore, there is no effective method to identify and restrict non-local traffic. For these reasons, there are no plans to restrict non-local traffic from using Woodhill Avenue.
25. To further promote road safety on Woodhill Avenue, a Speed Awareness Monitor (SAM) footing has been installed adjacent to house number 64 for westbound traffic. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013.
26. The SAM sign was recently in place from July to August 2020. The data from this location indicated the SAM sign was effective in this location, with motorists travelling above the posted speed limit reducing their speed by an average of 6 km/h when passing the sign. A future rotation of the SAM has not yet been scheduled, however, will be considered among other SAM locations by Councillor Fiona Cunningham, Councillor for Coorparoo Ward.
27. The petitioner’s feedback regarding speeding has been noted. Speeding is a behavioural issue under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police Service (QPS). The petitioners are encouraged to raise any concerns with speeding motorists directly with the QPS via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).
Consultation
28. Councillor Fiona Cunningham, Councillor for Coorparoo Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
29. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
30. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
31. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1230058
Thank you for your petition requesting Council investigate measures to disincentivise non-local motorists from using Woodhill Avenue, Coorparoo, as a shortcut between Cavendish Road and Leicester Street.
Your request for traffic calming devices in Woodhill Avenue has been noted. Traffic calming commonly involves the installation of traffic calming devices, such as speed platforms and chicanes, to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users.
The precinct that includes Woodhill Avenue has been identified as a potential location for future investigation, design and community consultation for Local Area Traffic Management which can include traffic calming treatments. All locations are prioritised with funding allocated each financial year in Council’s budget to those providing the greatest benefit to the community.
Projects of this nature are generally delivered over two financial years, with design and community consultation undertaken in the first year, and construction in the second. If funding is allocated in a future Council budget to commence with design and community consultation, a review of traffic speeds and volumes for local roads within the precinct, including Woodhill Avenue, will be undertaken as part of design investigations.
A review of the data available for Woodhill Avenue did not identify any recent traffic surveys. Therefore, Council requested a seven-day traffic survey to assess the current traffic speeds and volumes on Woodhill Avenue. The survey occurred between 1 and 7 December 2020 and results identify that approximately 1,174 vehicles travel on Woodhill Avenue each weekday on average and 85% of all motorists are travelling at or below 57 km/h.
The results of this survey will be used to inform the future funding priority of any formal traffic calming investigations in the Woodhill Avenue precinct.
Council officers have also reviewed the most recent data from the official Queensland Government crash database for Woodhill Avenue from 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2020. There have been no recorded crashes of any kind in the street during this time.
Your request to consider a decrease in the speed limit has been noted. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This ensures that speed limits are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland. The 50 km/h speed limit is considered the most appropriate for residential street environments.
Council evaluates requests for 40 km/h zones based on the guidelines outlined in the MUTCD. Roads identified as potentially suitable for a speed limit reduction are then subjected to a formalised speed limit review process. All speed limit reviews consider the road’s intended function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, a risk assessment of the road environment and analysis of recorded crash data from the Queensland Government's crash database.
Under the MUTCD, 40 km/h zones can only be implemented in very specific circumstances. 40 km/h speed zones are usually limited to areas with highly concentrated pedestrian activity adjacent to the road or where traffic calming devices are installed to deter non-local traffic from using local streets, more commonly known as ‘rat running’. Based upon current information and the absence of traffic calming devices at this time, Woodhill Avenue does not meet the requirements for consideration of a 40 km/h speed limit under the MUTCD.
Your request to close Woodhill Avenue to non-local traffic has been noted. Council must consider the access of local residents and emergency services. Your request would reduce local connectivity, which is important for providing alternative access routes and resilience in road networks. Alternative access routes are important in maintaining serviceability of the network and to ensure that emergency service vehicles can directly access affected areas without delay. Furthermore, there is no effective method to identify and restrict non-local traffic. For these reasons, there are no plans to restrict non-local traffic from using Woodhill Avenue.
To further promote road safety on Woodhill Avenue, a Speed Awareness Monitor (SAM) footing has been installed adjacent to house number 64 for westbound traffic. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013.
The SAM sign was recently in place from July to August 2020. The data from this location indicated the SAM sign was effective in this location, with motorists travelling above the posted speed limit reducing their speed by an average of 6 km/h when passing the sign. A future rotation of the SAM has not yet been scheduled, however, will be considered among other SAM locations by Councillor Fiona Cunningham, Councillor for Coorparoo Ward.
Your feedback regarding speeding has been noted. Speeding is a behavioural issue under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police Service (QPS). You are encouraged to raise any concerns with speeding motorists directly with the QPS via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).
The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Lucas Stewart, Transport Tech Specialist Engineer, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 0220.
ADOPTED
C PETITION - REQUESTING COUNCIL PERMANENTLY CLOSE THE LEFT-HAND TURNS FROM LOGAN ROAD, EIGHT MILE PLAINS, INTO LONDON STREET AND LIVERPOOL STREET
CA20/1365309
518/2020-21
32. A petition from residents, requesting Council permanently close the left-hand turns from Logan Road, Eight Mile Plains, into London Street and Liverpool Street, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 1 December 2020, by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received.
33. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
34. The petition contains 85 signatures. Of the petitioners, 80 live within the residential catchment between London Street and Miles Platting Road, two live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane and the remaining signatories live outside the City of Brisbane.
35. The area highlighted by the petitioners comprises several residential streets providing access to local properties (Attachment B, submitted on file, shows a locality map) and has been the subject of a previous traffic calming investigation.
36. In response to concerns raised by the local community about traffic volumes, pedestrian safety and motorist safety, funding was allocated in Brisbane City Council’s 2019-20 Local Area Traffic Management – Traffic Calming budget to commence design investigations and community consultation in relation to a proposal to install devices throughout the London Street and Liverpool Street precinct.
37. Initial areawide consultation ran from 3 September to 11 October 2019, with an additional round of consultation carried out between 11 and 26 November 2019, providing residents and businesses with an opportunity to provide feedback in relation to the proposal. The proposed treatments included:
- sixteen speed platforms at various streets within the precinct
- thresholds with splitter islands on London Street and Liverpool Street at the intersections with Logan Road, and Fraser Street at the intersection with Miles Platting Road
- thresholds on Meadow Street and Mersey Street at the intersections with Miles Platting Road
- line marking treatments at various streets within the precinct.
38. The locations of the traffic management devices were determined to reduce vehicle speeds, promote clearer driving paths, improve traffic flow, provide safe crossing facilities for pedestrians and discourage non-local traffic from passing through the area.
39. Following the evaluation of initial consultation feedback, support was received for the project to progress to the next stages of design and further consultation with residents and businesses directly adjacent to proposed devices, undertaken between 12 and 26 June 2020.
40. Following consideration of feedback received from further consultation, a letter was sent to all residents and businesses in the precinct on 13 October 2020, advising that the project did not receive community support to progress to the construction stage. As a result, no further investigations will be undertaken at this time within the precinct.
41. The petitioners’ request to ban left-turns from Logan Road into London Street and Liverpool Street has been noted. The subject section of Logan Road is under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), so any decision to ban turning movements at these streets would require consultation with TMR.
42. While the requested ban would significantly reduce the number of vehicles turning at the subject streets, vehicles wanting to access local destinations would be reallocated to other entry points, such as Meadow Street, Fraser Street or Mersey Street, impacting the amenity of these local streets. In addition, alternative access routes are important in maintaining the serviceability of the road network and to ensure that emergency service vehicles can directly access affected areas without delay.
43. Given that the previous investigation into traffic management measures within the London Street precinct was not supported by the majority of residents, and the access impacts of banning left-turns at London Street and Liverpool Street, the petitioners’ request is not supported at this time.
Consultation
44. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
45. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
46. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
47. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1365309
Thank you for your petition requesting Council permanently close the left-hand turns from Logan Road, Eight Mile Plains, into London Street and Liverpool Street.
In response to concerns raised by the local community about traffic volumes, pedestrian safety and motorist safety, funding was allocated in Brisbane City Council’s 2019-20 Local Area Traffic Management – Traffic Calming budget to commence design investigations and community consultation in relation to a proposal to install devices throughout the London Street and Liverpool Street precinct.
Initial areawide consultation ran from 3 September to 11 October 2019, with an additional round of consultation carried out between 11 and 26 November 2019, providing residents and businesses with an opportunity to provide feedback in relation to the proposal. The proposed treatments included:
- sixteen speed platforms at various streets within the precinct
- thresholds with splitter islands on London Street and Liverpool Street at the intersections with Logan Road, and Fraser Street at the intersection with Miles Platting Road
- thresholds on Meadow Street and Mersey Street at the intersections with Miles Platting Road
- line marking treatments at various streets within the precinct.
The locations of the traffic management devices were determined to reduce vehicle speeds, promote clearer driving paths, improve traffic flow, provide safe crossing facilities for pedestrians, and discourage non-local traffic from passing through the area.
Following the evaluation of initial consultation feedback, support was received for the project to progress to the next stages of design and further consultation with residents and businesses directly adjacent to proposed devices, undertaken between 12 and 26 June 2020.
Following consideration of feedback received from further consultation, a letter was sent to all residents and businesses in the precinct on 13 October 2020, advising that the project did not receive community support to progress to the construction stage. As a result, no further investigations will be undertaken at this time within the precinct.
Your request to ban left-turns from Logan Road into London Street and Liverpool Street has been noted. The subject section of Logan Road is under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), so any decision to ban turning movements at these streets would require consultation with TMR.
While the requested ban would significantly reduce the number of vehicles turning at the subject streets, vehicles wanting to access local destinations would be reallocated to other entry points, such as Meadow Street, Fraser Street or Mersey Street, impacting the amenity of these local streets. In addition, alternative access routes are important in maintaining the serviceability of the road network and to ensure that emergency service vehicles can directly access affected areas without delay.
Given that the previous investigation into traffic management measures within the London Street precinct was not supported by the majority of residents, and the access impacts of banning left-turns at London Street and Liverpool Street, Council does not support your request at this time.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Kiran Sreedharan, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 1178.
ADOPTED
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL SOLID YELLOW LINE MARKINGS AT ALL INTERSECTIONS ALONG LONDON STREET, LIVERPOOL STREET AND MANCHESTER STREET, EIGHT MILE PLAINS, AND A U-TURN FACILITY AT THE EASTERN END OF LONDON STREET, LIVERPOOL STREET AND MERSEY STREET
CA20/1365380
519/2020-21
48. A petition from residents, requesting Council install solid yellow line markings at all intersections along London Street, Liverpool Street and Manchester Street, Eight Mile Plains, and a U-turn facility at the eastern end of London Street, Liverpool Street and Mersey Street, to increase safety and improve accessibility, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 1 December 2020, by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received.
49. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
50. The petition contains 85 signatures. Of the petitioners, 82 live within the residential catchment between London Street and Miles Platting Road, and the remainder live outside the City of Brisbane.
51. The area highlighted by the petitioners comprises several residential streets providing access to local properties. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
52. The petitioners’ request for yellow lines at all intersections along London Street, Liverpool Street and Manchester Street has been noted. Under the Queensland Road Rules (road rules), vehicles are not permitted to be parked within 10 metres of an intersection without traffic signals. A review of the residential area highlighted by the petitioners, between Logan Road and Miles Platting Road, has identified that each intersection is already marked with yellow lines, except for Manchester Street and Meadow Street. As such, Council will mark yellow lines at the intersection of Manchester Street and Meadow Street to reinforce the road rules.
53. In relation to the U-turn facilities the petitioners have referenced, there are no turnaround facilities at the ends of Liverpool Street or Mersey Street. However, there are turnaround facilities at the eastern ends of London Street and Manchester Street. The turnaround facility at the end of London Street has been partially marked with yellow lines to permit some parking for adjacent properties, while still permitting large vehicles, such as refuse trucks, to turn around. Given parking in this turnaround facility is not causing any access issues, there are no plans to install yellow lines in this location.
54. Council has no records of any complaints regarding accessibility in the cul-de-sac at the end of Manchester Street. Given the cul-de-sac provides legitimate on-street parking for adjacent properties and a section of yellow line already extends up to 83 Manchester Street, Council would not seek to install additional parking restrictions in the cul-de-sac without evidence of access issues or the support of adjacent residents, which has not been provided in the petition. As such, there are no plans to install additional parking restrictions at the end of Manchester Street at this time.
Consultation
55. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
56. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
57. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
58. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1365380
Thank you for your petition requesting Council install solid yellow line markings at all intersections along London Street, Liverpool Street and Manchester Street, Eight Mile Plains, and a U-turn facility at the eastern end of London Street, Liverpool Street and Mersey Street.
Your request for yellow lines at all intersections along London Street, Liverpool Street and Manchester Street has been noted. Under the Queensland Road Rules (road rules), vehicles are not permitted to be parked within 10 metres of an intersection without traffic signals. A review of the residential area highlighted by the petitioners, between Logan Road and Miles Platting Road, has identified that each intersection is already marked with yellow lines, except for Manchester Street and Meadow Street. As such, Council will mark yellow lines at the intersection of Manchester Street and Meadow Street to reinforce the road rules.
