TABLE OF CONTENTS



MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4638 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,

held at City Hall, Brisbane

on Tuesday 9 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

APOLOGIES: 1

MINUTES: 2

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 2

QUESTION TIME: 4

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: 18

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 18

A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – MAJOR AMENDMENT PACKAGE K – LAMB HOUSE 24

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 25

A COUNCILLOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 26

CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 27

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE ECONOMIC UPDATE 32

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 33

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE METRO PROJECT UPDATE 34

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 35

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE 2020-21 – THE FIRST SIX MONTHS 41

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL CONSULT WITH RESIDENTS AND URGENTLY IMPLEMENT A LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DORNOCH TERRACE TO MONTAGUE ROAD PRECINCT, WEST END 42

C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING AND ANIMAL CROSSING SIGNAGE ON TOLLETT, TINCHBORNE AND TYBERRY STREETS, AND TORBAY ROAD, CHANDLER 45

D PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL FORMALLY NAME THE BRIDGE OVER BULLOCK HEAD CREEK ON BOUNDARY ROAD, RICHLANDS, AS FRANK HOLLAND MBE BRIDGE 48

E PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CALMING ON CREWE STREET, MT GRAVATT EAST 49

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 51

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – VICTORIA PARK 63

B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RENAME DERBY STREET PARK, HIGHGATE HILL, TO ‘DR MANON GRIFFITHS PARK’ AND RECOGNISE THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF THE LAND BY INVITING THEM TO PROPOSE AN ABORIGINAL NAME FOR THIS SITE 64

C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL LIGHTING AT THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA AND PATHWAY IN GREY GUM PARK, STAFFORD HEIGHTS 66

CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE 67

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – APPRENTICES, TRAINEES AND WORK EXPERIENCE IN FIELD SERVICES 68

B PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE BILLBOARD AT PADDINGTON VILLAGE, AND THAT FUTURE DECISIONS BE APPROPRIATELY VETTED WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 70

COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE 72

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE BNELIBRARIES APP 74

FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE 75

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION AND REPORT – NET BORROWINGS – CASH INVESTMENTS AND FUNDING FOR THE DECEMBER 2020 QUARTER 76

B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – NOVEMBER 2020 76

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION: 77

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 85

GENERAL BUSINESS: 85

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 92

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 95

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) |Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) |

|Adam ALLAN (Northgate) |Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) |

|Lisa ATWOOD (Doboy) |Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake) |

|Fiona CUNNINGHAM (Coorparoo) | |

|Tracy DAVIS (McDowall) | |

|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: Are there any apologies?

Councillor CASSIDY.

APOLOGIES:

456/2020-21

An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Kara Cook, and she was granted leave of absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Peter CUMMING.

457/2020-21

An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Fiona Hammond, and she was granted leave of absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON.

MINUTES:

458/2020-21

The Minutes of the 4637 meeting of Council held on 2 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.

Chair: Councillors, we have a public participant today, a Mr Duku Forè who will be addressing us today. Please, Mr Forè.

Welcome, Mr Forè. You have five minutes time. You can address us either sitting or standing, whichever you prefer, and your time begins when you begin. Please proceed.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Mr Duku Forè – My Life Story

Mr Duku Forè: Thank you very much. Mr Chair, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, I thank you for all of your humbling and eloquent introduction today and standing in front here right now, I am actually blushing, but because I am black, you all cannot see it, and what you cannot also see is what Brisbane and especially this city means to me and my family.

You know, I was born in a refugee camp in Uganda and when my family came to Australia in 2007, I couldn’t speak a single word of English. Actually, I knew one word and that was the word ‘yes’, and I remember on my first day in school, a cute girl came and she asked me out, and I didn’t know what she was saying, and that’s how I got my first girlfriend in Australia.

Besides going through the different challenges of fitting into a new society and meeting, you know, new people and at the same time getting involved in the different food, you know, I’m tasting them—I ended up overcoming a couple of challenges along the way. One thing I realised that this city was able to do for me, was it made me—it made it possible for me to follow my dreams and along the way, I try so many different dreams, you know, and I just—I was full of energy, I was excited and one of the dreams that I ended up pursuing was becoming a public speaker. Because I just love talking, I loved meeting people and the first video I recorded as a motivational speaker was in my bathroom with my little brother.

We made a video and through the video we just continued doing it and besides—because I was also born with a speech impediment—besides having to learn the new language and overcoming the speech impediment, I was able to continue with my dream, and the dream ended up taking me to a lot of different countries including taking me to New York, where I represented Australia at the United Nations headquarter in New York.

Through my speaking opportunities also, I managed to speak in different schools and what happened was I was able to talk to a lot of different young individuals, young dreamers, and hear about their dreams and, you know, what they had to offer, and at the same time, through our different communities, even in migrant and refugee communities, I hear different dreams of people. You know, dreams they want to go towards and dreams they want to achieve and, I believe, dreaming is the language of this land that we are in, and it’s so rooted in the country to the point where the ancestors of this land have been dreaming for thousands and thousands of years.

So Councillors, I ask you, what if we’re able to implement a way for people to, you know, to follow their dreams where we make it part of what this city means, because I believe Brisbane is the city of dreamers, and for me, as a citizen of Brisbane, I became a dreamer and I was able to follow my dream and I remembered, actually, when I was in school, my teachers told me that I talked too much. My maths teacher told me that they would pay me to shut up and so I was like ‘Sir, do you know how to make a million dollars?’ He’s like, ‘if I did, I wouldn’t be dealing with you now, would I?’. I said ‘1,000 times 1,000, is a million. If you pay me $1,000 every time I shut up for 1,000 times, I’ll become a millionaire’. He’s like, ‘go shut up and get back to work’.

After I finished school, I became a public speaker and now I follow my dream and there was a time I got invited to go back and speak in my school. I ended up getting paid for it and afterwards, I went to the back of the room, the teacher who told me that I talk too much came up to me, looked me in the eyes and they were like, ‘Duku, you still talk too much’. Me being cheeky, I was like, ‘I know, but I’m getting paid now’.

Just, you know, like—that was all because I followed my dream and, obviously, it wasn’t something which I was—which, you know, like I had a lot of help with, because there wasn’t a lot of people like me who I could look up to, who I could relate with, but my question is what if we’re able to, you know, like make that part of what this city really is. A city of dreamers. A city, it doesn’t matter what our background is because I believe dreaming doesn’t have a colour. Because Australia is young, we are one and we are free, and I believe if we can’t dream, we cannot—we cannot grow, and if we cannot grow, we cannot reach our purpose. If we cannot reach our purpose, we cannot be happy. If we can’t be happy, what else is there?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Chair: Thank you.

Mr Duku Forè: LORD MAYOR and Councillors.

Chair: Thank you Mr Forè, please take a seat and Councillor HOWARD will be responding to you.

Response by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee

Councillor HOWARD: Well thank you, Mr Chair, and it’s a great pleasure to respond to you Duku, and I think to say that you’ve been one of our more entertaining presenters here and we’ve all enjoyed hearing your life story. In preparation, I actually watched your TEDx presentation and I can encourage each and every one of you here to do so, because it broadens the concept of what you’ve just been talking about.

Look, we are so proud of our many wonderful inspiring young leaders here in Brisbane and your story is an inspiration to many of our younger residents, that you can achieve whatever you dream, so your dreaming is something that’s extra special and, of course, you’ve produced that into a book which I have here, which I did, sort of, take from the LORD MAYOR, sorry LORD MAYOR. I have also—

Interjection

Chair: No, no, you’re not supposed to—

Councillor HOWARD: So I did ask our library. I did try to get my very own copy, but you are totally sold out from our libraries, so I had to put it on hold which I have done, but I did manage to get this one from the LORD MAYOR and I see he’s got a copy on his desk as well. So, and I know that you met with the LORD MAYOR last year, and, again, it’s a wonderful inspirational story that you tell and it’s one of the things that we think makes Brisbane extra special; to have young people like you representing us, representing us all over the world and at the United Nations.

I’ve been to the United Nations and I know how absolutely amazing it is, so I can only begin to know the thrill that you must have had to be representing Australia and to be there. So can I just encourage everyone in the Chamber to take the opportunity to learn more about Duku’s story, because it really is something special and, I think, it really relates to what we in Brisbane really believe in and make sure that we’re having our young people inspire us, which is exactly what you’ve done for us today.

If I could finish on, I think something that’s near to your heart, ‘may the force be with you’.

Chair: Thank you, Mr Forè. Mr Peers will assist you.

Councillors, we will now move to Question Time.

QUESTION TIME:

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

Councillor DAVIS.

Question 1

Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, with many people coming back to work after COVID-19 restrictions, road congestion has escalated to levels higher than pre-COVID-19 as a result of poor public transport patronage. Can you please outline what needs to be done to increase public transport use to pre-COVID-19 levels?

Chair: The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor DAVIS, through you, Mr Chair, for the question, and a very topical one because it is literally the talk of Brisbane at the moment and I think the talk of capital cities around Australia, that the traffic in our major capitals is very, very bad at the moment. It’s something that most of us would have noticed. We’re noticing that trips that would previously take half an hour might take 45 minutes or longer and we’re noticing right across the city these kind of impacts.

It’s interesting because you have effectively the perfect storm happening at the moment. You have people in the new year coming back to work in their offices, coming back to their workplaces. We’re seeing more and more people getting back into the workplace after working from home a lot last year.

You are seeing during COVID-19, an increase in car ownership and, in fact, the used car market went ballistic. Literally, it had a boom last year, people buying cars and not just new cars, but second-hand cars as well, and then you have decreased usage of public transport. So these factors together are creating this perfect storm of traffic congestion in our major cities and we all know it’s happening, but we all also know what the answer is.

Now, for those people who, on a day-to-day basis, would think investment by different levels of government in public transport is a bit of a waste of money—and you do hear that from time to time—you do think—you do hear people saying well, whatever the government does when it comes to public transport, I’m going to keep driving or keep going my own way to work and public transport doesn’t really affect me. Well, I think it’s pretty clear right now, public transport does affect you. Public transport benefits you whether you use it or not.

For those people sitting in traffic congestion this week, it’s a timely reminder to all of us that public transport is good for Brisbane and every person extra that gets onto public transport is good not only for the people using the system, but for the people who aren’t using it as well.

So I think this is not only a perfect storm of traffic congestion, but a perfect opportunity for all three levels of government to really get behind the benefits of public transport and getting those benefits out there to the community, reminding people about just how many benefits there are when someone catches public transport. I will add to that as well, when someone—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: When someone rides a bike, when someone rides an e-scooter or an electric bike, when someone catches a CityCat or a ferry, these are benefits that flow onto everyone.

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Well we know that no one catches a ferry in that area. We know that no one catches a ferry and nor did they for the last 10 years, Councillor CASSIDY, so mumble all you like, but we prefer to invest that money where people actually use it—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Where people actually use it, which is what we’re doing, but the reality is as we have—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Councillors, please allow the LORD MAYOR’s answer to be heard in silence.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: The reality is as we have, from next month, the vaccine starting to be rolled out in our community, we now have an opportunity for a higher level of confidence to come back to our public transport and we know that confidence is a critical issue here. The confidence to get on public transport and know that you’re safe.

Now, we know that in recent times there was advice from the Chief Health Officer and a directive relating to masks on public transport. We know that we all had to wear masks around for a set of days recently and I would simply say, if people are concerned, then they have every option to wear a mask just as our bus drivers do, our bus operators. I would also announce today that Council is gearing up our efforts and working with Queensland Health to ask for our bus operators to be amongst the first people to receive that voluntary vaccine that will be rolled out because they are frontline workers. They are frontline workers and we’ve always had that position.

We’ve had that position when it comes to bus operator safety. We class them as frontline workers. We know how important their job is. Unfortunately, the State Government legislation doesn’t class them as frontline workers. So we’re stepping up saying our bus operators should be amongst the first to receive the vaccine as frontline workers and we’ll continue to make that argument with Queensland Health, but we’re also asking people to consider getting back onto public transport because it is safe to do so. We know it is safe to do so.

We know that there is no community transmission of coronavirus in our city. Coronavirus is not lurking around every corner and we—

Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you.

Chair: Further questions?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Question 2

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Tomorrow evening, Norman Park residents are holding a meeting to discuss their ferry service. This is the ferry service that the LORD MAYOR cut without any warning or any consultation. This type of behaviour has residents right across Brisbane worried that their public transport service could be next on the LNP chopping block.