In relation to the U-turn facilities you have referenced, there are no turnaround facilities at the ends of Liverpool Street or Mersey Street. However, there are turnaround facilities at the eastern ends of London Street and Manchester Street. The turnaround facility at the end of London Street has been partially marked with yellow lines to permit some parking for adjacent properties, while still permitting large vehicles, such as refuse trucks, to turn around. Given parking in this turnaround facility is not causing any access issues, there are no plans to install yellow lines in this location.
Council has no records of any complaints regarding accessibility in the cul-de-sac at the end of Manchester Street. Given the cul-de-sac provides legitimate on-street parking for adjacent properties and a section of yellow line already extends up to 83 Manchester Street, Council would not seek to install additional parking restrictions in the cul-de-sac without evidence of access issues or the support of adjacent residents, which has not been provided in the petition. As such, there are no plans to install additional parking restrictions at the end of Manchester Street at this time.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Kiran Sreedharan, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 1178.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee please.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Tracy DAVIS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Chair. Our Committee presentation last week was on the Draft Brisbane Off-Road Cycling Strategy. Councillors will be aware there is growing demand for off-road cycling in Brisbane. Mt Coot-tha Reserve is the first and only designated location for mountain bike single tracks in Brisbane and these are at capacity. Additionally, we have seen the construction of a number of unauthorised trails in our natural areas and strong demand for additional facilities. That is why Council has released the draft off-road cycling strategy. It aims to guide the future long-term, off-road cycling opportunities in some selected bushland reserves and parks across the city.
At the same time, we will ensure that we find places in our natural areas where we can minimise the risk of degrading these important habitat areas. We’ve engaged closely with stakeholders during the development of the draft strategy and there has been an extensive process involved. We will continue to engage and listen to stakeholders. The official consultation period began back in December 2020 and ends this Sunday. We’ve had over 2,000 residents complete the online survey and there have been dozens and dozens of written submissions. Council will review the feedback closely as we review the draft strategy.
We also had three petitions, Mr Chair. Just briefly on item C, while I did have the opportunity to talk about this in Question Time today, there are some further points to make. There has been some contention from the local MP that Council’s unwillingness to voluntarily hand back the land, which the State already owns, somehow puts the State in a precarious legal position. For the avoidance of all doubt, I will say the following and listen carefully: I have been clearly advised that the Minister does not need Council to agree to the revocation. The Minister may revoke all or part of a reserve if they determine it is in the public interest, it is their call.
I’ll leave the rest to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on item A and perhaps item B. I think for reasons that will become immediately apparent over the next little bit of time, I don’t think anything Councillor CUNNINGHAM says to us now can be trusted, based on advice from the department, given their actions in parts of the city over recent weeks. It’s very concerning, so I’ll take that with a grain of salt and I’m sure all will become clearer in due course.
Briefly with respect to item A, I sat through this presentation last week and I have had the off-road cycling strategy consultation period out in all of my communication channels for people to participate in. When you look at the map, there are no sites within Tennyson Ward that are included, but there are 82 sites around the city. I don’t think Council’s got this right. The extent of these trails through bushland and parkland areas is extensive and there are significant environmental impacts that flow from this process.
Now, as I said, this is not directly impacting on my ward and I’m sure all local Councillors that have these pathways that are being proposed in their ward will be able to make some further comments. But here’s what I know about how Council manages these sorts of conflicts between the environment and cyclists: they back the cyclists, which is fair enough, but how on earth is Council going to properly manage these natural areas of significant biodiversity, as well as keeping an eye on how these tracks are used?
I think a better course of action would be to nominate certain areas, one in each region of our city perhaps, north, south, east, west, I mean, central’s obviously a little bit harder. But certainly we should be looking at having dedicated mountain biking-type facilities in geographically significant parts of the city, rather than having this open slather approach that is proposed. That would mean that the mountain bike facilities can be kept in good nick, the environmental impacts of the strategy can be managed more carefully by Council through the officers and ensuring the habitat is protected.
So I think that the desire here to do something to improve off-road cycling for mountain bike people is a good one, but I think that the scale and the scope of what Council’s proposing here is going to create conflict between cyclists and the environmental values that Brisbane is renowned for. It is Australia’s most biodiverse capital city and I think there are some really genuine issues here. So I would just urge Council to look at a more strategic approach to find locations in each of the regions and to develop a suitable facility for mountain bike riders in each of those geographic areas.
That’s what they’ve done for the skateboard enthusiasts. There’s only two, one in Darra and one in Bracken Ridge, but that’s the kind of approach I think Council could take in each of the four regions in our city. I think that would lead to a better outcome for both the cyclists, who would have dedicated facilities that Council could actively manage, but also for our local environment to ensure it is not adversely impacted by what is proposed, which is quite extensive cycling through natural areas. So I just think this needs to be revised, the scale and the scope of it is too broad.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ADERMANN.
Councillor ADERMANN: Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak about item A, Brisbane’s off-road cycling strategy. As the Chair has indicated from day one, this draft strategy is about trying to get a balance between conservation and recreation. Mt Coot-tha, in my ward, is a prime example. It’s one of our city’s crown jewels and can and should be for the enjoyment of all. We can’t ignore the popularity of off-road cycling as a sport and if this is encouraging people to get out and be fit and healthy, then that can only be a good thing.
We have sanctioned trails on the mountain and Council has memoranda of understandings with users, such as off-road cycling groups, to maintain them. I also get the concerns raised about protecting the natural environment and I support that. In assessing opportunities for more off-road cycling, it’s important we back this up with strong compliance. Use the sanctioned trails by all means, but go and create unauthorised trails and damage the environment and you’ll pay the penalty.
Mr Chair, at the invitation of the Brisbane Off-Road Riders Alliance last Saturday I accepted an invitation to walk Whipbird Way on Mt Coot-tha. I can report that the maximum number of volunteers were out in the heat for over half the day maintaining that trail. Those who I spoke to along the way talked about the passion for their sport and the importance of preserving our natural assets. I was particularly impressed with what they were doing to ensure the protection of waterways on the mountain and the natural environment.
I know there have been large numbers of submissions as part of the community consultation with this strategy and that’s a good thing, but I remain hopeful, even confident, that we will get the balance right for all stakeholders going forward. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair and I rise to also speak on the off-road cycling strategy. The first thing I’d like to make in relation to this point is that very disappointed that we asked six Questions on Notice in relation to details of basic data that you would expect in relation to the damage caused and the amount of money spent by Council in relation to the management of the off-road cycling strategy and none of that data is kept. None of that data is kept. Yet even though I’m aware that in the southern region there is significant expenditure in relation to repairing damage from off-road cycling in Toohey Forest and Karawatha Forest.
In fact they can’t keep up with the repairs to the new tracks that are being created. So I must admit I was a bit flummoxed that Council, on the ground the officers can give me information, but at the policy level that information doesn’t exist. I think that’s a sad indictment of the way NEWS (Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability) is functioning at the moment, that it isn’t keeping basic information that you would expect them to keep if they were developing a strategy like this.
The second point I want to make is yes, we agree the off-road cycling strategy is important and it is important that we get it right. From what we have seen, there’s lots of good points in the strategy, so there’s lots of things we agree with. But there are certainly areas where we disagree, and they are significant. I suppose the particular—the standout point particularly relates to off-road cycling competing with the value of conservation. They are at odds and I know we just heard a story from other Councillors talking about the great work that a group of cyclists do in restoring damaged pathways and that is good.
But that is not happening all the time and it’s not happening in every place. In fact when I speak to our habitat groups around the city, they tell me that Mt Coot-tha is like—the best way they describe it is like a broken egg. So it has so many tracks over it and so much damage done to it that it actually has lost its significance as an environmental—in terms of catering for the environmental issues there and conservation issues there. So my concern is that with this strategy we’re opening up many, many parks across Brisbane and many, many conservation areas where their primary value to us is about conservation.
For me, I know of three of those places, Toohey Forest, Karawatha Forest and Whites Hill Reserve, to name a few. They’re on the southside. Those places are significant because they are islands of bushland in suburbia and they are home to so much flora and fauna. We’ve got to decide are we using those areas for recreation—and it will be growing recreational use into the future, because the city’s density is increasing—or are we preserving those areas for conservation.
If I had to say what I think, I believe those areas should be kept for conservation. It doesn’t mean locking them up totally, but it certainly means limiting the amount of off-road cycling we allow in there. I hope the Administration listen to that, because I understand that the cycle lobby is very strong and very convincing and the conservation lobby is probably not as strong and convincing. But as a city, that’s what we need to be thinking about.
In terms of—I pick up Councillor JOHNSTON‘s points, I think there’s opportunities to define areas in each region where we actually say these areas aren’t as significant as conservation value, so we should be using them for off-road cycling and dedicate some spots in the city for off-road cycling. Once again, I suppose the most significant thing I believe and the biggest mistake being made here is we’ve gone ahead and developed this strategy, but we actually—the city doesn’t have a conservation strategy. The conservation strategy should be informing the off-road cycling strategy. A conservation strategy should be informing our bushland buyback strategy.
It makes sense for us as a city to have a conservation strategy. Once we have that, then the other strategies fall out of it. At the moment, the off-road cycling strategy is a big thing and we just tack on conservation. I believe most residents would be disturbed to think that we have users in our parks that are damaging our parks, say with off-road use, but we’re actually using and as I understand it, our bushland fund to repair to that damage. Most people would want to see the bushland money that they have being spent on buying bushland.
I suppose in a couple of other points I’d just like to make in concluding this speech, is there is so little, if no enforcement of the cycling laws at the moment. We don’t actually—and the Administration has no knowledge and we’ve proved this now, with regards to the number of illegal trails, although I know there are figures for the south region. We should also be thinking about how we best use our bushland money into the future. I don’t believe using our bushland money should be used to repair recreational use from people who are using our parks illegally.
Seriatim - Clause C
|Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause C, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RELINQUISH TRUSTEESHIP OF LAND ADJOINING BALMORAL |
|STATE HIGH SCHOOL AND RETURN IT TO EDUCATION QUEENSLAND AT ZERO COST, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. I just would like to speak on item C, the petition before us today and this has been talked about a bit already by Councillor CUNNINGHAM. She seemed to infer, Chair, earlier that someone is saying that the State Government is in a precarious legal position over this issue. I think she might have missed the point entirely about this. I think the history of this whole site and the transfer to Council’s trusteeship has been well litigated and the reasons for that.
But what we know is that the State Government sought through Council a surrender of their trusteeship back to the State Government for the purposes of Balmoral High, which is a school that is growing exponentially and immensely over the last few years and is projected to grow immensely over the coming years. So I think it’s pretty clear to Council, both publicly and through communication, that the State Government as the owner of the land wanted that site back for the purposes of Education Queensland.
So instead of—Councillor CUNNINGHAM seemed to suggest earlier that I’d released some big State secret in saying that this is—in her words—a fait accompli, that this is going to happen. Well I think that’s quite obvious and that’s been quite obvious for a number of months. But what I can glean from all this is that the State Government sought Council’s cooperation in that, and Council has decided not to cooperate. That’s essentially what’s before us today. The petition was calling on Council to cooperate through that process and work with the State Government instead of delaying it. By doing what they are doing, what is recommended in this petition response, is to delay it as long as possible.
The only part of the community that’s harming is schoolkids essentially. So this Administration’s actions are political in nature and we heard that, because all Councillor CUNNINGHAM spoke about in her answer to an earlier question was all about politics, all about the LNP this and Labor that and the State election this and the State election that. But she never actually spoke about the issue at hand, which was that this is going to benefit the next generation of people, this is going back to a school.
So Chair, I think that’s reflective more of this Administration, how they approach these types of things, always, always with a political lens on, rather than looking at the bigger picture of how this will affect a community. So we certainly don’t support this petition recommendation, because Council could have been much more cooperative throughout this process and they absolutely have not been.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING: Just quickly in relation to item A. I had this issue arise in my area some years ago, one of the local schools has mountain biking almost as the school’s sport. They developed jumps and other types of facilities like that on their own land and they were looking for an area where they had wide open paths, where they could ride faster through bushland on the earth, not on roadways. One of the local parks has some fire trails through it, which in my estimate would be—they’d be 10 metres wide.
So it would mean a case of bush bashing, as some people call it, which I think that’s going to just damage the environment and that’s no good at all. But it would have been, I think—there were a couple of trails that could have been used, 400-500 metres of land and length of land and they could have used that. It wasn’t allowed in the end, but I think a strategy like this is something that’s important to consider. Fire trails 10 metres wide aren’t going to cause damage to the environment, as opposed to other areas where people are riding through close to or over the top of bushland, which we don’t want to see at all.
So it’s important, very important to look after the environment, but I think there’s a possibility of a compromise solution where there are, as Councillor JOHNSTON said, some selected areas across the city, a limited number of selected areas where people can go to ride their bikes. The other thing is the alternative for the school was to go to the Daisy Hill recreation reserve, which I believe is in Logan and I’ve been to it. It’s about an hour’s drive away from where the school is and I think that’s hardly a satisfactory solution either. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair. Well, I’d like to thank all Councillors in this place for their comments and feedback and that will be taken into consideration as we review the draft strategy. I’d also welcome submission from Councillors, so I look forward to receiving those. You have until Sunday.
Through you, Chair, to Councillor GRIFFITHS, we on this side of the Chamber believe that money for bushland should be spent on management, not just purchasing. We’ve believe that the best way to teach the next generation to value nature is to actually share it with them. We’re not about to spend public money buying public land to lock it up and throw away the key. That’s our position and we’ll remain firm on that position. Thank you.
Chair: Councillors, to items A, B and D.
Clauses A, B and D put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B and D of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, was declared carried on the voices.
Chair: On item C.
Clause C put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Charles STRUNK and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 19 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – DRAFT BRISBANE OFF-ROAD CYCLING STRATEGY
520/2020-21
1. The Parks and Natural Resources Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on the draft Brisbane Off-Road Cycling Strategy (the draft strategy). He provided the information below.
2. Off-road cycling is recognised as cycling within Council parks and reserves using facilities other than formal roads, designated bike paths and bitumen bike tracks.
3. Council has determined the need for an off-road cycling strategy in order to:
- encourage active and healthy lifestyles
- cater to the growing off-road cycling demand across Australia
- support current facilities which are at capacity.
4. Guiding principles of the draft strategy are:
- sustainability
- diversity
- diligent planning
- collaboration
- accessibility
- optimal use of facilities
- safety and mitigating risk
- education and engagement.
5. Council aims to support off-road cycling by:
- creating a diverse network of off-road cycling facilities
- providing new facilities in the suburbs
- permitting off-road cycling on some existing fire trails and shared trails
- supporting new trail care and trail stewardship programs.
6. Conserving the environment is a primary focus and Council strives to:
- identify low-impact locations for facilities
- ensure no facilities are established in existing Habitat Brisbane and community creek catchment group restoration sites
- reduce the demand for unauthorised track construction
- stay informed by environmental assessments.
7. The Committee was shown maps detailing locations and long-term opportunities for off-road cycling in Brisbane.
8. The draft strategy was released for public consultation in December 2020 and closes on 28 February 2021. The community may provide feedback by completing the online survey or preparing a written submission.
9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Parks and Natural Resources Manager for his informative presentation.
10. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REMOVE FIVE LEOPARD TREES LOCATED AT 40 TO 46 HUTTON ROAD AND 48 SUMMERFIELD STREET, ASPLEY, AND REPLACE THEM WITH MORE SUITABLE TREES PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2020
CA20/1094677
521/2020-21
11. A petition from residents, requesting the removal of five leopard trees located at 40 to 46 Hutton Road and 48 Summerfield Street, Aspley, and replace them with more suitable trees prior to November 2020, was received during the Spring Recess 2020.
12. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
13. The petition contains seven signatures.
14. Council records indicate 10 requests were received between 5 May 2017 to 14 January 2020 for removal of the leopard trees at 40 to 46 Hutton Road, Aspley. Each request related to tree removal and tree maintenance due to ongoing issues with the leaf and seed drop from three Libidibia ferrea (leopard trees) located on the footpath between 40 and 46 Hutton Road, Aspley. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows the location of the subject trees.
15. On 14 January 2020, a Council officer inspected the leopard trees located in Hutton Road, Aspley, and found all trees were found to have adequate clearance and did not meet Council’s tree removal criteria at the time of inspection. The Council officer contacted the local Ward office and customer via email. The customer was advised that the leopard trees in front of 37, 40, 41, 42 and 48 Hutton Road are on the annual leopard tree maintenance program and are trimmed at the start of each year. The tree located at 48 Summerfield Street is a pongamia tree and not a leopard tree. This tree was also inspected and found to have adequate clearance and did not meet Council’s tree removal criteria.
16. In accordance with OS20 Tree Management Guidelines, Council can manage these significant trees through the undertaking of the annual leopard maintenance program. Keeping established trees, particularly in areas undergoing a change in land use, is the most cost-effective way to sustain Brisbane’s urban forest. Urban trees are living organisms that interact with the environment in which they live. They require varying amounts of management in order to minimise conflicts, while optimising their survival, longevity, growth and value as living assets.
17. Council is committed to an integrated and proactive approach to urban tree management. Leaf fall, seed pods, flowers and fruit are all natural processes of a tree's growing cycle. Healthy trees are not removed, as they make a valuable contribution to a healthy and enjoyable environment. It is Council policy to retain trees wherever possible. Generally, if a tree is found to be in good health and structure and complies with Australian Standards, the tree will not be removed.
Consultation
18. Councillor Sandy Landers, Councillor for Bracken Ridge Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
19. The negative impact of removing the trees will include loss of shade and, local wildlife habitat and reduced cooling of the street.
20. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
21. RECOMMENDATION:
that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1094677
Thank you for your petition requesting that Council remove five leopard trees located at 40 to 46 Hutton Road and 48 Summerfield Street, Aspley, and replace them with more suitable trees prior to November 2020.
Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.
Council values the trees in our city as they contribute significantly to the environment both ecologically and aesthetically. These values are supported by Council’s tree management policy which ensures the preservation of Council trees. Therefore, tree removal is considered an important issue.
In accordance with OS20 Tree Management Guidelines, Council can manage these significant trees through the undertaking of the annual leopard tree maintenance program. Keeping established trees, particularly in areas undergoing a change in land use, is the most cost-effective way to sustain Brisbane’s urban forest.
Council is committed to an integrated and proactive approach to urban tree management. Leaf fall, seed pods, flowers and fruit are all natural processes of a tree's growing cycle. Healthy trees are not removed, as they make a valuable contribution to a healthy and enjoyable environment. It is Council policy to retain trees wherever possible. Generally, if a tree is found to be in good health and structure and complies with Australian Standards, the trees will not be removed.
The leopard trees located in Hutton Road and Summerfield Street, Aspley, did not meet Council’s tree removal criteria and will be retained and with maintenance continuing through the annual leopard tree maintenance program. The tree located in front of 48 Summerfield Street was also inspected and was identified as a pongamia tree. This tree was also inspected and found to have adequate clearance and did not meet Council’s tree removal criteria.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr John Juleff, Regional Coordinator Arboriculture, North Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0845.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RELINQUISH TRUSTEESHIP OF LAND ADJOINING BALMORAL STATE HIGH SCHOOL AND RETURN IT TO EDUCATION QUEENSLAND AT ZERO COST
CA20/1094745
522/2020-21
22. A petition from residents, requesting Council relinquish trusteeship of land adjoining Balmoral State High School and return it to Education Queensland at zero cost, was received during the Spring Recess 2020.
23. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
24. The petition contains 990 signatures.
25. Balmoral Sports Park, 38 Beelarong Street, Balmoral (Lot 5 on SP 271358), is a reserve granted in trust to Council for sport and recreation purposes under the Land Act 1994. As the Queensland Government appointed trustee, Council’s role is to manage the land in accordance with the designated purpose. Council is effectively a land custodian and does not own the land, and is not authorised to dispose of or sell the land, or allow it to be used in a manner inconsistent with the designated trust purpose.
26. Since 2014, when the Queensland Government appointed Council as trustee for this land, it has been publicly accessible and is being used for both formal and informal sport and recreation. Demand for sport and recreation land in Brisbane is continuing to increase as Brisbane’s population continues to grow. Council has a ‘no net loss of public open space’ policy position, which is documented in its Brisbane. Clean, Green, Sustainable 2017-2031 and corporate rule OS1 Open Space Policy. Therefore, Council is reluctant to formally relinquish trusteeship of this sport and recreation land.
27. However, the land is still owned by the Queensland Government’s Department of Resources, which has powers under the Land Act 1994 to revoke Council’s trusteeship and reallocate the land for a different purpose or to a different trustee.
28. Given the Queensland Government has the ability to resolve this matter internally between the Department of Resources and the Department of Education, Council does not intend to voluntarily surrender the trusteeship while there is active and ongoing community use of the land in accordance with the designated trust purpose.
Consultation
29. Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, was not consulted on this matter as she has declared a conflict of interest.
30. Councillor Fiona Cunningham, Chair, Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, was consulted and supports the recommendation.
31. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Jared Cassidy and Steve Griffiths dissenting.
32. RECOMMENDATION:
that the information in this submission be noted and the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1094745
Thank you for your petition requesting that Council relinquish trusteeship of land adjoining Balmoral State High School and return it to Education Queensland at zero cost.
Balmoral Sports Park, 38 Beelarong Street, Balmoral (Lot 5 on SP 271358), is a reserve granted in trust to Council for sport and recreation purposes under the Land Act 1994. As the Queensland Government appointed trustee, Council’s role is to manage the land in accordance with the designated purpose. Council is effectively a land custodian and does not own the land, and is not authorised to dispose of or sell the land, or allow it to be used in a manner inconsistent with the designated trust purpose.
Since 2014, when the Queensland Government appointed Council as trustee for this land, it has been publicly accessible and is being used for both formal and informal sport and recreation. Demand for sport and recreation land in Brisbane is continuing to increase as Brisbane’s population continues to grow. Council has a ‘no net loss of public open space’ policy position, which is documented in its Brisbane. Clean, Green, Sustainable 2017-2031 and corporate rule OS1 Open Space Policy. Therefore, Council is reluctant to formally relinquish trusteeship of this sport and recreation land.
However, the land is still owned by the Queensland Government’s Department of Resources, which has powers under the Land Act 1994 to revoke Council’s trusteeship and reallocate the land for a different purpose or to a different trustee.
Given the Queensland Government has the ability to resolve this matter internally between the Department of Resources and the Department of Education, Council does not intend to voluntarily surrender the trusteeship while there is active and ongoing community use of the land in accordance with the designated trust purpose.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Lachlan Carkeet, Parks and Natural Resources Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3178 4158.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHADED SEATING AND EXTEND AND REFURBISH THE SMALL DOG OFF-LEASH AREA in NATHAN ROAD PARK, 346 DAW ROAD, RUNCORN
CA20/1366074
523/2020-21
33. A petition from residents, requesting Council provide additional shaded seating and extend and refurbish the small dog off-leash area in Nathan Road Park, 346 Daw Road, Runcorn, was received during the Summer Recess 2020-21.
34. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
35. The petition contains 30 signatures.
36. Nathan Road Park is situated along Daw and Nathan Roads and supports multiple uses including:
- a dog off-leash area
- general recreation spaces
- leased areas (i.e. car parking).
37. The usable space in Nathan Road Park, excluding the leased areas, is approximately 50,500 m². The dog off-leash area is approximately 8,500 m², constituting 16% of Nathan Road Park.
38. Over the past few years, the popularity of the small dog off-leash area has increased and the demand for additional space has been identified. Nathan Road Park has space available to accommodate an extension to the small dog off-leash area. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows the current location of the small dog off-leash area and the proposed extension.
39. Council has listed for consideration to extend the small dog off-leash area, with the inclusion of additional seating as part of Council’s future capital works program. These works will include the existing area to have turf renovation and the installation of water diversion mounds, which will divert water away from the existing shelter and tap slab, as part of Council’s future capital works project.
40. In June each year, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. The works that are approved have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefitting in relation to the cost.
41. This request has also been forwarded to Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, for her consideration as part of the Runcorn Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.
Funding
42. Funding may be obtained from Council’s future capital works program or the Runcorn Ward, Suburban Enhancement Fund.
Consultation
43. Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
44. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
45. RECOMMENDATION:
that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1366074
Thank you for your petition requesting Council provide additional shaded seating and extend and refurbish the small dog off-leash area in Nathan Road Park, 346 Daw Road, Runcorn.
Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.
Council has listed for consideration to extend the small dog off-leash area, with the inclusion of additional seating as part of Council’s future capital works program. These works will include the existing area to have turf renovation and the installation of water diversion mounds, which will divert water away from the existing shelter and tap slab, as part of Council’s future capital works project.
In June each year, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. The works that are approved have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefitting in relation to the cost.
This request has also been forwarded to Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, for her consideration as part of the Runcorn Suburban Enhancement Fund. Should you wish to discuss your request directly with Councillor Marx, please contact her ward office on (07) 3407 0566.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Dayne Harkness, A/Regional Coordinator Parks, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07 3407 0639.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, I was advised before the meeting that Councillor COOK may have a conflict of interest on the matter of item C. However, she was not present for any point of the debate, wasn’t present for the decision and wasn’t present for the vote. So the requirements of conflict are satisfied.
Councillor HOWARD, the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, please—
Excuse me, Councillor MARX. Councillor MARX.