I’ve been invited to the meeting and I know that the LORD MAYOR has also been invited to that meeting. I will be there ready and willing to talk to and listen to those residents. So Chair, my question is will the LORD MAYOR have the backbone to also attend the community meeting tomorrow night and explain to those residents why he thinks cutting public transport services is acceptable?

Chair: The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. What I can say is, while I understand what he’s doing here and he’s trying to once again politicise an issue, we have not saved a single cent when it comes to the Norman Park ferry. So this idea that we’re about cutting services—we only improve services. What we’ve got here is a situation where we have acquired vessels at short notice to put back into service—

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillors, please allow the LORD MAYOR to—please allow the LORD MAYOR’s answer to be heard.

The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: To put back into service to help fill the gap while we do work that is needed on the wooden ferries. Now, the reality is this, those KittyCat vessels are not, when they’re matched with certain older terminals, DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: The terminal at Norman Park is one of those terminals because the KittyCat vessels are much more similar to CityCats, in terms of their height of docking. They are bigger vessels, they are larger vessels and so these vessels would not be safe for people to go on from certain terminals. We have made that very clear.

What we have done though is made sure that where we invest public money, and we’re investing more than ever in improving transport related infrastructure, we invest it where the demand is. That is the right and sensible thing to do, and if you’ve got a service where the patronage has not grown in more than a decade despite the population growing significantly, people have voted with their feet. So we have a responsibility to the ratepayers of Brisbane to make sure we invest where the demand is. We invest where we can get more people onto public transport.

Now, it was more than a decade ago, in the era when Labor controlled the numbers in Civic Cabinet, and in those dark days where it was Labor Councillors warning people on these ferry services, if you don’t use them, you’ll lose them. So it’s interesting when they’re in Administration, they say different things, don’t they? When they’ve got the power, they say different things.

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Guess what? A decade went by and there is no change. In fact, there was a reduction over time in the number of people using that service. So we have a terminal that required an upgrade of at least $7 million.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Councillors—

LORD MAYOR.

Councillors I can hear low level interjecting. I think it’s the same thing over and over and over. The point’s been made. Like I say, I tolerate a level of interjections. Can we just please allow the answer to be heard.

The LORD MAYOR.

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: The point of order is that the LORD MAYOR is not answering the question. It was pretty simple. Will he have the backbone to attend this community meeting and face residents directly?

Chair: The question was a lot lengthier than that and the LORD MAYOR is addressing the fundamental points.

The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: The basis of the question was that there have been cuts to services and as I was saying, there have been no savings that Council is making. We’re certainly not banking on any savings in the ferry network, because we’re spending more. We’re spending more on upgrading terminals. We’re spending more on upgrading the ferry fleet with the new double decker CityCats. We’ve got the new KittyCats in place as well. We’re spending more, not less. So the claim that there’s been—

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, Councillor CASSIDY, please cease interjecting. Please do not speak over me, please cease interjecting. It was your question. Please allow the answer to be heard.

The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So the claim that this is somehow some kind of cost saving measure—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Is just simply not true. We will make sure we redirect the funds where we’re getting growth in patronage, where we’re seeing more people and more demand to get on board our ferry services, and that is the right and responsible thing to do. Now, we’ve been clear right from the beginning on this decision, why it’s made, the background to it. We’ve released all the information. We’ve been upfront.

Now, I accept there are some people that don’t like it, but we’ve been clear right—right from the beginning about why this decision is made or has been made, and it is the right decision. It is the right decision. I have no doubt that it is the right decision so that we can make sure we invest in improving the ferry network for more residents.

Now when it comes to changes to ferry services, as we can bring more vessels online, there will be further improvements in ferry services. Our commitment to the people of Brisbane is that we will improve the ferry network for the maximum number of people. Just like a bus route that carries—

Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you.

Chair: Are there any further questions?

Councillor OWEN.

Question 3

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question this afternoon is to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN, during the height of the pandemic, Council made the decision to remove the use of coins in parking meters to reduce the handling of cash for health and safety reasons. Can you please update the Chamber on this change and plans to make it permanent?

Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, I thank Councillor OWEN for the question.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Yes, it is the case that due to COVID-19, customers—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Councillors—

Councillor McLACHLAN, please stop.

Councillors, please allow the answer to be heard in silence. I hear people shouting across the room. It seemed a pretty straightforward question.

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll start again. Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON for your interjections, meaningless as they are. Due to the impact of COVID-19, our customers using on-street parking meters—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Have reduced cash—

Chair: Excuse—Councillors, please do not shout across the Chamber. It’s really pretty simple.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Right, please don’t—no, don’t talk—okay no—

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Okay Councillor JOHNSTON, you’ve just shouted at me. Councillor JOHNSTON, I consider that you are displaying unsuitable meeting conduct and in accordance with section 21(5) of the Meetings Local Law 2001, I hereby request that you cease yelling and refrain from exhibiting this conduct.

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. Just a concern about disorderly meeting conduct. I did note, and I want it noted on the record, that Councillor McLACHLAN suggested that Councillor JOHNSTON’s comments in this Chamber were meaningless and I do think that was inappropriate as well, and I think as Chair, you have a responsibility to call that conduct into question when it does occur.

Chair: We allow a level of debate here, but we don’t allow shouting across the room.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: No, again, Councillor JOHNSTON—no, that’s not that one—

Councillor JOHNSTON, you have failed to comply with my request to take remedial action for your unsuitable meeting conduct and I hereby warn you in accordance with section 21(7) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 that failing to comply with a request may result in an order being issued. Please stop shouting.

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As I’ve tried to say now a couple of times to start the answer to this question, during the impact of COVID-19, our customers using on-street parking meters have reduced cash payments and are making much greater use of technology to pay for parking, but even without the COVID-19 overlay, coin usage has been in steady decline since 2017, with usage falling from 22% to 11% pre-COVID-19 down to 6% at the most recent count since we’ve got back to almost normal.

This is reflected in general trends. I’m advised that cash payments in Queensland have dropped from 35% to 15% across the board. This steep decline in cash use over the recent months is clearly a direct response to the pandemic and consumers are clearly displaying a preference to minimise contact with physical currency, combined with the fact that many businesses now favour digital payments for speed and security. There is, frankly, less incentive now for us all to carry cash.

With 6% declining of payments using coins, and with ongoing concerns for hygiene, Council has opted to remove coin payment from on-street parking meters from 22 February. Key messaging to inform our customers will commence tomorrow to advise that coin payment will no longer be accepted at parking meters from that date, making permanent the temporary measure that had been introduced at the height of the pandemic. Future payments will be accepted by card, insert with a PIN, your Visa card or Mastercard or tap and go, or via the CellOPark app on your phone.

The CellOPark application is a great service sponsored by Council and it enables payment of both off-street metered spaces and use of the King George Square and Wickham Terrace car parks. Payments can be made either with your phone or with the CellOPark app or on the CellOPark website. I recommend these to everybody.

Once you’ve registered with CellOPark, you’ll pay only for the time that you occupy a space when payment is made via the app or using the website. CellOPark also offers services to send reminders 15 minutes before parking is going to run out, or if parking is running overtime, over the time initially allocated. From 22 February, to ensure that coin payments cannot be accepted, an information sticker will be placed on the coin slot over a coin blanking washer to flatten the coin slot so the sticker can be neatly applied. We do like stickers. The sticker is similar to a no entry sign, but with coin not accepted over printed on it.

All moving parts, Mr Chair, in the meter box associated with coin collection will be removed and this has an added advantage. Removal of these parts will extend the life of each parking meter by up to five years, reducing maintenance costs and increasing the available operating time of the parking meter. We have approximately 960 meters controlling the metered bays. That’s about 7,500 metered parking spaces we have throughout Brisbane.

One thing that won’t change, Mr Chair, is the 15-minute free parking. Still available at all of our metered car parking spaces. Those 7,500 metered spaces I mentioned are in the suburbs such as Auchenflower, Bowen Hills, Buranda, Fortitude Valley, Kangaroo Point, Kelvin Grove, Milton, Newstead, South Brisbane, Spring Hill, Teneriffe, West End and Woolloongabba.

Mr Chair, 15-minute free parking is also available at King George Square Car Park and at the Wickham Terrace Car Park. Motorcycle parking bays are provided at locations throughout the Brisbane central business district and while most of these allow for free motorcycle parking, some parking bays for motorcycles are metered.

Brisbane City Council (BCC) also has parking meters that allow you to park your motorcycle all day for a capped fee. Parking meters for motorcycles are cheaper than normal car parks, however if you park your motorcycle in a car park, you must pay for the meter fee for a car.

So, Mr Chair, to conclude, from 22 February, BCC parking meters will be cashless for payment. Corflutes will provide parking meter users with all the information that they will need to understand this change and all the information will be posted on the Council website.

Chair: Further questions?

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Sorry, point of order? Was there a point of order, Councillor SRI?

Councillor SRI: I’m one of seven non-Administration Councillors which means I’m due for every seventh question. I’ve been keeping careful track of when I’m called to ask a question in this place and I think your measure of keeping track is out of whack—

Chair: Okay.

Councillor SRI: —because I’m overdue for a question and whatever system you’re using to keep count is not working.

Chair: Thank you, I don’t agree.

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order—are you going to move dissent?

Chair: Point of order? There’s a point of order from I thought a female voice, but no?

Councillor SRI: No.

Chair: Councillor SRI, you’ve got another point of order?

Councillor SRI: I just wanted—you’ve said you don’t agree with my point.

Chair: Yes.

Councillor SRI: It’s a factual point that there have been at least seven questions from Opposition Councillors over this, the last two meetings of Council and you haven’t given me a question yet. So—

Chair: Okay, thank you.

Councillor SRI: So it’s not—it’s not that you disagree, it’s a factual—

Chair: I won’t—I’m not going to argue with you.

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor SRI: No, but Chair, I’m requesting a ruling.

Chair: I’ve made a ruling.

Councillor SRI: Well—

Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.

|459/2020-21 |

|Councillor Jonathan SRI moved, seconded by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, that the Chair’s ruling be dissented from. Upon being submitted |

|to the Chamber, the motion of dissent was declared lost on the voices. |

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 2 - Councillors Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON

NOES: 23 - 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, The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.

Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Question 4

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, since its announcement, plenty of glossy booklets filled with fancy artist impressions and costly video animations of Victoria Park have been released to the public. We’ve also been told there would be opportunities for commercial activity in the precinct. We know there have already been DAs (development application) submitted in the vicinity. One was for two 15-storey apartment towers. Can you come clean with the residents of Brisbane and explain what parts of Victoria Park you are secretly planning to sell off to developers?

Chair: The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well Mr Chair, who would have thought that the Labor Party would ask a dishonest, loaded political question like that. Surprise, surprise, the answer is—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.

Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chairman, the Meetings Local Laws are very clear that you are not allowed to argue about the question, that you must answer it. The LORD MAYOR’s response is clearly an argument about the nature of the question and is not in accordance with the Meetings Local Law and I request that you take action under your powers to reprimand the LORD MAYOR for his failure to comply with the Meetings Local Law.

Chair: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

LORD MAYOR, please answer the question directly. Do not debate the question.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you, yes. The answer is, none. None. We’ve said this myriad of times before, yet it won’t stop Labor Councillors perpetuating fake news, because they love fake news. They love the big lie. Tell it often, tell it proudly and some people might believe it. Just like they’ve got a fake news website which they continue to push with like five followers, like literally, all of which are hacks, but you know, they can keep investing in their fake news website. They can keep asking their fake news questions, but no one’s being fooled by this because people aren’t as silly as you think they are, Labor Councillors.

We have consistently said that there will be no residential development in Victoria Park. Now what—

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Did you see the sneaky way that they asked that question? They suggested that there was development applications nearby. So something across the road that has nothing to do with Victoria Park, oh it’s part of a secret plan. We don’t own those sites. Nothing to do with us, but what we do have say over is what happens in Victoria Park and there won’t be any of Victoria Park sold off, as I’ve consistently said, and there won’t be any residential development in Victoria Park.

If you want to see examples of massive overdevelopment, just have a look at the State Government’s priority development area in Bowen Hills across the road. That is a Labor blueprint for the development of the area, where nobody gets a say and there seems to be no apparent height or density limits in that area, where no infrastructure charges are paid to Council to improve infrastructure. So the only people that have a secret plan to develop that area is the State Labor Government who continue to develop Bowen Hills in a massive way.