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Councillor Kim MARX, Chair of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. Can I start by thanking Councillor TOOMEY for very kindly agreeing to take over my Committee presentation for me this morning. LORD MAYOR and I were gratefully able to head out to Visy to the recycling plant. I want to thank them for hosting him, myself and the LORD MAYOR at their recycling centre. It was a very well-informed visit and it was an opportunity to talk about one of the issues that they have that creates a few problems for them and obviously drivers in that space, is people who are putting batteries in their recycling bins. I don’t know if people are familiar with the term hot load, but that’s what happens when they actually get a battery in the truck.
They have heat sensors within their trucks and at that point the truck driver has to actually stop the vehicle and basically unload the whole load of whatever they have in their truck on the road. That’s something we would like to avoid at all costs if possible, so hopefully people will take some of that education out of there. Don’t put your batteries in the recycling and also plastic bags. It’s a real shame to see just how many plastic bags continue to be put into the recycling bins. I think if we get rid of all of those, we’d be certainly halfway there to doing a much better job in recycling. But again, thank Visy for hosting us there this morning.
Last week’s Committee presentation was on partnerships in animal services and I want to thank the Council officers who work in this space. They work very, very hard in partnership with a number of different companies to look after our animals, making sure that they’re looked after and that if they are roaming or lost, that they are fed and taken care of until they’re reunited with their owners. So I’ll leave the further debate to the Chamber. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor MARX?
I’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PARTNERSHIPS IN ANIMAL MANAGEMENT
524/2020-21
1. The Manager, Compliance and Regulatory Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s partnerships in animal management. She provided the information below.
2. The 2020 Domestic Animal Population Survey identified that 39% of households own a dog (this equates to approximately 236,525 dogs) and 24% of households own a cat (this equates to approximately 160,837 cats). Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS) respond to approximately 14,000 enquiries per year. Council has two animal rehoming centres at Willawong and Bracken Ridge (Warra). Council is moving towards more proactive education campaigns to improve responsible pet ownership.
3. Council’s key partnerships in animal management include:
- the Animal Welfare League Queensland (AWLQ)
- the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
- the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA)
- Dogs Queensland
- Brisbane Livestock Control (BLC).
4. The AWLQ provide care of animals at the two animal rehoming centres and at emergency evacuation centres during declared disasters. The RSPCA, through their native animal ambulance, provide rescue and emergency care of sick or injured wildlife. BLC offer animal collection and transportation services, including livestock.
5. The following are contract achievements for 2019-20.
- AWLQ achievements include:
- reuniting 1,576 animals with their owners
- finding 1,071 animals a new home
- organising the transfer of 685 animals to foster homes, rescue groups and other AWLQ facilities
- holding multiple adoption campaigns.
- RSPCA admitted approximately 11,500 native animals to the RSPCA wildlife hospital
- BLC attended to approximately 4,300 requests to collect animals.
6. Sponsorship agreements are held with:
- AVA for the delivery of the Pets and People Education Program (PetPEP), which is an education initiative that teaches children about responsible pet ownership and safety around animals
- RSPCA for their Operation Wanted, Million Paws Walk and Big Adopt Out events.
7. The Committee was advised that in 2019-20, more than 1,600 school students participated in PetPEP, and more than 2,400 interactions occurred at community events, such as Million Paws Walk and All Dogs Sports Spectacular, promoting responsible pet ownership and fostering community participation.
8. The Committee was advised that key partners attended Council’s pet fairs, providing:
- dog obedience and agility demonstrations
- vet checks
- microchipping
- vaccinations
- tick, flea and worming treatments.
9. Council has identified the following opportunities and improvements with its key partners.
- AWLQ opportunities and improvements include:
- enhanced adoption outcomes
- education services
- new online adoption platform.
- RSPCA opportunities and improvements include co-branding of educational material.
- Dogs Queensland opportunities and improvements include:
- dog training incentives
- education opportunities through responsible breeders
- education opportunities at large events, such as the EKKA.
- BLC opportunities include an improved and more efficient electronic job allocation.
- AVA opportunities and improvements include online education programs to increase accessibility to PetPEP.
10. The Committee was shown an educational video of the Warra Animal Rehoming Centre, Bracken Ridge, by officers from Council’s Animal Management, City Safety and Enforcement, CARS.
11. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager for her informative presentation.
12. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, please.
Councillor HOWARD.
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE
Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just very briefly before I move to the report, this week’s events was the Queensland Symphony Orchestra. Can I say what a great delight it was for people to be able to return to the Concert Hall at QPAC (Queensland Performing Arts Centre) and a very pleasant evening with the Maestro concerts, Arabian Nights, that was held on Saturday night. We are blessed in Brisbane to have an orchestra of the calibre of the Queensland Symphony Orchestra and the performance on Saturday night was actually recorded, so that it could be replayed on ABC Classic. So I encourage everyone in the Chamber to make sure that they listen to that.
I also briefly want to touch on something the LORD MAYOR mentioned earlier, which was the COVID-19 Direct Assistance Program afternoon tea, which we held on Sunday afternoon. I know that there were very many of my colleagues there and I know that Councillor CUMMING joined us. Can I just say that it was a fantastic event and it was wonderful to see so many organisations. I really want to thank the LORD MAYOR for the vision that he had for that particular grant, because it was something that was so necessary to keep our organisations afloat.
I think everyone that was there on Sunday truly appreciated the work that was done and I’d just like to put on record my thanks to the wonderful Council officers who made that all happen. Three million dollars expended to all of our community organisations is nothing short of fantastic and I really want to thank them and the LORD MAYOR for that COVID-19 Direct Assistance Program.
Moving to the report, we had a Committee presentation on our wonderful Brisbane Greeters, who of course celebrated nine years on 14 February. So love was in the air at Victoria Park on 14 February. We enjoyed a fantastic afternoon tea and it was just amazing to hear the stories of some of the Greeters, many of whom had been doing the greeting for quite a long time. We had four of our original Greeters there and they surely had some exciting stories to tell us. So can I encourage everyone in the Chamber to promote what the Brisbane Greeters do within your wards, because we do have walks that happen throughout some of our suburbs.
We have suburbs such as Bulimba, Paddington, Fortitude Valley and West End and bookings are available seven days a week. You do have to go online to book because of our COVID-19 restrictions, but again I just want to thank each and every one of the Greeters for the work that they contribute to making this city such a beautiful place for people to visit. Particularly with COVID-19, to have our residents explore their own suburbs and to have the ability for the Brisbane Greeters to perhaps give them some history of their suburb and to make it such an enjoyable experience.
There was also one petition which was requesting Council reinstate and fund the Brisbane Greeters program, which of course we were delighted to do. So I will leave debate to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, I refer to item B. The reports seems—the response to the petition seems to leave out something there. It seems to leave out that the Greeters were set to be wiped out by the Administration after they slashed funding for the Brisbane Economic Development Agency. They were dead and buried, the poor old Greeters, dead and buried and it took a good campaign from the Opposition and it took petitions like this from Councillor COOK to get the Greeters reinstated. So we think the Greeters do do a good job, but this Administration went close to wiping them out.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers? Anyone?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. Just to take up Councillor ADAMS ‘s usual response when there’s a bit of interjection from the other side, they were a bit noisy, weren’t they? That’s because they were caught out trying to kill off the Brisbane Greeters, a much supported and popular program in Brisbane.
It was very clear that they were either trying to commercialise it or kill it and it’s only because of public pressure from those wonderful volunteers and a number of Councillors in this Chamber. It is no credit to the LNP whatsoever, they caused this problem. It was unnecessary, it was badly handled and it caused a lot of concern to those volunteers. So quite frankly, shame on you, because you created a problem that was completely unnecessary.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Well, Mr Chair, isn’t it amazing how we can rewrite history, how we can create stories? Can I just say, it was the LORD MAYOR that was out there telling people that the Greeters were a much loved and revered group of people, who of course we were going to look after.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HOWARD: No thanks whatsoever to those on the other side. Can I—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, please allow Councillor HOWARD to be heard.
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: So I’ll just give them a little history lesson, shall I, through you, Mr Chair? So originally launched by Brisbane City Council and Brisbane Marketing, now known as Brisbane Economic Development Agency, in early 2012, with only 12 Greeters. The program was in response to the 2011 floods and was designed to encourage people back to Brisbane and to leverage the spirit of volunteering sparked by the Mud Army. Since that time, it has grown into a highly successful program, with more than 100 volunteers delivering to us in more than 16 languages.
It’s been extremely well supported by the residents, who are eager to volunteer and share insights with the visitors. Since 2012 the program has delivered more than 14,000 tours to more than 80,000 visitors, with more than half of these being international visitors. Now, Mr Chair, I don’t know about you, but there seemed to be a pandemic that meant that we had no international visitors coming to our shores. We also have a number of our Greeters who were in the vulnerable age group and which we value their contribution to the city.
The program was put on hold because of COVID-19—it was put on hold because of COVID-19, and it was brought back as a result of the LORD MAYOR and the Schrinner Council Administration providing the funding, providing the means for the wonderful Greeters to come back to—and also, I think, new uniforms, the Greeters are over the moon about the way that they’ve now been brought back into the fold of the Brisbane City Council, they’re loving every minute.
I might just mention a few of their comments, because volunteer Greeter AnneMarie White, says, ‘I feel privileged to be a Greeter. It’s a joy to show visitors my special places in my home town of Brisbane.’ I think we have another one here from Charlie, Charlie loves being a Greeter and likes to take the time to get to know his guests. Charlie loves to research and in his spare time is walking the streets of the suburbs with a notepaper and pen, looking for interesting things to go home and research. ‘Being a Brisbane Greeter lets me share all the things I really enjoy about Brisbane with guests who are invariably happy to be here and love to soak it all up’.
So through you, Mr Chair, this program is and will continue to provide meaningful opportunities for volunteers to share their knowledge with guests and visitors, to feel safe and comfortable getting to know Brisbane and for businesses to leverage these connections. I look forward to sharing further progress of the program in the future.
Chair: I’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE GREETERS
525/2020-21
1. The A/Manager, Connected Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane Greeters. She provided the information below.
2. The Brisbane Greeters program (the program) commenced in 2012, with only 12 volunteers, to encourage people back to Brisbane following the 2011 floods. Currently, there are 114 Greeters delivering tours in more than 16 languages. Since 2012, more than 14,000 tours have been delivered to more than 80,000 guests.
3. The program aims to:
- provide volunteers with an opportunity to share their knowledge and feel a sense of purpose and connection to Brisbane and each other
- increase awareness that Brisbane is a safe and vibrant city that guests would recommend to friends
- provide local traders with increased opportunities for guests to connect with businesses.
4. After pausing in March 2020 due to COVID-19, the program was relaunched on 10 December 2020, with a civic reception for all Greeters at Brisbane City Hall. Tours recommenced on 11 December 2020, with the following standard walking tours currently on offer.
- Greeters Choice, leaving daily from the CBD.
- Teneriffe/New Farm, Bulimba, Fortitude Valley, Fish Lane and Paddington.
- Walter Taylor Bridge (on hold until completion of works).
- Brisbane German History (Nundah).
- Brisbane Penal Colony (CBD).
5. Special tours are also offered in conjunction with annual events, with the tours often running from the location of the event as a way for guests to explore the local area. Special tours have included:
- Brisbane Open House
- World Science Festival
- ANZAC activations
- Seniors Week
- Oktoberfest
- citizenship ceremonies, such as Australia Day at the RNA Showgrounds.
6. Recent highlights of the program include:
- tours recommencing on 11 December 2020
- the program’s 9th birthday celebration at Victoria Park on 14 February 2021
- twenty-two COVIDSafe tours conducted with 46 guests attending
- positive feedback from international and local guests
- expansion to suburbs such as Bulimba, Paddington, Fortitude Valley and West End, with bookings available seven days a week.
7. A video showing the Greeters in action was presented to the Committee.
8. Future focus areas of the program include:
- skilled and valued volunteers – training and development and a wider diversity in the age and culture of Greeters
- connected local businesses – tours across more suburbs to complement economic recovery, alignment to Brisbetter local campaigns and continued promotion to interstate and international guests.
9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the A/Manager for her informative presentation.
10. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REINSTATE AND FUND THE BRISBANE GREETERS PROGRAM
CA20/835410
526/2020-21
11. A petition from residents, requesting Council reinstate and fund the Brisbane Greeters program, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 4 August 2020 by Councillor Kara Cook, and received.
12. The Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the following information.
13. The petition contains 81 signatures.
14. Over the past eight years, the Brisbane Greeters have shared their passion for Brisbane with more than 80,000 people by providing free tours of Brisbane to local residents and interstate and international visitors.
15. After pausing the program due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the much-loved Brisbane Greeters program recommenced on 11 December 2020. The Brisbane Greeters program will be delivered in a COVIDSafe way and play a critical role in the city’s economic recovery by helping to promote Brisbane and its many attractions.
16. On 17 November 2020, the Lord Mayor wrote to all Brisbane Greeters welcoming them to Council. The Brisbane Greeters program was previously managed by the Brisbane Economic Development Agency, and will now be coordinated by the Lifestyle and Community Services division of Council.