What we plan to do is provide much more useable greenspace and parkland for people, the biggest new creation of a parkland area for public use that we’ve seen in 50 years. That’s what we plan to do, but it—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: I think it is really disappointing and fundamentally dishonest, the way that the Labor Party are pursuing this issue and this campaign. They just hate the fact that people actually like what we’re doing at Victoria Park and so they have to try and poison the well. It is so transparent. What you’re doing is so transparent and I would say disappointing, but unfortunately it’s business as usual.

So we will continue to create the biggest new park that our city has seen in 50 years and guess what? We’re now in February and that’s another month closer to the middle of the year when we start the transformation of Victoria Park. I’m very excited about this and so I don’t know how many times I can answer the same question, when Labor’s misinformation and falsity is put up, but I will keep saying what I’ve always said, which is we’re not selling off Victoria Park and there won’t be residential development in Victoria Park.

When they talk about commercialisation, well I would simply say that, you know, a café in a park, you know, that’s a good thing. People actually like that. A restaurant in a park, people like that. Things to see and do in a park, people like that. This is not, this is not the evil thing that the Labor Councillors would have you believe is going to happen there. These are improvements to greenspace that will help activate and will give people facilities to use which is what they want.

If you actually read the consultation, there might have been one or two people that said we want grass and trees and nothing else, but most people said they want things to do in Victoria Park. They want those activation opportunities and so that’s what we will be doing and we’ll be basing it on the feedback from the Brisbane community.

So like I said, Labor can ask this question in any way they want. The answer will be the same. The answer is no, but the answer is yes to delivering the biggest new park in 50 years. The answer is yes to giving people things to see and do. The answer is yes to providing I guess a pressure relief valve in the local area for—

Chair: LORD MAYOR, time has expired.

Are there any further questions?

Question 5

Councillor HUTTON: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN, it seems that love is in the air and on our Brisbane streets with new heart images being rolled out on our Speed Awareness Monitors. Can you please give us an update on where some of these signs will now be permanently located?

Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to Councillor HUTTON for the question. I think apart from in this place, love certainly is in the air. Valentine’s Day is just around the corner and I’m pleased to report that SAM is in love with everyone who obeys speed limits when driving. Speed Awareness Monitors or SAMs, as we affectionally call them, will display a heart shot through with Cupid’s arrow for the Valentine’s Day period. This is consistent with SAM signs keeping up to date with various notable events during the year.

Alongside the normal smiley face SAM, we now enjoy football SAM, Santa SAM, Halloween SAM, Easter SAM, Ekka SAM, and everyone’s favourite when Queenslanders win the State of Origin, the Queensland SAM. We now have, Mr Chair, 188 SAMs installed across the city. These are rotated every four months and today there are more than 800 SAM footings that have been constructed across the city. When vehicles are travelling at or below the speed limits, SAM will display its iconic smiley face to thank drivers for doing the right thing.

When vehicles are travelling above the posted speed limit by up to 9 km/h, SAM will display the vehicle’s speed, followed by a ‘slow down’ message, reminding motorists to reduce their speed and to drive safely on our roads. When vehicles are travelling 10 km/h or more above the posted speed limit, a slow down message only will be displayed.

For the technically minded, which isn’t me, but for the technically minded, all monitors are individually solar powered and fitted with a Doppler radar with a measuring range of 3 km/h up to 255 km/h—I hope we never see that speed posted on a Brisbane street—with an accuracy of plus or minus 3%. They are limited to measuring only a single approaching vehicle at a time within its radar range. The range is up to 300 m, but is dependent on the vertical and horizontal road geometry, plus roadside objects, such as trees and parked vehicles can limit this distance.

Heavy rain can also affect a monitor’s measuring distance. Mr Chair, the first SAM was installed here in Brisbane in November 2013. Since then, over 500 million vehicles have been recorded passing SAM in its various locations. The beauty of these speed awareness monitors is that they can have an extremely positive effect on driver behaviour. Indeed, data results show there’s an average speed reduction of 8 km/h for vehicles initially exceeding the speed limit on the approach to the monitors.

An independent study conducted by the RACQ (Royal Automobile Club of Queensland) in June 2018, showed that approximately 63% of people agreed that SAM has a positive impact on speed awareness and believe that the SAM monitors had more impact on driver behaviour change than other speed signs. In addition, 71% of people voted that they would like to see more Slow for SAM signs in the community and we are pleased to continue their rollout and introduction. It’s always nice, Mr Chair, to be recognised by your peers and SAM has enjoyed that.

The award-winning SAM signs, they were winners of the 2018 Excellence Award for Road Safety by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, pleased to say. Mr Chair, in September 2019, the first ever SAM on a sand road in Australia was installed on Moreton Island, reminding four-wheel drive enthusiasts that speed limits do apply everywhere.

More SAMs are proposed from early 2021 with the rollout of SAMs for schools, providing more focus of SAMs near Brisbane schools over future years to help create safer school environments for school students to travel to and from school while they’re riding or walking. We’ll be installing 100 SAMs for schools over the next four years, with 31 scheduled in this financial year and our first Wildlife Awareness Monitors or WAMs, as they’re called, was installed in December 2019. We currently have 29 permanent WAMs across our network.

The WAMs highlight the seasonal movements of wildlife for motorists. So, Mr Chair, I conclude by saying I encourage all motorists to drive to posted speed limits on all our roads and to please keep SAM smiling.

Chair: Further questions?

Councillor SRI.

Question 6

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. My question’s to the MAYOR. Right now right here in our city, several hundred people are being held in indefinite detention, despite having committing no crime. They fled wars and political persecution and cannot safely return to their countries of origin. Most of these people are young men, some of whom came to Australia when they were still children. The Federal Government has acknowledged that these people are genuine refugees. These residents of our city have hopes and dreams. They dream of getting educated, finding work and building a life in this country. Yet, they’ve been held in indefinite detention for seven years and counting.

What do you have to say to these Brisbane residents who dream of freedom, who pose no threat to our community and who are eager to contribute positively to our society, yet who remain in detention? What advice do you have for them on how they can pursue their dreams?

Chair: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: It was great to—thank you for the question, Councillor SRI, through you, Mr Chair. It was great to hear from Duku before, an example of a refugee who’s come to this country and built a new life in Australia and in Brisbane, and the amazing things that he has achieved. That story is echoed by many, many refugees and also by many, many more immigrants who have come here, not through the refugee program, but through other immigration programs. Now, I don’t set, nor does Brisbane City Council set, the criteria for how people come to this country. We all know that that is done at the Federal level.

We all know that that is the source of much debate and I have no intention of buying into that debate, but I will simply say this, if those people that Councillor SRI refers to are determined to be legitimate refugees and do become members of our community and are released into the community, then we will work with them to build the life and dreams that they have here in Brisbane, just like we do with all refugees that come here. I am proud that we have in Brisbane City Council refugee welcome ceremonies.

These are a cause for great celebration in our community, something that I have thoroughly enjoyed when, as LORD MAYOR, welcoming refugees into our community. What I enjoy even more is to see people build a life here in our city and have families and grow businesses and all of the other things that the opportunity in Australia provides. But, Councillor SRI, I don’t know the circumstances and I certainly aren’t going to buy into a debate on Federal immigration laws.

My interest is when people come into our community under those Federal Government laws, that we welcome them and that we have a tolerant and inclusive society, and we will continue to focus on that.

Chair: Further questions?

Councillor TOOMEY.

Question 7

Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, Councillor MARX. Councillor MARX, Brisbane’s animal rehoming centres are hoping residents will be struck by Cupid’s arrow this Valentine’s Day, with animal adoption fees being reduced. Can you please outline details of how Brisbane residents can find new love with the adoption of a pet?

Chair: Councillor MARX.

Councillor MARX: Thank you, Councillor TOOMEY, for the question. Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, can I just begin by saying, yes, I am aware that it is Valentine’s Day on this Sunday, but I want to shout out to my husband for our 36th wedding anniversary for today.

Chair: Hear hear.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor MARX: I made sure deliberately it wasn’t on Valentine’s Day, so I got a present—two presents in one week. But I’m guessing there are potentially a few lonely hearts leading into Valentine’s Day this Sunday and those are our pets that are still looking for their forever homes at Council’s animal rehoming centres. I’m therefore pleased to advise the Chamber that in celebration of Valentine’s Day, adoption fees for adult cats have been reduced to just $29. Pets have lots of love to share and receive, and professing your love this Sunday doesn’t need to be limited to fellow humans.

My family actually adopted our own beautiful cat, Tate, and he has brought much love and fun into our family. The adoption drive kicked off yesterday and will run until Valentine’s Day on Sunday and I encourage all residents looking for a furry addition to their family to pay a visit to one of our rehoming centres.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor MARX: Non-furry cats, yes. Can I take that interjection from the LORD MAYOR? He has this particularly ugly cat that has no fur.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor MARX: If you’ve seen Basil, you’ll know what I mean. The—we have two locations. We have the Warra Animal Rehoming Centre in Bracken Ridge, and we have the Willawong Animal Rehoming Centre in Willawong. There’s no greater gift to an animal in our care than a loving home. When you adopt a pet through Brisbane’s animal rehoming centres, you are providing that animal with a second chance at happiness. Council facilities are operated by our fantastic partners from the Animal Welfare League Queensland (AWLQ) and the healthy and social treatment of all animals in our care is an absolute priority.

I have actually visited the Willawong Rehoming Centre out there recently in my role and I can say that the people that work out there have a great passion for the job and they do a fabulous job. As the Administration of Council, the Chamber will be in no doubt that we encourage responsible pet ownership in Brisbane. The benefit of adopting through our centres is the comfort of knowing that all pets in our care undertake behavioural assessments to ensure they are suitable to be rehomed before being offered for adoption.

You can also rest easy knowing that all our adult cats are desexed, microchipped, vaccinated and wormed. Another great component of our adoption drive when we have several throughout the year is using them to promote responsible practices for those families already with pets. Cats can be prolific breeders in warm climates and will begin breeding as young as four months of age, which is why we had a male cat. During this adoption drive, we are encouraging cat owners to have their pet desexed.

So, Mr Chair, if residents are looking for any further information about the campaign and the animals we have available for adoption or information about responsible pet ownership in Brisbane more generally, I encourage them to visit the Council website or the AWLQ website. Thank you very much.

Chair: Further questions?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Question 8

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, last week we learnt that members of the Transport for Brisbane Board will be paid a quarter of a million dollars in exchange for their advice.

We also learnt that past and present members of this board are either former LNP politicians or have strong LNP links; the likes of Michael Caltabiano, who’ll be on the Transport for Board this coming financial year, a man who was personally handpicked by Campbell Newman to a senior government position, who earnt over $650,000 for just six months work, only to be sacked after being referred to the Parliamentary Ethics Committee. He’s just one of many LNP-painted members on boards that are supposed to be giving frank, fearless and independent advice on key projects to better our city.

Chair, can the LORD MAYOR please tell this Chamber whose idea it was to hand select LNP members for these boards? Was it his or was it his mentor, Campbell Newman’s?

Chair: The LORD MAYOR.

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Mr Chair, through you, I don’t think Campbell thinks that he’s my mentor. So you can keep peddling that line as much as you like, but I’m sure him—both him and I will chuckle whenever you say it. It’s interesting, because—when this matter first came up we had a frank discussion and we were like, surely Labor wouldn’t raise the issue of boards, given their own record with boards, both when in office and in George Street right now. Surely they wouldn’t be so hypocritical to do that? I was wrong. I was wrong. There’s a difference though; our people are actually talented and qualified to be on those boards.

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Our people actually have qualifications. Our people have some experience to offer and some advice and they’re not just union hacks. So we’ve got the right people on the right boards to make sure we provide advice. It’s interesting, because what Labor doesn’t want to talk about is the fact that just one of our boards had two former Director Generals and one Deputy Director General on it. That is a high-powered, experienced board. Those Director Generals have served under multiple governments in multiple circumstances and they are professionally recognised in their field.

Another person who Councillor CASSIDY likes to defame, who we’ve heard about before, is in a national advocacy body when it comes to engineering and roads and transport. So, yes, look, like I said, I was wrong. I overestimated the Labor Opposition and their approach and, look, I would simply say that it is important that we have these boards to provide us advice with the expertise that we need. We get a lot of great advice and expertise from our Council officers and we respect their advice, but it is always good to have an outside perspective as well from experts in their field.

I think it is an appropriate thing. It’s something that has continued on for many, many administrations and you will find that the Soorley Labor administration had boards which they appointed people to. Whether they were experts not, I can’t recall, but we make sure we have the people that are qualified to do those jobs. That is appropriate. It is appropriate, because there is value for the ratepayers of Brisbane.

So these boards, we will continue to make sure we get people who know what they’re doing, who are experts in their field, who are recognised subject-matter experts and can provide input and advice into the things that we do as a Council. I think that we do get better decision making as a result. As I said, we get great advice from the officers, but also having that, I guess, external perspective on the things that we’re doing and where we can improve is really important as well. So I want to congratulate the newly-appointed members of the board and I look forward to them contributing positively to us building a better Brisbane.

Chair: That concludes Question Time.

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.

460/2020-21

At that juncture, Councillor Jared CASSIDY moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFTHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion, that(

The Brisbane City Council publicly releases details of the recruitment and selection processes it undertook when employing all past and current members of its advisory boards.

Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, you have three minutes. Can we please reset that clock? Three minutes to urgency, please.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. This is urgent because interest is building in this topic here in Brisbane. People are starting to see what kind of operation this LNP Administration is running here in Council. People are seriously questioning the integrity of these boards now, Chair, and their integrity should be held in the highest regard, when they’re supposed to be providing fearless and frank advice to this Council Administration on the types of projects that should be proceeding. So we can see that there is a clear pattern emerging here now, when you go through the appointments that have been made to the boards currently—

Chair: I appreciate—

Councillor CASSIDY: —and those positions—

Chair: —I appreciate the point you’re making is substantive to the matter you’re proposing, however, the resolution at hand is about urgency and can I please ask you to return to the matter of urgency—

Councillor CASSIDY: I—

Chair: —Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, of course, Chair. We only learnt about these new board members and the quarter of a million dollars that they are being paid in the last week. So this is urgent that we deal with this now, to restore integrity in Council, to restore trust in Council.

When people find out that this LORD MAYOR and Civic Cabinet, which is made up entirely of LNP Councillors, makes the decision to appoint LNP fundraisers and former LNP Councillors and members of the LNP State Executive and former campaign directors of LORD MAYOR’s campaigns to these boards, people want to know that the integrity of these boards and the integrity of Council is watertight. That’s what this motion—

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: No interjections, please.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: That’s what this motion is all about—

Councillor JOHNSTON: A point of order.

Councillor CASSIDY: —Chair.

Chair: A point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Clearly, Mr Chairman, Councillor OWEN was shouting across the Chamber just then and you have taken action against me when I didn’t even shout. So why are you not going to take action against her in the same way?

Chair: Well, Councillor JOHNSTON, you know full well we have a level of tolerance for interjections and—but typically a lot of your interjections go beyond what’s acceptable and that was one instance you discussed earlier.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, thank you, and you pull me up on those, Mr Chairman, but my point of order was Councillor OWEN was clearly shouting across the Chamber, which you have said is disorderly conduct in this place. As you applied those rules to me, why aren’t you applying them to Councillor OWEN?

Chair: I did make comment about that and I’ve asked the speaker to return.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair. So residents have a right to know—and that’s what this motion will be all about, if the LNP allow this to go to full debate. What we will be able to debate is publicly releasing the selection process for the members of these boards. Now, most Brisbane residents previously wouldn’t have known that these boards existed, let alone that they’re being stacked with LNP members, former LNP Councillors, LNP fundraisers, former campaign directors of the LORD MAYOR’s campaign. Now, people have a right to know, were these people approached and who were they approached by, or did they apply for these positions and were these positions widely advertised and what other independent members were knocked back—

Chair: Once again, Councillor—

Councillor CASSIDY: —for these LNP members, Chair?

Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, once again, the matters you’re discussing are substantive rather than the procedural matter before us. Please return your comments to the matter of urgency.

Councillor CASSIDY: Chair, this is urgent, because this is about the integrity of this Council and the integrity of the advice that is being given to this Council by these advisory boards. We think that should be above reproach and we think all Councillors should be given the opportunity to debate this motion. We think that those details should be made publicly available. We are elected here to represent the people of Brisbane to make decisions on their behalf and these decisions shouldn’t be made behind closed doors, particularly when it results in LNP members, LNP fundraisers, former LNP campaign directors getting plum positions on boards that are unaccountable.

Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, your time has expired.

Councillors, to the matters 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, 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.

Chair: Councillors, we’ll now move to the consideration of Committee reports, please.

The LORD MAYOR, the Establishment and Coordination (E&C) Committee, please.

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 1 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes. Just a couple of comments on some issues that came up before I move on to other matters. First of all, in relation to that motion that was moved just before—that was defeated, rightly so—I just did want to draw Councillors’ attention to an article that appeared in The Courier-Mail in September last year. So not too long ago. The article is titled ‘Labor Accused of Jobs for Mates with New Board Appointments’ and it relates to the Palaszczuk Government. It lists a very long list of people who have links to the Labor Party in some way. Now, I’m not going to—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —mention individual names, because, you know what, I actually understand what the State Government is doing and just like every government everywhere has done. They get boards with people who they believe are qualified to support the work of the government. I would simply point out the quote from the Transport Minister, Mark Bailey, who was the designated responder on this occasion, where he said ‘new board appointments were from a diverse background. Each chair and director comes with a unique skill set and significant expertise.’

Well, I would simply echo that in relation to Council boards, because it is—that’s why we appoint these people, because they have unique skill sets and significant expertise, just as they do up in George Street. So what we’re seeing here is just a tactic from a desperate Opposition. Let’s see it for what it is. So they certainly aren’t in a position to be throwing rocks, because they are in a big glass house. So in relation to my comments before about public transport, I just wanted to touch a little bit more on getting people back onto public transport post-COVID-19 and post the vaccine, because it is really important.

Roy Morgan Research did some work last year following the big drop in public transport patronage. It was interesting. Their research indicated that 12 million Australians—so we’re talking across the major capitals, across the cities of Australia—12 million Australians catch public transport at least once every three months. So that is approaching almost half of the population, so that is significant. So there are a lot of people who will catch public transport if it works for them.

It may not be every day, but it will be from time-to-time and every one of those trips is a positive thing, because it does take traffic off the road network. But one of the interesting things that they did, and this won’t be a surprise to anyone, but it is a relevant factor, is that different generations of people are more likely to catch public transport than others. They surveyed the different generations and age groups about their likelihood to catch public transport. It was interesting, because Gen Z was the most likely to use public transport, so younger people. 72% of Gen Z were likely to use public transport in the survey.

When it came to millennials, 60% were likely to use public transport. Gen X, 53%. Baby Boomers, 51%, and pre-Boomers were 44%. It’s interesting, because we were seeing some really positive results pre-COVID-19 with our seniors and the free seniors off-peak travel. It was really something that people jumped on board. Seniors were loving it. They were taking trips on public transport. They were taking daytrips around the city. They were getting out. They were networking with people. They were catching up with friends.

They were visiting events in the city. They were spending money at local coffee shops and it was a great thing. But obviously COVID-19 has obviously impacted on that. But there was actually method to that initiative, because the older generations were the least likely to take public transport and we wanted to help get them onto public transport. It was an example of an initiative that it was working and it was positive, but obviously now with COVID-19 we’ve got a different situation.

I understand that there are people who are fearful of their health. They are concerned about health and safety when it comes to public gatherings, public spaces and, indeed, public transport. But as I was just about to say when the question ended, COVID-19 is not lurking around the corner. There is no community transmission. So the chances of you on a bus or a train or a ferry catching COVID-19 are incredibly low. Incredibly low. We know that the vast majority of cases of COVID-19 here in Queensland have come in from overseas. They are people that have effectively arrived in the country with COVID-19.

They’ve been put into quarantine and obviously that quarantine process has stopped that transmission in the wider community. There have only been a handful of cases where someone else has caught COVID-19. In many cases, it was the friends or partners of the people with COVID-19 that have caught it. So there is a high-level of fear out there. I understand that, but in reality the risk of catching COVID-19 on public transport in Brisbane is next to nil. So whether—if people are concerned, wearing a mask is obviously an option that is available and we know that some people are taking that up.

But I think really the confidence will come back when we have that vaccination starting to be rolled out. I think that’s when people will get more confidence, but make no mistake, it is absolutely critical that people get back onto public transport. It is critical. As I said before, now is an opportunity for all levels of government to remind people about the benefits of public transport. It benefits not just the users. It benefits everyone across the community. That is a positive. Just like people getting on bikes, people walking, benefits everyone.

It’s been interesting, because there was some discussion in the media recently about cyclists and whether they should be registered. My response to that is always, well, from my experience, the majority of cyclists do pay car registration, because the majority of cyclists do own a car. They also ride as well. Now, that’s not always the case for everyone, but in the vast majority of cases, cyclists are paying car registration, yet they’re still choosing to cycle. That’s a good thing.

So any suggestion that they’re not somehow contributing when it comes to community infrastructure and assets and tax into the community is generally not accurate, but also someone on a bike, someone walking to work, someone scootering to work is someone that is not adding to traffic congestion. That is a good thing for all of us. It’s a good thing for the health of our city.

More than likely, someone that is travelling by public transport, that’s someone that’s walking a little way to get to the bus or the ferry, and that’s someone who’s getting active in their day as well, because most public transport journeys involve some form of walking as well. So it keeps people active. Riding a bike keeps people active. Getting out there and walking keeps people active. That places less of a burden on our health system and we know that the cost of our health system continues to grow each year.

So more people getting out, travelling actively, using public transport, there’s massive benefits for our community. Now is the time for us to remind people. So I guess if I want anything out of today is that when people are stuck in traffic and feeling frustrated over the coming weeks, it just comes to their mind that public transport is beneficial for all of us. That’s why we’re investing in Brisbane Metro. That’s why we’re investing in upgrading the ferry network and ferry terminals and buying new CityCats and building new CityCats. That’s why we’re investing in the KittyCats.

That’s why we’re investing in a whole range of public transport improvements, because it’s the right thing to do and that’s how the city becomes more sustainable and it’s how we reduce traffic congestion. It’s why the State Government’s investing in Cross River Rail as well and that is also the right thing to do. Together, Metro and Cross River Rail will provide a higher level of public transport service than we have ever seen in Brisbane. So that is coming. Both projects are underway and it’s very exciting. But, in the meantime, we do need to remind people that even if you don’t use public transport, it benefits us all.

I guess the current situation is a reminder of that. We know that if public transport is working well, people often don’t notice it. People go about their days without really taking much notice of public transport. But if it’s not working, the city grinds to a halt. You get gridlock and so it just reinforces that point that I was making. So it’d be good to see our bus drivers and bus operators vaccinated early. That would be a positive thing. It would be good to see the vaccination rolling out over the coming months in our community and it will be great to see more and more people getting back onto public transport.

Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

461/2020-21

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, 10 minutes. Please turn your microphone off, then back on again.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I look forward to continuing to keep in touch with Minister Bailey about these issues. I know that the State Government has an issue with a significant reduction in revenue from fares and, as we all know, the fare revenue goes to the State Government from not only their own trains, but for Council buses and ferries as well. So I know they’ve got that issue that they’re juggling, but we do need a coordinated State Government and Council approach to getting people back on board.

I look forward to ongoing discussions with Minister Bailey and his team and the team in Council, so that we can get people back onto public transport and help re-instil that confidence in the network. There was no coincidence that the Chief Health Officer kept public transport running the entire time during COVID-19. There were so many other things that stopped happening. There were so many things that were shut down. Our libraries were shut, our pools were shut, but public transport kept running, because it was that essential service. That’s the exact reason why we’re saying our bus operators should get access to the vaccination early, because it is that essential service that so many people rely on and it’s an essential service that is good for Brisbane.

I always talk about the lighting of Council assets and on Monday, the Story Bridge, Victoria Bridge and Reddacliff Place sculptures will be lit red to support the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore. The 2/10th Field Regiment Association remembers the thousands of Australian soldiers, sailors, airmen, nurses and women who lost their lives in World War II, Battle for Malaya and Singapore. So we’ll be acknowledging that with the lighting up of the city assets.

Item A here is the Major amendment package for Lamb House. This has been discussed many times in the Chamber and publicly as well. As Councillors will be aware, the original TLPI (Temporary Local Planning Instrument) came into effect on 11 June 2019, which provided temporary protection for up to two years, while the City Plan is amended.

The purpose of the TLPI and subsequent amendments is to prevent any additional or intensified development from occurring on the site of Lamb House. The amendment includes zoning changes and updates to overlay maps to protect the character and significant streetscape trees of Lamb House. So it’s not just about the buildings, which are heritage listed. It’s also about the trees as well and the setting of that house. This package has now reached the final stages of the amendment process, having public consultation being completed in November and December last year.