Consultation
17. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, was consulted as Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
18. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
19. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
20. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/835410
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reinstate and fund the Brisbane Greeters program.
Over the past eight years, the Greeters have shared their passion for Brisbane with more than 80,000 people by providing free tours of Brisbane to local residents and interstate and international visitors.
After pausing the program due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the much-loved Brisbane Greeters program recommenced on 11 December 2020. The Brisbane Greeters program will be delivered in a COVIDSafe way and play a critical role in the city’s economic recovery by helping to promote Brisbane and its many attractions.
On 17 November 2020, the Lord Mayor wrote to all Brisbane Greeters welcoming them to Brisbane City Council. The Brisbane Greeters program was previously managed by the Brisbane Economic Development Agency, and will now be coordinated by the Lifestyle and Community Services division of Council.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Greg Elphinston, Inclusive Communities Manager, Connected Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, on (07) 3178 1712.
The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, please.
Councillor ALLAN.
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE
Councillor Adam ALLAN, Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 16 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. At the meeting last week we had a presentation on the First Home Owner Rebate scheme, we had an update. Just for the benefit of the Chamber, I will touch upon some of the highlights related to that presentation. So as you’d be aware, the rebate is a partial rebate of rates and charges for eligible home owners. It first kicked off on 1 October 2019, with a 50% rebate to a maximum of $1,000 for existing houses and units. From 1 October 2020 there was another element to it, which was 100% rebate to a maximum of $2,000 for new builds and the rebate is over a 12-month period from the point of approval.
Now, the people who can apply for this are Australian citizens or permanent residents over 18 years, where the property is in the Brisbane local government area, buying or building a new or established home with a value including land at less than $750,00. The eligibility criteria includes that they do not currently own or have not previously owned a home in Australia and will occupy the home as a principal place of residence, for a continuous period of at least six months within the first 12 months of the title transfer date or the build completion date. The mechanism for applying for the rebate is either via an online application form, or if necessary, a hard copy application.
Now, since this started in 2019, 5,181 accounts have been approved as of 6 February 2021. So obviously a scheme that’s very keenly supported and total rebates to that date totalled just over $2 million. The first rebates, in terms of the rebate transition period, the first rebates applied in January 2020 and there’s a 12-month rebate period that has passed, so the transitioning is now tailing off. In terms of the take-up, there are 193 suburbs across Brisbane where applicants have applied and been successful. In addition to that presentation at the Committee last week, we had a regular report, The Bank and Investment Report, for December 2020 and I’ll leave further debate to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN?
I’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FIRST HOME OWNER'S REMISSION UPDATE
527/2020-21
1. The Manager, Support Services Centre, Organisational Services, attended the meeting to provide an update on the First Home Owner’s Remission scheme (the scheme). She provided the information below.
2. The Committee was advised of the background, eligibility criteria, application process and uptake of the scheme.
3. Under the scheme, Council provides a partial rebate of rates and charges to eligible first home owners. From 1 October 2019, a 50% rebate, to a maximum of $1,000, has been offered for existing houses or units. From 1 October 2020, a 100% rebate, to a maximum of $2,000, has been offered for newly built homes. The rebate is provided over a 12-month period (from the next rateable quarter following approval) and applies to:
- general rates (after rate capping)
- environmental management and compliance levy
- bushland preservation levy
- waste utility charges.
4. Those eligible for the scheme must meet the following criteria:
- be an Australian citizen or permanent resident over 18 years of age
- intend to buy or build a new or established home
- the property is located in the Brisbane Local Government Area
- the value of the property, including land, is less than $750,000
- do not currently own, or have not previously owned, a home in Australia
- will occupy the home as a principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months within the first 12 months of the title transfer date or build completion date.
5. Applicants may apply for the scheme by completing the rate account rebate application online. A hard copy application is also available.
6. As at 6 February 2021, 5,363 accounts were approved and a total rebate of $2,003,834 had been issued. Since 1 October 2019, 5,297 accounts were issued the 50% rebate. Since 1 October 2020, 66 accounts were issued the 100% rebate.
7. The first rebates under the scheme were applied to rate accounts in January 2020. As the 12-month rebate period has now passed, these accounts will start to transition off the scheme.
8. The Committee was shown a map detailing the distribution of scheme recipients across Brisbane.
9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager, Support Services Centre, for her informative presentation.
10. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – DECEMBER 2020
134/695/317/1157
528/2020-21
11. The Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services, provided a detailed summary of Council's petty cash, bank account and cash investment positions as at 24 December 2020 for review.
12. In the December period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) including Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC), decreased by $138.6 million to $239.2 million excluding trusts (Ref: 2.5 in the Bank and Investment Report, submitted on file). The net decrease predominantly due to the $146 million Sherwood Bus Depot acquisition in December (as approved by Council on 1 December 2020).
13. During the December period, Council had paid CHF 17,136.64 (AUD 25,726.83) to HESS (supplier for the Brisbane Metro Project). Council held a cash deposit of CHF 117,379.22 valued at AUD 174,386.01 as at 24 December 2020 calculated at the spot rate of 0.6731 as published by the Reserve Bank of Australia.
14. Council funds (including QIC investment) in Australian dollars as at 24 December 2020 held by bank and investment institutions (per general ledger) totalled $230.9 million (Ref: 1.5/2.6 in the Bank and Investment Report, submitted on file). The investment variance (between general ledger and statements) relates to timing differences between transactions recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the statements (Ref: 2.7 in the Bank and Investment Report, submitted on file).
15. The majority of unreconciled bank transactions at the end of the period have since been reconciled.
16. All relevant general ledger accounts were reconciled and analysed. The Bank and Investment Report sets out Council's December cash position, as summarised above.
17. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, as submitted on file, BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chair: Councillors, are there any petitions?
Councillor ADERMANN.
Councillor ADERMANN: Thank you, Chair. A petition in relation to dog off-leash area enhancements.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I have a petition from our Sherwood residents, requesting a Cadaghi tree in Robertson Street be removed.
Chair: Are there any others? Any other petitions?
Councillor LANDERS.
529/2020-21
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.
The petitions were summarised as follows:
|File No. |Councillor |Topic |
|CA21/192602 |Greg Adermann on behalf of |Requesting Council provide dog off-leash facilities, including a small dog run,|
| |Angela Owen |solar lighting and seating, in Formby Street Park, Calamvale. |
|CA21/189039 |Nicole Johnston |Requesting Council remove the Cadaghi tree outside 32 Robertson Street, |
| | |Sherwood, and replace it with a suitable native tree. |
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chair: Councillors, General Business.
Are there any statements required as a result of an Office of the Independent Assessor or Councillor Ethics Committee order? I don’t believe there’s any movement.
Councillors, is there any ordinary General Business?
Councillor OWEN.
Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak tonight in regards to the new Heathwood distribution centre that is located in my ward. Earlier last week, the LORD MAYOR and I had the pleasure of going out there to celebrate the start of construction on this new state-of-the-art, temperature controlled, $184 million distribution centre. This is a significant investment, not only in our city but also for the many different partners that they have. It is also a major investment in jobs for our people in our city. Now, during COVID-19 we’ve seen that we’ve had many supermarkets right across our nation and right across the world that have had many workers who have been out there on the frontline.
So I’d like to take this opportunity to say a very special thank you to all those staff members at all the supermarkets, whether they’re on the checkouts, cleaning the areas with the trolleys, whether they’re stocking the shelves, whether they’re working in the distribution centres or on a forklift. These are all the people that have made sure that during the pandemic the general consumer has been able to access goods in order to keep their family fed. So that is a very vital job that many people have actually undertaken. So it was a privilege to formally welcome the Woolworths distribution centre into our local community.
There’s a number of very important facts about this distribution centre, because it is a state-of-the-art centre, it is temperature controlled and it does go a long way to enhancing a partnership for Hilton Foods, which is co-located on the same logistics site. Woolworths have focused on the importance of strong, responsive and resilient food and grocery supply chains and has really had that focus, particularly in relation to this site. They have put in a major investment into this infrastructure network and we are seeing the results of it in our local community.
It is a 42,000 square metre facility. It’s all temperature controlled, different warehouses and spaces within the facility have got different temperature controls, how they’re doing it between some of the bays is absolutely cutting edge. It will deliver faster, fresher and more efficient deliveries of both frozen and long-life chilled products. This will go to about 260 stores throughout Queensland and northern New South Wales.
If you actually think of Suncorp Stadium’s playing field, the size of this facility is equivalent to about three times the size of Suncorp Stadium. So it is no small facility at all; it is quite large and at full capacity it will contain approximately over two million cartons. Those two million cartons of stock per week will be moved and there will be over 4,000 product lines. We will see that because of this facility we will have—an air bridge that goes between Hilton, which is the meat supplier for Woolworths, and this distribution centre.
Instead of trucks having to go from the food area of Hiltons’ and then move across to the distribution centre to get the rest of their pallet stock to then take to the stores, the truck will come into the distribution centre, the cold product, the meat will come across on the air bridge conveyor from Hiltons and then that will be packed onto the pallets, along with the other dry food and other supplies that that truck is then taking to that particular store. We are going to see significant logistical efficiencies coming out of this. The other aspect as well is the jobs. During the construction phase there will be approximately 200 local jobs that will be coming into this area.
On top of that, there will be ongoing employment opportunities at the facility for about 300 people. This is a lot for our local community and I’m really, really pleased that they have engaged at an early stage to make sure that they had this partnership as well with Hilton Meats. Now, the other thing too that is quite significant around my ward is that a lot of my area is bound by the Logan Motorway and Beaudesert Road, both of which are significant road freight corridors.
Just by co-locating this facility in this logistics precinct, this will mean that we will see a reduction of 390 truck movements per week. So this is going to mean a big, big difference to a lot of local residents. I think that when we have got major companies like that making the investment in our city we do need to acknowledge it. It is not something that they’ve just done overnight, they have put a lot of consideration in, a lot of planning and a lot of investment.
The one thing that I also think is quite unique in regards to this is that we have a Sister City in Auckland. Woolworths and Hiltons have a sister setup that they’re also setting up in Auckland. So what they’re doing here in Brisbane, they’re seeing the same thing replicated over in Auckland. We need to make sure that we keep supporting local jobs, local investment in our city and make sure that where possible we keep the economy going. Thank you.
Chair: Further General Business?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair. Shuvi jha, which is a greeting hello in Bangla. I rise to speak in regards to—about conserving your mother language. I’m honoured to represent one of the most multicultural wards in Brisbane City Council. I’m pleased to work and report that nearly a third of our city’s population is born overseas, more than 22% of the households speaking a language other than English.
I have many residents in my ward that embrace speaking a language other than English and are doing everything possible to preserve their native language. I can report that many languages at schools for young and old exist in my ward and right around Brisbane. It is an excellent way to respect and embrace and preserve the multicultural Australia. I am proud to recently have sat down with my good friend, Dr Jaydee from the Bangladesh community, who is advocating and leading the way to preserve endangered languages and promote international and other languages for Mother Language Day.
Jaydee explained that the language is key to uphold and reflect individual cultures. When a language gets lost most culture is lost, if not dismissed. He’s volunteering, tireless alongside many to ensure that the native language of Bangla continues to be passed on to future generations. This year, on Saturday 27 February, the Mother Language Conservation Movement, the Bangladesh Association in Brisbane and many other multicultural organisations will come together and observe International Mother Language Day at Reddacliff Place in Brisbane City at 11.30am.
I would like to thank Dr Jaydee and everyone who is working hard to conserve the—I knew I was going to have a problem with this word when I wrote it—I was going to say logistics, but that’s not right. Of diversity, sorry, sorry for stuffing up that word.
Chair: Further General Business?
There being none—Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I know everyone’s keen to bug out before the storm, none more so than me, but I did just want to pick up on those discussions earlier about public greenspace. Hopefully Councillor McLACHLAN and Councillor CUNNINGHAM and the DEPUTY MAYOR will also help me relay some of these comments to Councillor MURPHY and the LORD MAYOR.
There seems to be a general sentiment that loss of greenspace associated with new infrastructure isn’t a significant concern and doesn’t materially impact how public spaces are used. But I just want to place on the record very clearly that it does. Often the public projects we’re talking about are really positive and beneficial and thus justified, but people don’t use a concrete plaza next to a bridge in the same way that they use a quiet riverside park. I’m sure Councillor MACKAY will agree with me on this point, because he’s been hearing from a lot of his residents about this issue as well.
When Council takes away inner city riverfront parkland for other purposes, even if it’s a very small amount in terms of net area, that does materially change how residents use those public parks. I’m sure Councillor CUNNINGHAM’s team will have been talking to her about their concerns with some of these projects, where every year or every few years we drop another infrastructure project into a piece of parkland. Gradually over time, whether it’s a bypass or a busway expansion or a new bridge landing, gradually over time we see the actual useable amount of public greenspace in these parks drastically reduced.