Council received a total of 44 submissions on the proposed amendment, none of which made an objection to the proposed amendment. Having considered all submissions received, no changes are proposed to the amendment. The proposal will now be submitted to the State Government for their final approval, Mr Chair. Thank you.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. I rise to speak on Clause A, the Major amendment to City Plan, protecting Lamb House, package K. The entire issue surrounding Lamb House has been very poorly handled from the start by this LORD MAYOR. It’s clear that the relationship between Council and the Council Administration and the LORD MAYOR and the owner of Lamb House has significantly deteriorated to the point now of a standoff. If the LORD MAYOR had handled this situation better personally, this property wouldn’t be in the shape that it is now and would possibly already be in the hands of the public.

Now, the entire saga surrounding this important heritage property has been very, very sad and not a shred of empathy or support has been exercised by this LNP Administration. From the start, the LORD MAYOR should have worked with the owner of this property to come to a peaceful resolution instead of antagonising the situation at each and every turn. What we’ve seen is this Administration take a hard-line approach against an elderly lady. It’s not how it should have been handled and it’s something that should have been finalised a long time ago.

I think the condition of the house is testament to that, that had this LORD MAYOR sorted this mess out a long time ago, it would be in a much better position. We continue to see cases like this, where the LORD MAYOR and his LNP Administration are the root cause of an issue and then bring something to Council after the fact and then claim to have fixed it. The reason the house wasn’t protected is because the Administration was very slow to act. The reason the relationship with the owner has broken down is on the LORD MAYOR.

So there’s your common denominator, Brisbane. The problem is LORD MAYOR Adrian SCHRINNER. Now, regarding the changes to the Significant landscape tree overlay code in the report, there is no doubt that Brisbane desperately needs more tree cover. We are lagging behind across the city and the protection of trees in this item is certainly a step in the right direction. Despite the disappointment along the way and the terrible way this has been handled personally by the LORD MAYOR and members of his Civic Cabinet, we will, of course, be supporting the item before us today. But this certainly could have been resolved a long time ago.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I rise to speak on the item before us today. Preserving our city’s unique heritage and character is absolutely important for the entire Brisbane community. Let’s just make sure that we get this fake news we hear from Councillor CASSIDY just perfectly right. This is not about saving the house. The house is protected. The house is a local heritage place under the City Plan. It is also a State-registered heritage place. This is not about the house.

This is about making sure that the existing planning provisions that allowed for intensified developments, including the subdivision of the land around the house is put into the curtilage of that State-heritage place. So let’s get that very clear. The house was always protected. Can I say very clearly, again, regardless of the hyperbole we heard, through you, Mr Chair, from Councillor CASSIDY. We are acutely aware of the comments from the community about the declining condition. We have been working with the State for years, because it is a State heritage house.

So it is under Queensland Government’s planning legislation that the responsibility for managing the heritage values of State heritage places lays, including the assessment of any conservation or other heritage impacts. They rest solely with the Queensland Department of Environment and Science. We have no jurisdiction over the management of heritage values when it comes to State heritage places.

To say that it is the LORD MAYOR’s personal responsibility to have dealt with this landowner to rectify the situation is absolutely ludicrous and ironic, because the LORD MAYOR has been dealing with this landowner personally since he was a local Councillor in Chandler and she rang regularly for conversations through this. This is a very sad situation when it comes to the property owner and her personal state and we are not going to speak about this in this place.

But it is now being dealt with through the process that we stay through rates and regulations when it comes to that, but this amendment here today is about making sure that the curtilage, the surrounding, as Councillor CASSIDY mentioned, large weeping figs on the boundary, are mapped and protected; the existing fence and wrought-iron gates visible from Leopard Street are retained; the access to the site is achieved by the existing pedestrian driveway; and since the TLPI runs out on June 2021, we are making sure we got this through and sorted.

The State Government have been extremely helpful in making sure the amendment passed through quickly through the State interest checks and, as the LORD MAYOR mentioned, 44 submissions received, no objections recorded. No changes are proposed to the amendment. This will be submitted back to the State Government to undertake their final interest checks and, we presume, grant approval to make sure we protect what is commonly known as the home and its surrounding curtilage for centuries to come.

Chair: Further speakers? Anyone at all?

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Councillor ADAMS for that, but no thanks to Councillor CASSIDY for his contribution, because we just see the continuation of this same tired theme, which is anything that’s wrong in the world, it’s my fault. Anything that’s wrong in the world is my fault.

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Anything that’s wrong in the world is Team Schrinner’s fault. Anything that’s good in the world is everyone else’s responsibility. Everyone else is taking the credit for that. We—apparently, according to the Labor Party, we do not do a single thing right. We just make things worse. No one believes that narrative, Councillor CASSIDY, and I know that your title is Leader of the Opposition, but you’re literally taking it far too literally. The reality is that we have stepped in and taking decisive action in this case. Decisive action. Any suggestion otherwise is simply not the case.

Now, as Councillor ADAMS pointed out, this property has always had important levels of protection, both through State heritage, Council heritage and a range of different legislation, so has always been protected. So the idea that somehow we’re stepping in now to protect it, it has always been protected. We’re going one step further. We’ve been—what this has done here is protected not only the house, but everything on that site of heritage value, including the trees.

It prevents anything else being built there and simply makes it clear that the only outcome that we will find acceptable on this site is for the existing house to be restored and for all of the beautiful trees and the current arrangement there or the current property status there to be brought up to its original standard. So that’s what we expect. That’s what this amendment will help achieve. But when it comes to the issue of how this property has been allowed to degrade in quality and in condition, Councillor ADAMS was spot on. State heritage is enforced by the State Government.

I am aware that many years ago State Government took a law case or a lawsuit against the owner of the property to try and force the owner of the property to take action. I’m also aware that the State Government withdrew that legal action. Now, I understand why they did that, because it was in reference to the personal circumstances of the owner of the property, but for them to come in here and say, oh, this is all your fault, LORD MAYOR, you haven’t done the right thing, is just ludicrous. They either do not know the facts, or they are deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts.

So, I know that both levels of government want to see this property restored, I know that. Now, this is obviously a challenging issue, because legislation, when it comes to difficult personal situations, can’t anticipate every eventuality. That is the reality. But we are doing everything we can and will continue to do everything we can to see this property not only protected, but restored. That process is underway.

I’m aware that, according to media reports, that the property is now under the control of The Public Trustee. So, Council is dealing with the Public Trustee on this and other matters. That will continue. But we remain 100% committed to making sure that this property is restored. As Councillor ADAMS said, this property has always been protected, what we want to see now is that it gets restored.

We’re taking action and, as I’ve pointed out, the State Government also has a responsibility here. I haven’t seen them taking action recently on this. I just haven’t seen that happening. I know that they’d like to see the property restored, but they haven’t used their powers to make that happen. We’re doing what we can, but it requires both levels of government to step up. So, we’ll keep stepping up. We’ll keep progressing this matter and we’ll hopefully achieve the outcome that we all want to see which is this property restored to its former glory.

Chair: I’ll now put the resolution.

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

The report read as follows(

A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – MAJOR AMENDMENT PACKAGE K – LAMB HOUSE

152/160/1218/481

462/2020-21

1. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

2. At its meeting of 19 November 2019, Council resolved to progress Major amendment to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) Package K (the proposed amendment) to the Queensland Government for State interest review and approval to proceed to public consultation.

3. By letter dated 8 April 2020 (Attachment B, submitted on file), the then Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the then Minister) confirmed that State interests were appropriately reflected in the proposed amendment and gave approval to proceed to public consultation.

4. Part of the proposed amendment included the implementation of Temporary Local Planning Instrument 03/19 - Protection of premises at 7, 9, 11 and 13 Leopard Street and 10, 14, 16 and 18 Wild Street, Kangaroo Point (TLPI 03/19). TLPI 03/19 was adopted by Council at its meeting on 20 June 2019, with an earlier effective day of 11 June 2019 as approved by the then Minister. TLPI 03/19 will cease to have effect from 11 June 2021.

5. At its meeting on 10 November 2020, Council resolved to proceed with separating the components of Major amendment package K relating to TLPI 03/19 (Major amendment package K – Lamb House) in advance of the balance of the amendment package, to expedite public consultation and Ministerial consideration of those components. This was to ensure that the proposed changes are adopted into the planning scheme prior to the expiry of TLPI 03/19. Council resolved to progress separately the balance of the proposed amendment package (now known as Major amendment package K – Other).

6. Public consultation on the proposed amendment was undertaken from 16 November 2020 to 13 December 2020 in accordance with the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules made under section 17 of the Planning Act 2016 (the Guideline). Council received 44 submissions on the proposed amendment, of which 37 submissions were properly made.

7. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including descriptions of how the matters have been addressed, is provided at Attachment C (submitted on file).

8. Having considered the submissions, no changes have been made to the proposed amendment, detailed at Attachments D and E (submitted on file).

9. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to provide the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning with a copy of the proposed amendment and the consultation report summarising submissions made during the public consultation period.

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

11. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment A

Draft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – MAJOR AMENDMENT PACKAGE K – LAMB HOUSE

As Council:

(i) at its meeting on 19 November 2019, decided to make a major amendment (the proposed amendment) to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme)

(ii) was advised by letter dated 8 April 2020 (Attachment B, submitted on file), by the then Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister), that it may proceed to public consultation of the proposed amendment

(iii) at its meeting on 10 November 2020, decided to progress part of the proposed amendment to be referred to as Major amendment package K – Lamb House

(iv) has undertaken public consultation on the proposed amendment, pursuant to section 18.2 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline)

(v) having considered the submissions on the proposed amendment pursuant to section 18.3 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, has prepared a consultation report about how Council has dealt with properly made submissions (Attachment C, submitted on file),

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to section 18.4 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, that each person who made a properly-made submission be provided with a copy of the consultation report and that the consultation report be made available to view and download on the Council’s website

(ii) directs, pursuant to section 21.1 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, that notice be given to the Minister to request to adopt the proposed amendment and that such notice be given in accordance with section 21.2 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, the second Establishment and Coordination Committee please.

The LORD MAYOR.

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 9 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Look, I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of debate on this one. Read the submission and it’s quite self-explanatory what’s going on here. It’s my understanding that an oversight has resulted in this situation arising. In good faith and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we are assisting in the resolution of this matter. I think it’s the right thing to do and I certainly hope that it has bipartisan support.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak on Clause A, the second E&C report. Mr Chair, just to put some context to the matter at hand. The first two meetings specified in the papers, Councillor COOK was unable to attend for medical reasons and doctor’s orders. There were no other Labor Councillors in the City Planning and Economic Development Committee at the time to apologise for her. The third meeting was a diary entry error. I apologised to the Chair for that by phone. I missed the meeting and therefore wasn’t in attendance and able to apologise for Councillor COOK on her behalf.

As you’re all aware, Councillor COOK is a very devoted and important member of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee and as she is for all the Committees that she is on. It is incredibly important that Councillor COOK is reappointed to the Committee. I thank the E&C Committee for not hesitating in doing so.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. I rise to speak on the item A in the special E&C report. Let’s just be very clear about what’s happened here. The Chairperson of the City Planning Committee could not be bothered to put in an apology for Councillor COOK last year and this year, knowing full well that she was heavily pregnant and was having some complications, and knowing full well in February that she had had a baby. I honestly find it appalling—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor JOHNSTON: I find it appalling that Councillor ADAMS did not automatically, as a courtesy to a fellow workmate, do this. I just can’t believe that that’s appropriate. Now, she’ll stand up in a minute and attack me. This is one of the reasons I don’t want to have anything to do with her. It is just petty, juvenile behaviour.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillors, please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, it’s Councillor MURPHY repeatedly interjecting. I know you won’t call him on it, but that’s who it was. But it is appalling that somebody, who is well aware of somebody’s medical and personal circumstances, does not have the basic human decency and courtesy to automatically put in an apology for her, to the point where we have to formalise this fix-up, because of something that should have been done as an automatic, decent thing to do. I think it reflects very poorly on the DEPUTY MAYOR, who’s the Chair of this Committee.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor ADAMS.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. As a Chair of Committee, and any Chair of a Committee and any chair of any meeting whatsoever, you take apologies as you are notified, whether that’d be by phone call, text, email or to any other part. I didn’t receive apologies in this case. However, I did contact Councillor COOK yesterday afternoon and let her know of what the situation was and what we were doing to rectify it. She got back to me this afternoon and thanked us for taking such a sensible and consolatory approach to this matter. I support this motion.

Chair: Further speakers?

The LORD MAYOR?