At some point we have to turn around and say well no, that’s not an acceptable trajectory. I’m not saying we don’t build stuff in parks, I’m simply saying that we need to factor the loss of parkland into the cost of these projects and budget accordingly. If Council is building a project that requires private land to be converted, we compensate the landowner. In the same way, if Council is building land—is taking land in a public park for some other project, the City Projects team or the Transport team should be compensating the NEWS division. Money should be moving from the Transport team or from the Projects team into the parks budget, so that that money can be used to acquire new parkland.
It’s a fairly simple proposition and other councils around the world already do this, but unfortunately Brisbane City Council doesn’t and as a result, we’re seeing a gradual loss of a lot of that inner city greenspace in particular. But even other parks around the city, where the more stuff you cram into parks, the more infrastructure you cram into parks, the less space is left for sports fields in particular, but also other community facilities. It’s been really sad in my ward that the West End soccer club still doesn’t have a proper field. They’re sharing the South’s field and it’s pretty degraded and not quite big enough and that’s causing real concerns.
I’m sure there are other soccer clubs and cricket clubs and sports clubs across the city that are having trouble finding enough space for their community members. Really, it highlights the need for more investment in public greenspace and to draw a bit of a stronger line and say we’re not going to just keep carving up our public parks and public greenspaces indefinitely for new infrastructure. At some point we have to create more parkland to cater for our growing population. I’ll leave it there.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
There being none, I declare the meeting closed.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (received on 16 February 2021)
Q1. On what date was the damaged footpath on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St, Sherwood logged for repair?
Q2. On what date was the damaged footpath made safe with temporary repairs on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St, Sherwood?
Q3. On what date was the damaged footpath on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St, Sherwood properly repaired?
Q4. On what date will the damaged footpath on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St Sherwood be properly repaired? How much longer do residents have to wait on essential footpath repairs leading to Sherwood State School, Sherwood Rail Station and the Sherwood Shops to be undertaken?
Q5. At Council on 16 February, the Lord Mayor publicly stated that $71m is being invested in parkland capital works this year. Please provide a breakdown of total funding by ward for this expenditure?
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (received on 18 February 2021)
Q1. Please provide traffic volumes (average vehicles per day) on Kingsford Smith Drive for the following years: -
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
|2021 | |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
|2010 | |
Q2. Please provide average traffic speeds during weekday AM and PM peaks on Kingsford Smith Drive for the following years: -
|YEAR |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
|2016 | | |
|2015 | | |
|2014 | | |
|2013 | | |
|2012 | | |
|2011 | | |
|2010 | | |
Q3. Please provide traffic volumes (average vehicles per day) on Wynnum Road for the following years: -
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
|2021 | |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
|2010 | |
Q4. Please provide average traffic speeds during weekday AM and PM peaks on Wynnum Road for the following years: -
|YEAR |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
|2016 | | |
|2015 | | |
|2014 | | |
|2013 | | |
|2012 | | |
|2011 | | |
|2010 | | |
Q5. Please provide traffic volumes (average vehicles per day) on the Inner City Bypass (East Bound and West Bound) for the following years: -
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY EAST BOUND |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
| | |WEST BOUND |
|2021 | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
|2016 | | |
|2015 | | |
|2014 | | |
|2013 | | |
|2012 | | |
|2011 | | |
|2010 | | |
Q6. Please provide average traffic speeds during weekday AM and PM peaks on the Inner City Bypass (East Bound and West Bound) for the following years: -
|YEAR |EAST BOUND |WEST BOUND |
| |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 | | | | |
|2020 | | | | |
|2019 | | | | |
|2018 | | | | |
|2017 | | | | |
|2016 | | | | |
|2015 | | | | |
|2014 | | | | |
|2013 | | | | |
|2012 | | | | |
|2011 | | | | |
|2010 | | | | |
Q7. How many Council officers were employed to investigate dog attacks for each of the following years: -
|YEAR |NUMBER OF COUNCIL OFFICERS |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
Q8. How many dog attacks occurred in each of the following years: -
|YEAR |NUMBER OF DOG ATTACKS |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
Q9. Please provide the total number of Brisbane City Council managed roads broken down by the following road hierarchy classifications:
|CLASS |NUMBER |
|Arterial Routes | |
|District Routes | |
|Neighbourhood Roads | |
|Suburban Road | |
|TOTAL NUMBER | |
Q10. Please provide the total number of contract staff and total FTEs working at Council’s resource recovery centres: -
|CENTRE |TOTAL NUMBER |TOTAL FTE |
|Nudgee | | |
|Willawong | | |
|Ferny Grove | | |
|Chandler | | |
Q11. Please provide the total number of contract staff and total FTEs driving the fleet of rubbish trucks: -
|CONTRACT STAFF |TOTAL NUMBER |TOTAL FTE |
|Truck drivers | | |
Q12. Please provide the total revenue received from rates for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
Q13. Please provide the total revenue received from Waste Utility Charges for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
Q14. Please provide the total revenue received from the Environmental Management and Compliance Levy for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
Q15. Please provide the total revenue received from Bushland Preservation Levy for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
Q16. Please provide the average annual rates bill and average percentage rates increase for Category 1 – Residential Owner Occupied properties for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES BILL |AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE (%) |
|2004/05 | | |
|2005/06 | | |
|2006/07 | | |
|2007/08 | | |
|2008/09 | | |
|2009/10 | | |
|2011/12 | | |
|2012/13 | | |
|2013/14 | | |
|2014/15 | | |
|2015/16 | | |
|2016/17 | | |
|2017/18 | | |
|2018/19 | | |
|2019/20 | | |
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 Jonathan Sri (from meeting on 16 February 2021)
Q1. What was the total land acquisition cost for the creation of Bunyapa Park at 68 Vulture St, West End?
A1. The acquisition of Bunyapa Park was a Commercial-in-Confidence negotiated resumption in 2014-15 of 68 Vulture and 33 Thomas Streets, West End, for [Commercial-in-Confidence].
The information has been provided to Councillors separately due to its Commercial-in-Confidence nature.
Q2. What is the total amount spent on establishment, embellishments and infrastructure for Bunyapa Park at 68 Vulture St, West End?
A2. $1.15m.
Q3. What was the total land acquisition cost for the creation of Buranda Urban Common at the corner of Carl St and Tottenham St, Woolloongabba?
A3. The acquisition cost for Buranda Urban Common (Carl Street Park) is [Commercial-in-Confidence].
The information has been provided to Councillors separately due to its Commercial-in-Confidence nature.
Q4. What is the total amount spent on establishment, embellishments and infrastructure for Buranda Urban Common at the corner of Carl St and Tottenham St, Woolloongabba?
A4. $2.05m.
Q5. What is the total amount spent on land acquisition for new parkland since 2012 for each ward in Brisbane? (Please list each ward and the associated dollar value in a table)
A5. Ward names and boundaries have changed since 2012 to present day, therefore this information is only available by suburb. This information is only readily available from 2013-14 financial year.
|PARK NAME |COST (excluding corporate overheads) |
|Pallara District Sport Park |9,173,000 |
|Pallara District Open Space |4,400,000 |
|Stapylton Road Park (Rotary Park) |484,134 |
|Coorparoo Creek Reserve |7,135,000 |
|Carl Street Park / Buranda Urban Common |7,030,000 |
|Cannon Hill Future Local Rec. Park |825,708 |
|Windsor Sports and Community Park |6,728,182 |
|Ellen Grove District Sport Park |1,957,625 |
|Wagner Street Park |3,110,000 |
|Bedser Street Park |3,365,000 |
|Tryon Street Park |1,500,000 |
|Everett Street Park |3,425,000 |
|Chalk Street Park |9,547,000 |
|Fallon Street Park |1,180,000 |
|Rocklea Sports and Community Park |430,000 |
|Milton Urban Common |4,500,000 |
|Moggill District Sports Park |219,134 |
|Priors Pocket Road Park |2,600,000 |
|Chilton Street Park |2,000,000 |
|West End Urban Common |3,244,000 |
|Witton Barracks Park |5,500,000 |
Submitted by Councillor Jonathan Sri (from meeting on 16 February 2021)
Q1. In setting the phase times for yellow traffic signals to change to red, engineering standards assume a certain reaction time for the average motorist. What assumed reaction time is used by Brisbane City Council for signals in Brisbane?
A1. Council uses a reaction time of 1.0 seconds.
Q2. In setting the phase times for yellow traffic signals to change to red, engineering standards assume vehicles travelling through an intersection will be travelling at a certain minimum speed. What assumed minimum speed is used by Brisbane City Council for signals in Brisbane?
A2. Council derives yellow time settings using AGTM09-16 Guide to Traffic Management Part 9 – Traffic Operations, Austroads, as per Table G2, page 226.
Where there is no design speed available, which is common in an existing urban environment, the lower of either the posted speed limit or the measured 85th percentile speed is used.
Q3. Do the yellow light timings for the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane allow enough time for cyclists to pass through the intersection safely before the lights change?
A3. The yellow time is not the time available for motorists to travel through an intersection before the conflicting pedestrian movement runs. The yellow time is the time for drivers to react and stop before entering the intersection.
Yellow light times are derived using the methodology outlined within the AGTM09-16 Guide to Traffic Management Part 9 – Traffic Operations, Austroads.
Q4. Do the yellow light timings for the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane allow enough time for motorists travelling through the intersection eastbound on Vulture St to pass through before the green pedestrian signal to cross Vulture St is displayed?
A4. The yellow time is not the time available for motorists to travel through an intersection before the conflicting pedestrian movement runs. The yellow time is the time for drivers to react and stop before entering the intersection. Yellow light times are derived using the methodology outlined within the AGTM09-16 Guide to Traffic Management Part 9 – Traffic Operations, Austroads.
There is an all-red time (also known as the clearance time) which is provided for vehicles in the intersection to complete their movement. The all-red time is provided in accordance with the AGTM09-16 Guide to Traffic Management Part 9 – Traffic Operations, Austroads.
Q5. Is the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane fully compliant with the current designs standards in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices?
A5. The design for the intersection, including lantern arrangement, signs, and line markings, is compliant with the version of Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the time of its design. It is noted that pedestrian countdown timers are not included within the MUTCD.
Q6. How many reported crashes have there been at the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane since 2016?
A6. 9.
Q7. How many reported crashes have there been at the intersection of Vulture St and Gladstone Rd, South Brisbane since 2016?
A7. 5.
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 16 February 2021)
Q1. How much did Brisbane City Council spend on repairing damage caused to parkland and environmental areas from bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in the following years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
A1. Council officers advise Council does not have that information in the format requested.
Q2. How much money was spent on repairing damage caused by bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in Mt Coot-tha in the following financial years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
A2. Council officers advise Council does not have that information in the format requested.
Q3. How much money was spent on repairing damage caused by bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in Karawatha Forest in the following financial years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
A3. Council officers advise Council does not have that information in the format requested.
Q4. How much money was spent on repairing damage caused by bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in Toohey Forest in the following financial years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
A4. Council officers advise Council does not have that information in the format requested.
Q5. How many years was the Trail Care Program operating in Mt Coot-tha?
A5. The Trail Care Program commenced in 2004, with the Gap Creek Trail Alliance. There was a dedicated Trail Care Coordinator appointed in 2004.
In 2013, the Trail Care Coordinator role was reviewed and reclassified into a Recreation Management Officer role to assist with the growing recreational pressures on the citywide network of conservation reserves. Trail Care at Gap Creek continued to be supported by the Recreation Management Officer and Asset Services West Region, until approximately 2017.
Q6. How much did the Trail Care Program, operating in Mt Coot-tha, cost?
A6. Council officers advise Council does not hold records of these costs.
Q7. Please complete the tables below in relation to the following funding programs announced by Brisbane City Council in February 2021
a. Works for Queensland (W4Q) – approved funding $5.0M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
b. Unite & Recover Community Stimulus Package (URCSP) – approved funding $2.7M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
c. Local Roads & Community Infrastructure Phase 1 (LRCI – Phase 1) – approved funding $11.7M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
d. Local Roads & Community Infrastructure Phase 2 (LRCI – Phase 2) – approved funding $40.7M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
A7. a.
|Project |Description |Funding |
|CityLink Cycleway - Stage 1 |Separated bi-directional bikeways in the |$1,500,000 |
| |Brisbane CBD. | |
|North Brisbane Bikeway, Chermside to Aspley |Extend the North Brisbane Bikeway between |$2,100,000 |
|Stage 1 - Webster Road to Nevin Street |Chermside and Aspley. | |
|Main Street shared pathway improvements |Widening the pathway between River Terrace and |$1,150,000 |
| |St Vincents Hospital near Main Street. | |
|Bikeway Lighting, Bulimba Creek Bikeway |Install new lighting fixtures to a section of |$250,000 |
| |Bulimba Creek Bikeway between the Veloway V1 | |
| |and Freesia Street at Tarragindi. | |
b.
|Project |Description |Funding |
|Eildon Hill Reservoir - infrastructure upgrade |Informal lookout site in Brisbane. |$855,000 |
|Vulture Street East pedestrian safety |Signalised pedestrian crossing on Vulture |$450,000 |
|improvements |Street East near Withington Street, East | |
| |Brisbane. | |
|Richlands SES Garage Extension |Establish a larger consolidated SES depot |$695,000 |
| |location at Richlands. | |
|Footpath Reconstruction – Various Locations, |Reconstruction of concrete footpath at eight |$764,013 |
|Brisbane |locations across Brisbane. | |
c. This information was provided to a previous Question on Notice on 20 October 2020.
d.
|Project |Description |Funding |
|Minnippi Parklands, Cannon Hill: Bicycle and |The scope of works includes a new off-road |$3,700,000 |
|Walking Paths |shared path along a section at Minnippi | |
| |Parklands and Cannon Hill Bushland Reserve. | |
|Roghan Road, Fitzgibbon: Widening |Works includes a right-turn lane for local |$2,350,000 |
| |residents accessing Caribou Crescent, on-road | |
| |cycle lanes from west of Odense Street to east | |
| |of Caribou Crescent. | |
|Dorville Road, Aspley: Widening |Works include the widening the pavement and |$1,300,000 |
| |installing kerb and channel along the eastern | |
| |side of Dorville Road, south of the Cabbage | |
| |Tree Creek bridge. | |
|Kuraby State School - Beenleigh Road, Kuraby: |Formalising the existing unpaved carpark at |$1,100,000 |
|Off-road Car Parks |Kuraby State School. | |
|Cannery Creek - Nudgee Road, Northgate: Bridge |Repair and relining of existing culverts |$2,200,000 |
|Works |protect the concrete structure and ensure they | |
| |meet vehicle loading requirements of the | |
| |corridor. | |
|Breakfast Creek Bridge, Albion: Street Light |Replacement of existing lighting across the |$400,000 |
|Equipment |span of the bridge and adjacent lighting used | |
| |for the paths in the vicinity to the bridge. | |
|Montpelier Road, Bowen Hills: Rehabilitation |The scope of works includes vegetation removal,|$135,000 |
| |scaling and block removal at the rear of the | |
| |existing commercial property on Montpelier Road| |
| |to stabilise the wall. | |
|Ann Street, Fortitude Valley: Rehabilitation |Capping stones and loose rock on retaining |$165,000 |
| |wall, which supports the All Hallows School | |
| |along Ann Street pedestrian footpath. | |
|Remediation Works – Bushland Acquisition |The scope of works includes the demolition and |$345,000 |
|Program, Various locations: Other |clean-up of multiple properties, removal of | |
| |non-native species, installation of fences to | |
| |secure properties, enabling Council to | |
| |establish the properties as conservation | |
| |reserves that are accessible to the public and | |
| |restore significant habitat, open space and | |
| |amenity. | |
|Chrystal Street, Paddington: Rehabilitation |The scope of works includes a stone pitch |$85,000 |
| |retaining wall to replace the existing wall. | |
|School Road, The Gap |Works include a new retaining wall of |$55,000 |
| |approximately 10 metres in length to replace | |
| |the existing wall. | |
|Mill Road, Pullenvale: Rehabilitation |Embankment repairs along approximately 150 |$85,000 |
| |metres of the road cutting. | |
|Ivory Street, Fortitude Valley: Rehabilitation |The scope of the works includes embankment |$55,000 |
| |repairs. | |
|Toorak Road, Hamilton: Rehabilitation |The scope of works includes embankment repairs.|$240,000 |
|Tooth Avenue, Paddington: Reconstruction |Resurfacing of existing road surface on Tooth |$185,000 |
| |Avenue. | |
|St Vincents Road, Banyo: Reconstruction |The scope of works includes resurfacing |$820,000 |
| |existing road surface on St Vincents Road. | |
|Pound Drain, Nudgee Road, Nundah: Bridge Works |The scope of works includes repairing and |$2,200,000 |
| |relining of existing culverts to increase | |
| |strength and life of the asset. | |
|Nudgee Waterhole Reserve – Stage 2: Landscaping|The scope of works includes the upgrade to the |$290,000 |
|Improvements |existing car park, additional vegetation to | |
| |buffer noise from the motorway and provide | |
| |shade to park users, sufficient playground | |
| |equipment, and engagement with the indigenous | |
| |community to create an interactive component to| |
| |the playground/picnic area to reflect the | |
| |significance of the site. | |
|Windsor Sports and Community Park Playground, |The scope of works includes the delivery of a |$896,000 |
|Northey Street, Windsor: Playgrounds and Skate |new signature playground, consisting of a | |
|Parks |bespoke tower to allow for ‘at height’ views of| |
| |the iconic fig tree and surrounds. | |
|Scooter Track, Coorparoo Common, Cambridge |Works include the design and construction of a |$440,000 |
|Street, Coorparoo: Playgrounds and Skate Parks |new BMX/scooter track to increase recreational | |
| |opportunities for residents and visitors. | |
|Davies Park, Montague Road, West End: |The scope of works will includes a new |$700,000 |
|Playgrounds and Skate Parks |nature-themed play space, new circular pathway | |
| |around the village green connecting to the | |
| |multi-use games area, new pathway to meet | |
| |disability access standards connecting Davies | |
| |Park to Riverside Drive and supporting park | |
| |furniture. | |
|Fauna Movement Infrastructure, Multiple |The scope of works includes the installation |$700,000 |
|Locations: Other |wildlife movement infrastructure, such as | |
| |fencing, habitat poles, glider poles and | |
| |habitat ledges, subject to engineering design. | |
|Whites Hill Ring Road – Stage 1: Off-road Car |Works include the one-way directional |$5,780,000 |
|Parks |rationalisation of the ring road from the park | |
| |entrance, formalising existing carparking | |
| |arrangements including required civil drainage | |
| |works. | |
|Archerfield Wetlands – Greater Parkland |The scope of works includes the detailed |$4,698,886 |
|Project: Bicycle and Walking Paths |design, documentation and establishment of | |
| |approximately 2.7 kilometres of an unsealed | |
| |management and access track network at grade | |
| |within the 150-hectare site and wetlands | |
| |environment. | |
|Waterfront Park, Waterloo Street, Newstead: |Installation of DOLA (Dog Off-Leash Area) |$220,000 |
|Repairs/ Replacement of fencing |infrastructure and improve open space and | |
| |landscaping. | |
|Sports field Lighting – Package 2, Multiple |Includes auditing of electrical infrastructure |$1,685,000 |
|Locations: Sporting and recreation facilities |for sporting clubs across Brisbane and the | |
| |rectification of high-risk items identified as | |
| |part of those audits. | |
|Kurilpa Hall, Boundary Street, West End: |The scope of works includes complete repairs |$50,000 |
|Painting/ improvements to community facilities |ensuring the facility is fit-for-purpose for a | |
| |community tenant. | |
|Brisbane Bridge Centre, Yeronga Memorial Park, |The scope of works includes replacement of the |$200,000 |
|Yeronga: Painting/ improvements to community |roof and make required structural repairs | |
|facilities |ensuring the facility is fit-for-purpose for a | |
| |community tenant. | |
|Hamilton Town Hall, Racecourse Road, Hamilton: |The scope of works includes internal |$600,000 |
|Painting/ improvements to community facilities |refurbishment of the hall, including works to | |
| |the kitchen, amenities, minor internal fit outs| |
| |and maintenance, and required structural repair| |
| |works. | |
|Sandgate Community Hall, Cliff Street, |Works includes the upgrade of AV equipment |$150,000 |
|Sandgate: Improvements to community facilities |across the site including the stage, meeting | |
| |rooms and main hall. | |
|Musgrave Park Tennis Court, Cordelia Street, |The scope of works includes installation of |$150,000 |
|South Brisbane: Sporting and recreation |lighting for the court and security. | |
|facilities | | |
|Musgrave Park Swimming Centre, Edmondstone |Works includes the 50-metre existing pool to be|$190,000 |
|Street, South Brisbane: Sporting and recreation|divided into two 25-metre pool sections via the| |
|facilities |fabrication/construction of a floating | |
| |divider/wall. | |
|Inala Library, Corsair Avenue, Inala: Painting/|The scope of works includes refurbishment to |$1,000,000 |
|improvements to community facilities |ensure the facility which is fit for purpose | |
| |and meets modern community hub needs. | |
|Old Substation, Paddington (Hands on Art), |The scope of works includes refurbishment and |$1,500,000 |
|Enoggera Terrace, Paddington: Painting/ |restoration of the heritage building, including| |
|improvements to community facilities |roof replacement and fire safety and building | |
| |compliance improvements to make it | |
| |fit-for-purpose. | |
|Witton Barracks, Lambert Road, Indooroopilly: |Works include establishing essential services, |$850,000 |
|Painting/ improvements to community facilities |including water, sewerage, data and electricity| |
| |from the adjacent street to the vicinity of the| |
| |community hub. | |
|Repairs and compliance maintenance, Multiple |Includes repairs, maintenance to required |$1,125,000 |
|Locations: Painting/ improvements to community |building compliance standards on nine vacant | |
|facilities |community sites to enable tenanting. | |
|Whites Hill Reserve Club House, Jones Road, |The scope of works includes the demolition and |$2,600,000 |
|Camp Hill: Painting/ improvements to community |construction of a new purpose-built club house | |
|facilities |for use by existing tenant designed and | |
| |constructed specifically for the site | |
| |constraints. | |
|Seven Hills Hub, Tallowwood Street, Seven |The scope of works includes replacement of the |$100,000 |
|Hills: Painting/ improvements to community |gabion walls. | |
|facilities | | |
|Ed Davenport Rotary Park, Bowering Street, |Works include replacement of the current skate |$400,000 |
|Lota: Playgrounds and Skate Parks |park with a new facility. | |
|New Farm Park, Brunswick Street, New Farm: |The scope of works includes the addition of a |$575,000 |
|Painting/ improvements to community facilities |new amenity building and associated building | |
| |works as required for accessibility, | |
| |landscaping, safety fencing and lighting. | |
|Hangar 7, Schneider Road, Eagle Farm: Painting/|The scope of works includes connection of |$450,000 |
|improvements to community facilities |sewer, portable water, fire hydrant system and | |
| |hardstand repair in preparation for converting | |
| |the building for community use. | |
Q8. Please provide a list of all new Brisbane parks since 1 January 2016 to date, indicating which were via developer contribution or Brisbane City Council, the year it became a park and the cost/amount spent.
|PARK NAME |SUBURB |DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTED PARK OR |YEAR IT BECAME A COUNCIL|COST/ AMOUNT SPENT |
| | |BCC |PARK | |
| | | | | |
A8. Council officers advise we are unable to provide an answer within the timeframe that accords with the Meetings Local Law 2001, as information is not recorded in the format requested.
Q9. Please provide a list of all dog off-leash parks which have irrigation systems installed.
|PARK NAME |SUBURB |
| | |
A9.
|PARK NAME |SUBURB |
|Powerhouse Park Dog Off-Leash Area |New Farm |
|Gregory Terrace Dog Off-Leash Area, Victoria Park |Spring Hill |
Q10. Please provide the number of cabinet bin boxes in Brisbane parks, broken down by region
|REGION |NUMBER OF CABINETS - GENERAL WASTE BINS ONLY |NUMBER OF CABINETS - GENERAL WASTE + RECYCLING |
|Central | | |
|North | | |
|South | | |
|East | | |
|West | | |
A10. Council officers advise we are unable to provide an answer within the timeframe that accords with the Meetings Local Law 2001, as information is not recorded in the format requested.
Q11. Please provide the total number of Council staff working in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS STAFF |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
A11.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS STAFF |
|2020 |67.7 |
|2019 |63.7 |
|2018 |63.7 |
|2017 |63.7 |
|2016 |63.7 |
It is assumed that this refers to staff working in the Corporate Communication branch in Council. Please note, these employees may also undertake other work besides communications.
Q12. Please provide the total number of Council staff working in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS STAFF |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
A12.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS STAFF |
|2015 |61.7 |
|2014 |61.7 |
|2013 | - |
|2012 | - |
|2011 | - |
It is assumed that this refers to staff working in the Corporate Communication branch in Council. Council officers advise we are unable to easily obtain records for staff figures from 2011-2013. Please note, these employees may also undertake other work besides communications.
Q13. Please provide the total number of contract staff worked in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT STAFF |
|2021 | |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
A13.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT STAFF |
|2021 |5 (to date) |
|2020 |15 |
|2019 |17 |
|2018 |20 |
|2017 |11 |
|2016 |10 |
Please note, it is assumed that this refers to staff working in the Corporate Communication branch in Council.
Q14. Please provide the total number of contract staff working in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT STAFF |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
A14.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT STAFF |
|2015 |0 |
|2014 |1 |
|2013 |0 |
|2012 |2 |
|2011 |0 |
Please note, it is assumed that this refers to staff working in the Corporate Communication branch in Council.