I’ll now put the resolution.

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

The report read as follows(

A COUNCILLOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

109/800/286/125

463/2020-21

1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. According to section 15(2) and section 58(b) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 (MLL) Councillors may be appointed to a Standing Committee by Council resolution.

3. Section 60(2) of the MLL provides as follows: “If any member of a committee is absent from 3 consecutive meetings without having obtained leave of absence from council or the committee, the member’s appointment to the committee is terminated.”

4. By Council resolution 529/2019-20 on 22 April 2020, Councillor Kara Cook was appointed by Council as a member of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee (Committee).

5. Councillor Cook has been absent from three consecutive Committee meetings being, 17 and 24 November 2020 and 2 February 2021 without obtaining a leave of absence. Accordingly, pursuant to section 60(2) of the MLL, Councillor Cook’s appointment as a member of the Committee has been terminated.

6. Therefore, for Councillor Cook to be reappointed as a member of the Committee, a resolution of Council is necessary.

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

8. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment A

Draft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO RE-APPOINT COUNCILLOR KARA COOK TO THE CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

As:

(i) section 15(2)(c) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 requires that Councillors be appointed to Council’s Standing Committees by way of Council resolution,

then:

(i) Council resolves that effective immediately, Councillor Kara Cook is a member of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, the City Planning and Economic Development Committee please.

The DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Sorry, I’ve just lost my notes, but I’ll just read from here.

Chair: That’s all right. Also, can that clock timer please be reset.

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 Sandy LANDERS that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

The DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I am very excited, before I get to the bit relating to the Committee report that we saw last week, that the Brisbane Business Hub is up and running and going strong in what was formerly known as ‘The Capital’, above the old Regent Cinema there, well, the cinema’s not there, but the Vic (The Victory Hotel) is there now, as well, 155 Queen Street. It’s great to see that we really are seeing the foot traffic coming through, but the bookings online are going great.

So, all events are available through .au. You can go to ‘Workshops and Events’ and click on the ‘What’s On’ tab. I’m going to do a little bit of what the LORD MAYOR does on what colours the Story Bridge is going to do for the next couple of weeks, so Councillors can realise what type of opportunities there may be for their businesses in the coming week, if they think of somebody that might need the support. Also, to give the Chamber an idea of the diversity of the work that’s being done in this fantastic resource for our small business.

So, today, this afternoon, right at the moment, we’ve got our business partner, Gadens, doing a topic on dealing with IR (industrial relations) and employment and contracting issues in your business. Tomorrow morning, Ionyx are working a digital transformation for business, efficiencies in your business that can be digitised. We also have a three o’clock SafeVisit legislation, that’s a virtual event by SafeVisit on understanding contracting, legal requirements and free products available.

On 12 February, there’s building an e-commerce brand from scratch. So, we’ve got two businesses that are doing case studies from the founders, Cemoh Apéro and Pure Dash are going to be talking to other small businesses. On 16 February, developing your business strategy for growth in 2021, a very personalised business strategy being provided by our partner, Groei. Then on 16 February at three o’clock, selling yourself and your business, learning tangible, ethical and actionable sales strategies, with CCIQ (Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland) and Salesmasters. So, that gives you an idea of some of the things coming up in the next week.

Please, speak with your small businesses, let them know that we’re there. Nundah is going to be set up shortly and there’ll be one on the southside too, that our Business Liaison Officers will be at, so that we can help them through what is starting to be a busy start of the year, which takes us to the economic recovery update report that we saw in Committee last week. Our latest economic figures have shown promising signs of recovery for Brisbane residents and businesses alike.

We know it’s been a huge disrupter. We’ve all made significant sacrifices, but we also have a very unique opportunity to reset, re-evaluate and implement innovative ideas to drive the city’s prosperity. So, our economy is strong and up until March 2020 was really on track for growing, seeing new businesses establishing and global recognition as a world-class destination. We’re very lucky that we had that strong diversity and track record going into 2020.

So, despite those challenges that we saw, we continue to prove that disruption can also be an enabler of opportunity. The Economic Recovery Taskforce has been very, very quick to act with initiatives, 25 that are complete, 41 that are happening and 17 in progress. Meanwhile, our Council’s City Analytics team have been monitoring and reporting data collected across the city, to help shape our response to the coronavirus.

What we have seen is that electronic spending has increased by nearly $1.4 billion over the year, from approximately $22 billion in 2019, to $23 billion in 2020. That is a six per cent increase, with an average monthly spend of $116 million or higher in 2020, compared to 2019. We’re sitting at home, but we’re still shopping, ladies and gentlemen. Particularly with residents working from home throughout 2020, most of this spending has occurred during the day and in our suburbs, with a nine per cent upswing for the daytime economy.

Some of our top performing suburbs, Virginia was the number one, with an increase of just over $122 million. Interesting, when our Economic Development manager said that’s because they just opened a new Bunnings at the end of 2019 in Virginia. So, there could have been quite an upswing in the people in surrounding suburbs coming to get their COVID-19 reno done at home. Belmont, $96 million, Milton, $74 million and the list goes on.

But despite the growth across Brisbane, the CBD did remain a third lower than the 2019 levels. Happily, though, we did see an upswing at the end of the year. Clearly a difficult year, but people decided they were going to treat themselves for Christmas and they were out in numbers over that December Christmas period. Our electronic spending in the CBD was on par with 2019 levels for the first time in 2020 coming into Christmas, which was absolutely great news.

The foot traffic peaked at about 80% of what our pre-COVID-19 levels was and our long-run average in 2020. Unfortunately, the quick three-day lockdown meant that we’ve gone backwards a little bit since then, but consumer confidence is a big piece to the puzzle. As long as we can get up and keep moving and going again, we’ll see those people willing to spend on retail, entertainment and dining.

We’re hoping to see more and more sporting events, festivals, music, arts and business come back to our city. BrisAsia Festival started last Saturday night, Councillor HOWARD, fantastic opening night. I launched the World Science Festival on Sunday with the Minister. We’ve got the Gran Fondo coming up. We’ve got so many things coming in in Brisbane, I hope everybody can get out and encourage their residents to do the same thing and be involved. Because I assure you, the Schrinner Administration will continue to make bold and ambitious moves for our city and we encourage Brisbane and our businesses to find every opportunity they can out of this disruption to become stronger.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks very much, Chair. I rise to speak on the economic update presentation that’s before us today, that was considered by the City Planning and Economic Development Committee last week. There’s a lot of talk in here about job creation and private sector job creation, but not a lot about what this Administration’s weak economic recovery game plan is, unfortunately. That would be a good thing for the people of Brisbane to find out about. But we know that the LORD MAYOR’s only plan for jobs here in Brisbane is his busway extension.

When you sit down and drill into the numbers of that project, there’s some very impressive dollars and very impressive numbers that are coming out of the private sector. When you drill down into the numbers of the Brisbane Metro bus project, it’s certainly not a silver bullet for job creation here in Brisbane. The Metro’s been underway since January 2016, as we all know. In more than four years, it’s created 100 temporary jobs.

Now, there’s been more permanent, ongoing jobs created by a $3 million renovation of the Mon Komo Hotel over in Redcliffe, that was in the media just the other day. They’re recruiting somewhere between 100 and 120 employees. So, to date, the LORD MAYOR’s big fancy project that when we’re asking about what his plans are for job creation here in Brisbane, all we hear is that the Metro project will create jobs now and into the future. Well, that’s only 100 jobs. We know that there’s been a massive cost blowout on that project already, as well.

Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I appreciate the point you’re making and I recognise that item 7 or section 7, paragraph 7, talks about job creation. But you’ve spoken about the Metro a great deal. The Metro actually is an item in the future of this agenda. Can I encourage some of those comments be brought to that point of the agenda?

Councillor CASSIDY: Sure.

Chair: But rather, can you talk about this item in front of us now, please.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Absolutely, Chair. This item talks all about Brisbane’s economic recovery update, how Brisbane is recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and where jobs are being created and the support for the community through the creation of jobs. There’s obviously wonderful work being done by hard working businesses out there to adapt and to change during what have been very difficult circumstances through COVID-19. But clearly, this Administration has not been able to adapt and to change and to be responsive when it comes to an economic recovery and a jobs-led recovery.

The silver bullet—apart from take your point, we can talk about Metro later—but the silver bullet is supposedly that project. But what we need out in the suburbs is work that supports job creation. So, the heavy lifting’s clearly been done by the private sector here. There are certainly some examples of where private businesses and big businesses could certainly do a lot better with the use of public money, in terms of JobKeeper. We know that some of those businesses have seen the light and had some conscience and returned some of that money.

But when it comes to this Administration’s job creating plan, a lot is left to be desired. When you look at the thousands of kilometres of streets that have no footpaths whatsoever, or the 1,600 kilometres of streets that have broken and dangerous footpaths, Chair. Investing more in community clubs, all those community clubs are job-creating as well. Whether they’re on lease sites, they might be running private operations as well, we see that those community clubs, that local infrastructure is not being supported by this Administration, it is business as usual when it comes to that.

We were talking about the Victoria Park redevelopment earlier. The $84 million is going to be spent supposedly on that park and not finished for a decade. So, Chair, when we’re emerging from a global pandemic and as we know next month JobKeeper or JobSeeker will be wound back, the support for these businesses who have had a bumper year in trying to keep jobs rolling out in Brisbane, we know that we’re going to have to step in. Government is going to have to step in, when the Federal Government, Council and State Government are going to have to step in, when the Federal Government withdraws that wage support.

A great way of doing that would be investing in our local suburbs. We shouldn’t be putting all of our eggs in one basket. Diversifying that investment right across Brisbane in shovel-ready projects, whether they are small projects like footpath upgrades, road upgrades, or in our communities, as well. It’s the silver bullet, Chair, that this LORD MAYOR is not willing to fire. He continues to say the business-as-usual approach to this Administration is the right approach.

I think what we will find when that wage subsidy is removed by the Federal Government, that we will be in all kinds of strife, when it comes to an economic recovery here in Brisbane. We know that there’s some aspects of this Council budget that remain untouched. Of course, they’ve certainly cut services, like kerbside collection, but we know that there are areas of this Administration’s budget that remain untouched, like the advertising budget.

We know, we asked a question on notice, about the amount of money that is being spent on glossy brochures and fly-through videos and animations and things like that. This Administration refuses to reveal those details.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.

Chair: I would—

DEPUTY MAYOR: Seriously nothing to do with this report.

Chair: Thank you, Councillor. Look, it had crossed my mind only a moment ago.

Councillor CASSIDY, could I please ask you just to return to the substance of the report in front of us. I know that you are taking the topic, the title, and trying to draw in a lot to that. But can I please ask you just to return to the substance and limit your comments to what’s in the 10 paragraphs and in the report, please?

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair. So, there’s certainly some jobs being created in the private sector through Council work, when it comes to printing, printing glossy brochures and engaging firms to do fly-through videos and animations for projects that haven’t started at all yet, they exist on paper. Certainly, printing stickers and things like that, Chair. So, there’s certainly some work going on from this Council in supporting the private sector.

But the point is, what we have before us today is a set of numbers that show that when a government is nimble and ready and willing and able to support jobs, and which, to their credit, the Federal Government was, through JobKeeper and JobSeeker and that had bipartisan support and that was a good policy. These numbers reflect that, when governments get involved and support the community, we have a good outcome. But what is going to happen when JobSeeker and JobKeeper is wound back, is that these numbers at this time next year and throughout this year will be diabolical.

This Administration needs to get its act together. They need to stop operating a business-as-usual approach and get together a real economic recovery plan for every suburb in Brisbane.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor ADAMS.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t even know where to start with this, because I think we started off on what was going to be the communist manifesto of big government and it’s the way we make jobs is to employ more people. Obviously, learning from the masters in George Street and Wayne Swan and then came back to around somehow that it’s our job now to take over from where JobKeeper leaves off. I really do not understand.

All I can say is I really wish Councillor STRUNK had made it to the Committee last week, because then he could have explained to his comrade in arms that this had nothing to do with employment numbers and nothing to do with job creation. This was the data analytics of what has happened in the last year and the reality that we have an Economic Recovery Taskforce that is working hard to make sure we support businesses.

The one thing I will agree with Councillor CASSIDY is that private businesses are doing the heavy lifting, yes. So, they should be, because they are—the—actual where the businesses are, it’s where the employment is. We have been doing the lifting to support those private businesses. It is not our job to create jobs by employing people in Council, because I think that is what, in a roundabout way, Councillor CASSIDY was trying to say. Ridiculous.

But can I just make it very, very clear on what Council is doing to support small businesses, beyond the list that I went through with the Brisbane Business Hub and the workshops, just in the next week. Beyond the work that we’ve done on Christmas in the City and everything that we’re doing in that apparently abhorrent marketing money that we spend on promoting businesses in the CBD over Christmas, so the feet do come back to the streets.

If people don’t know about these things, they can’t access them. They may not be able to access the $3 million worth of COVID-19 grants that the Chair of Lifestyle put all the grants together and pivoted and made sure that we supported those community groups, which Councillor CASSIDY made very clear are creating jobs. Because we help them pay to keep the lights on. We help them keep the water on with the $3 million grants. We have had, from March to December last year, $5.05 million worth of business fees waived through Council.

We have had $4.33 million worth of leases and rents waived, through Council. We have had $7.92 million of rates relief, through Council. To say we are not supporting employment and businesses in this city is absolutely outrageously untrue. I commend the report to the Chamber.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: I now put the resolution.

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

The report read as follows(

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE ECONOMIC UPDATE

464/2020-21

1. The Project Director, Economic Recovery Taskforce, City Administration and Governance, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane economy. He provided the information below.

2. The Committee was shown two graphs outlining the Brisbane Local Government Area’s (LGA) electronic retail spend for 2020. The first graph detailed a comparison spend from 2019 to 2020. The second graph detailed spend by the following categories:

- supermarkets and food retail

- general retail, retail services and leisure

- dining and entertainment

- large format retail and household goods

- department store and discount department store apparel and luxury.

3. The Committee was shown two graphs outlining the Brisbane CBD electronic retail spend for 2020. The first graph detailed a comparison spend from 2019 to 2020. The second graph detailed spend by the following categories:

- supermarkets and food retail

- general retail, retail services and leisure

- dining and entertainment

- large format retail and household goods

- department store and discount department store apparel and luxury.

4. Comparisons of daytime and nighttime electronic retail spend for Brisbane LGA and Brisbane CBD from 2019 to 2020 were shown to the Committee.

5. The 10 Brisbane suburbs with the highest increase in electronic retail spend from 2019 to 2020 were:

- Virginia $122,250,100

- Belmont $96,488,800

- Milton $74,832,500

- Everton Park $67,535,400

- Eagle Farm $61,886,300

- Oxley $59,326,300

- Hamilton $59,238,900

- Salisbury $57,748,900

- Manly $57,269,000

- Newstead $56,768,700.

6. A series of graphs detailing the percent of change to the Weekly Payroll Employee Jobs Index from March 2020 according to geographic area (Queensland, Brisbane East, Brisbane North, Brisbane South, Brisbane West and Brisbane Inner City) and business size (small, medium and large businesses) were shown to the Committee.

7. The number of job seekers in Brisbane increased from 29,789 in March 2020 to 52,463 in April 2020 and 64,191 in May 2020, before falling to 53,815 in November 2020. Brisbane’s total unemployment rate is currently 6.1%, compared to Brisbane’s youth unemployment rate (15-24 years old) which is 13%.

8. A graph of the pedestrian count in the Queen Street Mall throughout 2020 was shown to the Committee.

9. Graphs were shown to the Committee tracking resident mobility data across Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne in residential activity, parks and open spaces, workplaces and public transport.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Project Director for his informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, the Public and Active Transport Committee, please.

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 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Chair. Last week’s Committee presentation was on Council’s award-winning Metro project.

It was great to receive an update from the project director, Stephen Hammer, on this economy-boosting project. The Schrinner Council’s very proud to be able to champion projects like the Brisbane Metro to get residents home sooner and safer. The PAT (Public and Active Transport) Committee were able to watch a beautiful fly-through video in full, as well as see the new virtual information centre and have the digital engagement experience that residents are able to go online now and see. This is a great way that we’ll be providing our customers with the latest project information, including a project overview, via Council’s corporate website.

Now, while not everything is as glamourous as digital hubs, sewer and road works are also very important. We’ve had four intersection upgrades now complete, with early works underway. The presentation looked at the sewer pump station works beneath Grey Street and the sewer gravity main works, which are both underway, due for completion mid-way through this year. The sewer rising main works are underway, with completion due in April.

The Committee was also shown the Collaborative Partnership’s Adelaide Street Tunnel and surface design that’s currently underway, as is the design for the Cultural Centre station and end-of-route charging infrastructure. The Buranda busway station upgrade is now included in the scope, as we’ve been discussing here previously. As we all remember, this a condition of the State Government’s approval for us to upgrade their busway.

The Adelaide Street upgrade will include a 225-metre mine tunnel, which will reduce disruption and impact to street trees and the iconic vista that the leopardwood trees outside City Hall create. In line with the Adelaide Street vision, the design will enhance the streetscape between Edward Street and Victoria Bridge and will provide upgraded footpaths and bus stops, new landscaping, street furniture and lighting. Service relocations will commence from mid-2021.

The Victoria Bridge was closed to general traffic for the implementation of the CityLink Cycleway trial and Brisbane Metro on 24 January 2021. This will now provide a prioritised public and active transport corridor for our city. In addition to the Cycleway, Brisbane Metro will delivery three lanes for Brisbane Metro and bus services, a dedicated pedestrian and cycle path and a river-viewing deck at North Quay. Investigation into pedestrian shading, including loading and structural assessments, concrete scanning and core samples on Victoria Bridge is now underway.

The contract will be awarded for the Brisbane Metro depot design and the construction of that in the coming weeks and is targeted to commence in 2021. Ten properties have now been acquired and we continue to see some of those acquisitions, the final ones, come through to Council. Site investigations and preparation work for the depot remain ongoing. The depot will be, as we’ve said many times, situated at School Road in Rochedale and will be adjacent to the South East Busway. At 10 hectares in size, it will be one of the largest and most technologically advanced depots in the country.

The scope will include the storage and maintenance of the Brisbane Metro vehicle fleet, advanced end-of-route and overnight charging infrastructure, staff facilities, including onsite parking, capacity to accommodate fleet growth to meet future service needs. A detailed and staged review as well, Chair, is now underway, with the Brisbane’s bus network, in collaboration with our friends over at TransLink. The network design will be integrated with Cross River Rail and community consultation will begin in 2022. Engagement with TransLink is ongoing to facilitate cashless fares, all-door boarding and alighting and stopping patterns for Metro buses and vehicles.

On the active transport side of the portfolio, Chair, just a brief update. Yesterday I was very privileged to meet, once again, with the Active Transport Advisory Committee, which is co-convened with Minister Bailey. It was great to hear feedback directly from users of the new bike lanes in the CBD and I can tell you I don’t think there was a bike group present that hadn’t taken the opportunity to ride on the new Elizabeth Street lanes. As we know, the first section of CityLink Cycleway opened along Elizabeth Street, between William Street and Creek Street on Friday 29 January.

It followed the closure of Victoria Bridge to general traffic on the 24th. Initial feedback from users of that Cycleway has been overwhelmingly positive. I’m very confident that usage will continue to increase as the Victoria Bridge section is completed next month. It’s terrific to see also that e-scooter users and delivery drivers on bicycles, couriers, are taking advantage of that infrastructure. I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight that Council’s e-mobility strategy is still available on Council’s website for public comment. I’ll leave any further debate to the Chamber.

Chair: Further speakers? Anyone? Any further speakers?

Councillor MURPHY?

I’ll now put the resolution.

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 – BRISBANE METRO PROJECT UPDATE

465/2020-21

1. The Program Director, Major Projects, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane Metro project. He provided the information below.

2. The Committee was shown a fly-through video of the major infrastructure works of Brisbane Metro.

3. New project information includes a virtual information centre and a digital engagement experience providing customers with the latest project information, including the project overview, via Council’s corporate website.

4. Early works are underway with four intersection upgrades complete. The Sewer Pump Station works, beneath Grey Street, and Sewer Gravity Main works are both underway with completion due by mid-2021. Sewer Rising Main works are underway with completion due by April 2021.

5. Under the collaborative partnership with Brisbane Move, the Adelaide Street tunnel and surface design is underway, as is the design for the Cultural Centre Station and end-of-route and charging infrastructure. The Buranda Busway Station upgrade is included in scope.

6. The Adelaide Street upgrade will include a 225-metre mined tunnel, reducing disruption and impact to street trees. In line with the Adelaide Street Vision, the design will enhance the streetscape between Edward Street and Victoria Bridge, and provide upgraded footpaths and bus stops, new landscaping, street furniture and lighting. Service relocations will commence from mid-2021.

7. The Victoria Bridge was closed to general traffic for implementation of the CityLink Cycleway trial and Brisbane Metro on 24 January 2021. This will provide a prioritised public and active transport corridor. The Brisbane Metro will deliver:

- three lanes for Brisbane Metro and bus services

- dedicated pedestrian and cycling paths

- a river viewing deck at North Quay.

8. Investigation into pedestrian shading including loading and structural assessments, concrete scanning and core samples is being undertaken.

9. The contract will be awarded for the Brisbane Metro depot design and construction in the coming weeks and is targeted to begin in 2021. Ten properties have been acquired and site investigations and preparation works are ongoing.

10. The depot will be situated on School Road, Rochedale, adjacent to the South East Busway, and at 10 hectares in size it will be one of the largest and most technologically advanced in Australia. The scope includes:

- storage and maintenance for the Brisbane Metro vehicle fleet

- advanced end-of-route and overnight charging infrastructure

- staff facilities including on-site parking

- capacity to accommodate fleet growth to meet future service needs.

11. A detailed and staged review of the bus network is underway in collaboration with TransLink. The network design will be integrated with Cross River Rail and community consultation will begin from 2022.

12. Engagement with TransLink is ongoing to facilitate cashless fares, all door alighting and boarding, and stopping patterns for metro vehicles and buses.

13. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Program Director for his informative presentation.

14. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, the Infrastructure Committee, please.

Councillor McLACHLAN.

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Peter MATIC, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, at item A in the agenda is a report of the presentation to the Committee meeting last week, the first meeting back. It was timely to receive an overview of what has been happening with the Infrastructure division for the first six months of the financial year, what’s been achieved. Obviously, our focus, the focus has been on economic stimulus, which was discussed at length in the Chamber last week, following the announcement of the second round of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program.

But to speak more broadly of stimulus grants, we’ve been fortunate to secure over $60 million in funding to deliver over 70 employment-generating projects in the last financial year and in the year ahead of us. Some of these projects have already been completed, such as the shared pathway improvements on Main Street in Kangaroo Point, lighting upgrades at 13 sports clubs and upgrades to four cemetery facilities across the city.

Most projects are now in the delivery phase, which means there’s more people in construction jobs, as a consequence of the provision of the stimulus funding and Council projects already announced across Brisbane at the moment. The presentation emphasised that investment is the key. Every dollar invested in public infrastructure delivers approximately $4 in value in gross domestic product over the life of the asset. Of course, when more people are in work and have secure jobs, this encourages further expenditure in the wider economy.

This is why Brisbane Infrastructure has been so motivated to secure as much stimulus funding as possible and they’ve done a fantastic job. Once again thank you to CPO (City Projects Office) for their hard work to secure those stimulus funds that are available from the Federal and State Governments. Mr Chair, with two of our most significant road projects completed in 2020, the KSD (Kingsford Smith Drive) upgrade and Wynnum Road, we’re now gearing up for the forward pipeline of new projects, to keep injecting money into the pockets of Brisbane contractors and suppliers. Some of those were highlighted in the presentation last week.

Over the next three years, our Better Roads for Brisbane suite of delivery items will close nearly $300 million worth of new and upgraded infrastructure for Brisbane. These include significant road transformations which will commence, such as the Indooroopilly roundabout, the Beams Road Corridor project, the Rochedale Road and Priestdale Road intersection upgrade.

Projects of this scale have never been more important, on top of delivering the outcomes we want to achieve, such as improved safety, better connectivity and less congestion, these significant road projects provide stable work for extended periods of time during construction. These projects are just as much about building the economy as they are about building a better road network. Mr Chair, on top of that item at item A, there were four petitions, I’ll leave that to any Council debate.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Seriatim en bloc - Clauses B and E

|Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause B, PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL CONSULT WITH RESIDENTS AND URGENTLY IMPLEMENT A |

|LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DORNOCH TERRACE TO MONTAGUE ROAD PRECINCT, WEST END, and Clause C, PETITION – Requesting |

|Council implement traffic calming and animal crossing signage on Tollett, Tinchborne and Tyberry Streets, and Torbay Road, Chandler, be|

|taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes. |

Chair: Further speakers? Anyone?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Mr Chair. Is this thing on, yes? Yes, she’s on. I rise to speak on Clause D in regards to the naming of the bridge, ‘The Frank Holland Bridge’ at Boundary Road at Richlands. I’m very proud to be able to stand before you here and talk a little bit about Frank Holland, whose name is going to be put to a piece of infrastructure in Brisbane that will remain for many, many, many years.