Q15. Please provide a breakdown of the total cost of operating the following services in the 2019-2020 year, and the revenue received from Translink:
|Service |Cost |Revenue - Translink |Revenue - Fares |
|CityCat | | | |
|CityHopper | | | |
|Bulimba to Teneriffe Cross | | | |
|River Ferry | | | |
|Kangaroo Point Cross River | | | |
|Ferry | | | |
|Norman Park – New Farm Park | | | |
|Cross River Ferry | | | |
A15.
|Service |Cost |Revenue - Translink |Revenue - Fares |
|CityCat |$43.170m |$19.036m |This information is not held by |
| | | |Council. All fare revenue goes to|
| | | |TransLink and Council does not |
| | | |receive any of this revenue. |
|CityHopper |$2.895m |- | |
|Bulimba to Teneriffe Cross River Ferry | $0.991m | $0.383m | |
|Kangaroo Point Cross River Ferry | $1.629m | $0.629m | |
|Norman Park – New Farm Park Cross River Ferry| $0.935m |$0.361m | |
Q16. Please provide a list of the current Board members including any remuneration paid to those members for the 2019/2020 year and 2020-2021 year to date.
|Board Name: |Member Name: |Remuneration 2019/2020 |Remuneration 2020/2021 YTD |
|Better Suburbs Initiative | | | |
|Board | | | |
|Brisbane Bus Build Pty Ltd | | | |
|Brisbane Green Heart City | | | |
|Smart Pty Ltd | | | |
|Brisbane Marketing Pty | | | |
|Ltd/Brisbane Economic | | | |
|Development Agency | | | |
|Brisbane Powerhouse Pty Ltd | | | |
|Brisbane Tolling Pty Ltd | | | |
|City of Brisbane Investment | | | |
|Corporation | | | |
|City Parkland Services Pty Ltd| | | |
|City Super Pty Ltd | | | |
|Field Services Advisory Board | | | |
|Inclusive Brisbane Advisory | | | |
|Board | | | |
|Independent Design Advisory | | | |
|Panel | | | |
|Lord Mayor’s Creative Brisbane| | | |
|Advisory Board | | | |
|Major Brisbane Festivals Pty | | | |
|Ltd | | | |
|Major Projects Board | | | |
|Museum of Brisbane Board Pty | | | |
|Ltd | | | |
|Oxley Creek Transformation Pty| | | |
|Ltd | | | |
|QUU Board (BCC 85% | | | |
|shareholder) | | | |
|SunPAC Brisbane Pty Ltd | | | |
|Trade Coast Land Pty Ltd | | | |
|Urban Futures Brisbane Board | | | |
A16. Privacy-in-Confidence information has been provided to Councillors separately.
|Board Name |Member Name |2019/20 |YTD 2020/21 |
|Better Suburbs Initiative |Ross Elliott |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Board | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Gary Hardgrave |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Charlotte Fitzgerald |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|Brisbane Bus Build Pty Ltd |Geoff Beck |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Bill Lyon |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Thiago Arrue Deiro |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |(Volgren) | | |
| |Jaco Breytenbach (CFO|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Volgren) | | |
| | | | |
|Brisbane Green Heart |Nigel Chamier (Chair)|Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
|CitySmart Pty Ltd (CitySmart)| |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Dylan Byrne |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| |Katherine Sadler |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| |Patrice Sherrie |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| |Jane Edwards |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| |Guy Gibson |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| |Ben O'Hara |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| |Andrea Kenafake |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |the jurisdiction of CitySmart |
| | | | |
|Brisbane Economic Development|Paul Spiro (Chair) |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
|Agency (BEDA) | |the jurisdiction of BEDA |the jurisdiction of BEDA |
| |Liz Savage (D) |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of BEDA |the jurisdiction of BEDA |
| |Adam Penberthy (D) |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of BEDA |the jurisdiction of BEDA |
| |John Shepherd (D) |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of BEDA |the jurisdiction of BEDA |
| |Helen Besly (D) |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of BEDA |the jurisdiction of BEDA |
| |Sofie Formica |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of BEDA |the jurisdiction of BEDA |
| | | | |
|Brisbane Powerhouse |David Conry (Chair) |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |(end March 2020) | | |
| |Valmay Hill (Chair) |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |(from Aug 2020) | | |
| |Catherine Michael |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |David Lyons |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Jason Bird |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Libby Anstis |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Hayley Johnson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |John Cotter |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |No longer a member |
| |Emma Fredericks |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|Brisbane Tolling Pty Ltd |Scott Stewart (Chair)|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Bill Lyon |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|City of Brisbane Investment |Geoff Rodgers (Chair)|Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
|Corporation (CBIC) | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Neil Castles |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Maria Roach |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Bruce McIver |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Jerry Harris |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Patrice Sherrie |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Neill Ford |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Colin Jensen |Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| |Bill Lyon (Alternate)|Remuneration details are within |Remuneration details are within |
| | |the jurisdiction of CBIC |the jurisdiction of CBIC |
| | | | |
|City Parkland Services Pty |Andrea Kenafake |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Ltd |(Chair) | | |
| |Paul Oberle |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Brad Wilson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Chris Isles |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Stephanie Knobel |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |(Secretary) | | |
| | | | |
|City Super Pty Ltd - company |Bill Lyon |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|in process of being | | | |
|deregistered | | | |
| | | | |
|Field Services Advisory Board|Charlie Miller (Chair|[Privacy-in-Confidence] | |
| |2019/20) | | |
|As at 12/2/21 There have been| | | |
|no payments made this | | | |
|financial year. Payment will | | | |
|be at the end March. | | | |
| |Lisa France |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Gary Hardgrave |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|Inclusive Brisbane Board |Greg Goebel |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| | | | |
|Please note, the Inclusive | | | |
|Brisbane Board has been | | | |
|reformed as the Inclusive | | | |
|Brisbane Panel. | | | |
| |Kerrin Benson / Bill |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Gamack | | |
| |Laurie Buys |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Karen Dare |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Jelenko Dragisic |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |John Mayo |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Matthew Miller |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Sonya Keep |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Wayne Briscoe |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Maree Adshead |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Thomas Rice |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Lincoln Savage |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| |Elise Stephenson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |N/A |
| | | | |
|Independent Design Advisory |Noel Robinson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Panel | | | |
| |Bevan Lynch |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Natasha Chee |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Kevin Hayes |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Rosemary Kennedy |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Ingrid Richards |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Kirsti Simpson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |James Tuma |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Nathalie Ward |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Heath Williamson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Bruce Wolfe |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Glen Wright |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Paul Curran |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Jeff Brown |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Stuart Vokes |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Graham Nottle |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Stephen Pate |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Elizabeth Watson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Brown | | |
| |Kelly Greenop |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Catherine Baudet |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Mark Tendys |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Sandra Browne |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Kelly Geldard |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Caroline Stalker |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Andrew Gutteridge |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Ruth Woods |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Ivan McDonald |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Ben Lyons |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Simon White |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Brooke Williams |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Damian Thompson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Andrew Galt |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |David Uhlmann |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |John Gaskell |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Natalie Hoitz |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Anne Kovachevich |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|Major Brisbane Festivals Pty |Cory Heathwood – |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Ltd |Council nom | | |
| |Chris Tyquin – |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Council nom | | |
| |Amanda Newbery - |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Council nom | | |
| |Alison Smith – Chair |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |– Joint nom | | |
| |Philip Baker – Joint |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |nom | | |
| |Raelene Baker – Joint|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |nom | | |
| |Karen Prentis – State|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |nom | | |
| |Anna Reynolds – State|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |nom | | |
| |Simon Morrison – |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |State nom | | |
| | | | |
|Museum of Brisbane Board Pty |Sallyanne Atkinson AO|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Ltd |(Chair) | | |
| |Andrew Harper |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Liana Heath |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Natasha Hood |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Chris Tyquin |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Leanne Coddington |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Andrew Gutteridge |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Melanie Heley |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |(Company Secretary) | | |
| | | | |
|Oxley Creek Transformation |Nigel Chamier (Chair)|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Pty Ltd | | | |
| |Anne Clarke |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Guy Gibson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Bevan Lynch |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|Urban Utilities Board |Bronwyn Morris AM, |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| |Board Chair |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |Bruce Leslie |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |Graham Thomsen |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |John Cotter |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |Julie-Anne Schafer |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |Kathy Hirschfeld AM |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |Mark Gray |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| |Phillip Strachan |Remuneration details is within the|Remuneration details is within the|
| | |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |jurisdiction of Urban Utilities |
| | | |
|SunPac Brisbane Pty Ltd |Andrew Soter (Chair) |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Theresa Famularo |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Darren Rocksby |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Michael Ma |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Paul Shih |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| | | | |
|Trade Coast Pty Ltd |Bill Lyon |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Richard Butler |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Maria Menchise |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |(Secretary) | | |
| | | | |
|Urban Futures Brisbane (UFB) |Bevan Lynch (UFB |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Board (disbanded 6/10/2020); |Board Chair to | | |
|Urban Futures Brisbane |6/10/2020) | | |
|Advisory Panel (established | | | |
|16/10/2020) | | | |
| |John Aitken |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Nigel Chamier |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Kirsty Chessher-Brown|[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Ross Elliott |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Chris Freeman |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Kirsti Galloway |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Guy Gibson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Greg Goebel |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Kirsty Kelly |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Andrew King |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Rod Litster QC |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Geoff McIntyre |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Justin O'Neill |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Leisa Prowse |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Noel Robinson |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
| |Stephen Tait |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
Q17. Please provide a list of external advisors engaged by Council so far in the 2020-2021 financial year in lieu of the Inclusive Brisbane, Urban Futures and Major Projects Boards (dissolved by Council in November 2020). Please include a breakdown of amounts paid and the projects they provided advice on.
|External Advisor |Project |Nature of Advice |Amount Paid |
| | | | |
A17.
|External Advisor |Project |Nature of Advice |Amount Paid |
|Nil |Major Projects Board |Nil for Major Projects Board | |
| | |(MPB) - MPB didn't operate | |
| | |after 31 March 2020, therefore| |
| | |nothing in 2020/21. | |
|Specialist Advisor, Urban |On-call and ongoing input to a|Professional planning and |$37,500 + GST as at 15/02/2021|
|Renewal and Design (Bevan |wide range of CPED Branch |design advice, external | |
|Lynch); appointed 01/11/2020 |projects relating to urban |liaison | |
| |renewal and design. | | |
Q18. Please provide a list of all Councillors officially appointed as Brisbane City Council representatives to external Boards including the annual remuneration for the role:
|Board |Councillor |2019-2020 Remuneration |2020-2021 Remuneration (YTD) |
| | | | |
A18. Information on Councillors appointed to external boards is available on Council’s website.
Q19. Please provide a full detailed breakdown of the $84M allocation to the Victoria Park Project this term.
A19. Please refer to the response provided to the same Question on Notice on 9 February 2021.
Q20. Please provide the total number of FTEs Council staff working on the Victoria Park project by role type.
A20. Victoria Park Team (6 FTE total):
- 1 Project Director
- 1 Principal Project Manager
- 1 Project Manager
- 1 Communication and Engagement Officer
- 1 Parks Operation Officer
- 1 Project Support Officer.
Q21. Please provide the total number of FTEs contract staff working on the Victoria Park project by role type.
A21.
- Consultant resourcing equates to approximately 4.5 FTE on average over a 42-week program Dec 2020-Sep 2021.
- Consultant resourcing equates to approximately 0.4 FTE on average over a 16-week program Nov 2020-Feb 2021 (contract almost complete).
Q22. Please advise how many waste vouchers were issued and how many were redeemed in the following years:
|Year |Issued |Redeemed |
|2021 (YTD) | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
A22.
|YEAR |ISSUED |REDEEMED |
|2021 (YTD) | 5,023,410 |745,742 (as at 31 January 2021) |
|2020 | 5,052,000 |1,129,207 |
|2019 | 5,050,000 |957,537 |
|2018 | 4,854,970 |984,989 |
|2017 | 4,356,000 |970,178 |
Please note the above figures are not all inclusive. They do not take into account waste vouchers issued through other avenues including ward offices and Contact Centre requests.
Q23. Where are the city cycles being disposed?
A23. Bicycles removed will be returned to JCDecaux’s West End depot facility where a conditional assessment will be undertaken. Depending on condition, bikes will be either redeployed or reused.
To the extent the bicycles cannot be redeployed or reused, they will be recycled (to the extent commercially practicable). JCDecaux will be utilising the services of a reputable supplier to recycle and dispose of the assets.
RISING OF COUNCIL: 5:42pm.
PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED
CHAIR
Council officers in attendance:
Victor Tan (Council and Committee Coordinator)
Katie Loader (A/Council and Committee Officer)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
-----------------------
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- table of common cardiac medications
- mbti table of personality types
- time table of examination 2019
- complete table of values calculator
- table of values equation calculator
- table of values generator
- graph table of values calculator
- linear equation table of values
- table of standard scores and percentiles
- table of derivatives pdf
- table of integrals exponential functions
- table of exponential integrals