Frank Holland was stationed at the Wacol army camp from 1945 to 1967. Frank was a distinguished service in both Australia and Papua New Guinea during World War II, including rescuing survivors of the Twenty-Second Battalion, where he was awarded an MBE (Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) for that work. He provided witness testimony at the war crimes trial of the Tol Massacre and served as part of the Z Unit in Timor and Borneo, and assisted in the reconstruction work in Rabaul and Papua New Guinea. Obviously, a very busy man.

In 2007, the National Services Heritage Precinct was opened at 907 Boundary Road, Richlands, on part of the Wacol army camp site. This precinct also houses the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles (NGVR) and the Papua New Guinea Volunteer Rifles (PNGVR) Ex-Servicemen’s Association, of which Frank was a valued member. The NGVR and the PGVR museums were established primarily by Frank’s son, John Holland, who was a curator of the museum for many years and now, sadly, John only recently passed away.

The local veterans’ community provided full support towards the naming of the Bridge, ‘The Frank Holland MBE Bridge’. The bridge name will reflect the long army association in the area of Boundary Road. The Holland name will be recognised for the outstanding contributions that they made in this space. Naming the bridge ‘The Frank Holland MBE Bridge’ will help raise awareness of the excellent work of the NGVR and the PNGVR Associations and help the organisation to be recognised with the great work they do in the area. Thank you, Chair.

Councillor LANDERS: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor LANDERS.

ADJOURNMENT:

|466/2020-21 |

|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. |

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chair: Welcome back, Councillors.

Are there any further speakers?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair, I rise to speak on the petition regarding traffic calming and other safety improvements around parts of West End and Highgate Hill. I think it won’t surprise many residents in my area to see that this issue is again being raised by a petition. We’ve had so many petitions over the years raising concerns about—writing about traffic safety; about pedestrian access; about congestion, et cetera, in—particularly in that south-west corner of the Kurilpa Peninsula.

I really want to draw to the attention of Councillor ADAMS, DEPUTY MAYOR and Chair of the City Planning, but also to Councillor McLACHLAN and Councillor MURPHY, the fact that this particular precinct is experiencing a level of strain that’s unusual even for a growing city like Brisbane. The sheer number of people who are being settled in quite a dense—already quite a dense neighbourhood at very high rates over a short space of time, is placing immense strain on that local road network.

For Councillors who don’t know the area well, we’ve got Montague Road, which is a single lane in each direction; we’ve got Dornoch Terrace, which is a single lane in each direction; we’ve got Vulture Street, which is a single lane in each direction, as the main arteries leading out of that part of the peninsula.

This Council Administration has added thousands and thousands of residents down there without making any significant or meaningful improvements to public and active transport. I acknowledge with gratitude the fact that the Administration is supporting the West End Toowong footbridge, but that’s still quite some time away and there’s no funding for that yet confirmed, either.

In the meantime, we’ve got thousands of additional people living in that area, hundreds and hundreds of additional vehicle trips on all those road corridors I just mentioned. The streets, predictably, are very congested and as a result, we’re seeing a lot more rat-running and short-cutting through residential side streets, which in turn is making it less comfortable and less safe for people to walk or ride for transport.

So, it’s a self-reinforcing problem where the lack of safe infrastructure means more people drive, which in turn means more cars on the road, which in turn makes it even more dangerous for people to walk and ride for transport to the point where people can’t easily even cross the road to get to the local bus stop.

I’m sure there will be some people in the Council Administration, maybe some people who work in the Infrastructure division who are feeling, but we’ve already spent a bit of money down in that precinct, we’ve already done some traffic calming down there. My point that I really want to emphasise for the Administration is the scale of development that has been imposed on that community means far more investment will be necessary.

Many more streets require traffic calming; some streets that have already had some traffic calming require further investment and more upgrades, particularly to pedestrian crossings and intersections. The Administration’s budgeting approach and its planning for these local infrastructure improvements is falling woefully short. They’re simply—the Council simply isn’t keeping up with demand generated by that rapid population growth.

I know there’s a structural problem across Brisbane. I know that in general, the budget for traffic calming is too low. The budget for those local pedestrian crossings and safety upgrades is too low. I know that’s not a problem that’s unique to West End or unique to my ward; that’s an issue across the city.

I think what’s particularly frustrating to West End residents though, is that they’ve seen hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of new development and significant revenue flowing into Council in terms of infrastructure charges. Naturally, they ask themselves, if developers have been paying millions of dollars in infrastructure charges to Brisbane City Council, why aren’t we seeing those local infrastructure improvements on the ground in our suburbs?

Why is it getting harder and harder for me and my kids to walk to the local school or to the local shops when Council is supposedly pursuing a strategy of supporting public and active transport?

The planners tell us that increasing density makes it easier to shift away from car dependence, makes it easier for people to use other modes of transport. But in fact, what seems to be happening is that the increase in density is simply leading to more motorists, more people driving on those roads, more safety concerns and more high-speed short-cutting through residential side streets that can’t—simply can’t take the volumes.

I’m not simply talking here about local residents who are ducking down the back street to avoid a traffic snarl. I’m talking about heavy vehicles, big construction trucks that really shouldn’t be on those roads at all. My view personally is that those really large semi-trailer trucks shouldn’t be permitted in those small residential areas. I know that in other cities around the world, there have been moves to ban those big semi-trailers from dense residential areas.

That’s probably where we need to move in this city, as well. But for the time being, what we need is more traffic calming, more local pedestrian crossings, safer separated bike lanes so that residents who are hungry to and eager to shift away from car dependency actually have an opportunity to do so.

I was very disappointed with the way Brisbane City Council handled the consultation process for Dornoch Terrace upgrade proposal not so long ago, and also quite disappointed in the State MP at the time for the role they played in potentially undermining opportunities for positive improvements.

But I want to emphasise to the Administration that I’m really keen to work constructively and collaboratively with Council to see some of those changes happen. I’d love to see some separated bike lanes along Vulture Street and Dornoch Terrace. I’d love to see some more pedestrian crossings and traffic calming improvements that will improve safety, not just for the local residents of that area, but also for the many visitors and workers who travel into that precinct from other parts of the city.

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor McLACHLAN, it’s your residents who are driving into West End who will also benefit from the changes I’m proposing. In the same way that this Council Administration tends to spend a bit more money right in the CBD because the CBD caters for people from across the city, it makes sense to be spending a bit more money on pedestrian safety improvements for suburbs like West End and South Brisbane, because they are magnets for workers from across the city.

We’ve got really high numbers of employees moving in and out of these neighbourhoods each day, coming from right across Brisbane and even beyond the boundaries of the Brisbane Local Government Area. They want to move through this neighbourhood safely, as well and they—it’s perfectly reasonable for them to ask for these traffic improvements.

I thought it was interesting that even with this petition, though it’s certainly not the largest we’ve had on the topic, there were quite a few signatures from people who live outside the local area. That’s because unsafe streets in the inner city impacts everyone. It leads to more traffic congestion along all our roads throughout the network.

So, I’m imploring Councillor McLACHLAN, Councillor ADAMS, Councillor MURPHY, to work together with me and to allocate the funding we need to make these streets safe for our community. If you make the streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists, you’ll see a reduction in traffic congestion because people will have viable alternatives.

But if you continue to respond to these petitions that are offered in good faith by residents who are seeking positive outcomes, if you continue to respond to these petitions with dismissive, stock-standard template-style replies, we’re going to see traffic congestion in those areas worsen, which in turn is going to increase the cost to Council in terms of road resurfacing and maintenance of the network.

So, spending a little bit more money now on traffic calming for a few extra pedestrian crossings is going to save you money in the long-term, because the volume of heavy vehicles, the volume of cars on those roads is going to be reduced. This is actually a cost-saving measure for Council.

I know it might seem paradoxical, but spending a little bit of money on traffic calming, a little bit of money on bike lanes and pedestrian crossings actually reduces the long-term costs of building and maintaining the road network.

In such a dense neighbourhood where we’ve had so many big new developments approved, requests for a bit of extra traffic calming and a few pedestrian crossing upgrades surely aren’t unreasonable or beyond the capacity of this Council to deliver.

So, please, Councillor McLACHLAN, Councillor ADAMS, LORD MAYOR, if you’re listening or reading this, please listen to these residents. Their demands are not unreasonable; they just want safe streets where their kids can walk to school without people being terrified that they’re going to get hit by a car. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to Councillor SRI for that contribution, although I was a little confused about whether his concern is about the costs of road maintenance, concerns about congestion on roads or concern about safety. Because he was trying to have a bob each way on all of those things, I believe.

But he ended up talking about the need to respond to what residents want and I point to that survey that was undertaken on—in Dornoch Terrace last year, or in 2019, September—between 30 September, over four weeks of consultation, September/October; 64% of those respondents disagreed with the proposal that was put forward.

The question therefore is, does Council impose these things on people against their will or invite them to participate in what is being talked about? People have the right to participate; if people participate and respond to suggestions about what might be installed and oppose it, does Councillor SRI believe that regardless of that, it should be imposed upon them? I don’t think that’s a good approach—

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Will Councillor McLACHLAN take a question?

Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN, will you take a question?

Councillor SRI: Sure.

Chair: Please proceed, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Is Councillor McLACHLAN aware that the opposition to the Dornoch Terrace upgrades proposed were largely based on the fact that residents didn’t feel they did improve safety, that that was the core concern and that was why I did as well?

Chair: Thank you, Councillor SRI.

Councillor McLACHLAN?

Councillor McLACHLAN: The most—I understand that the most supported elements of the project related to pedestrian connectivity and intersection safety improvements, which can be undertaken for future funding. That’s what’s undertaking. Councillor SRI suggests that it’s a question of funding only in relation to undertaking these projects. I suggest that it’s also a function of asking people what they want.

Chair: Councillors, I will now put the resolution for items A, C and D. A, C and D.

Clauses A, C and D put

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

Chair: On items B and E. On items B and E.

Clauses B and E put

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

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY 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 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, 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 – BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE 2020-21 – THE FIRST SIX MONTHS

467/2020-21

1. The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the first six months of Brisbane Infrastructure 2020-21. He provided the information below.

2. The Committee were advised of the following impacts of COVID-19:

- health crisis

- significant impacts on employment:

- a rise in unemployment and the introduction of Jobseeker and Jobkeeper payments and stimulus strategies

- reduced revenues and increased debt

- uncertainty and loss of industry and household confidence

- changes to how Council does business

- a major impact on the economy:

- unemployment peaked in the second wave of COVID-19

- business confidence was impacted in the first wave of COVID-19

- an increased investment and debt by Government

- a major shift in Brisbane Infrastructure and utility use, with road volumes dropping by 11% between January to June 2020, compared to January to June 2019.

3. Every dollar invested in public infrastructure delivers approximately $4 of value in gross domestic product over the life of the asset. The Committee was advised that 3.3 direct full-time jobs are supported per $1 million of capital expenditure. Employment promotes additional expenditure on goods and services in the wider economy. Long-term enhancement of economic productivity facilitated through improved infrastructure results in lower transport costs and greater reliability.

4. Council’s Infrastructure for Brisbane program includes:

- road and intersection upgrades

- pedestrian improvements

- road resurfacing

- asset management

- traffic and congestion monitoring

- bridge and culvert upgrades

- safe school travel

- parking management.

5. The Committee was advised of completed projects in 2020, including Kingsford Smith Drive, the Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1 and the Bridgeman Downs Modular Infrastructure Point of Delivery site. Ongoing projects include the Norris Road and Barbour Road intersection, the Indooroopilly roundabout and the Move Safe Brisbane project.

6. The Committee was shown pictures of Speed Awareness Monitor and Wildlife Animal Monitor signs used throughout the year.

7. The inner city project coordination functions include:

- coordination of traffic and transport activities and cumulative impacts for major inner city construction projects

- review and approval of Construction Management Plans, Traffic Management Plans and Haulage Management Plans

- leading the review and approvals for the design of Council’s returned transport and infrastructure assets for major projects

- providing a central point of contact for transport and infrastructure matters in Council for designated major projects.

8. The Committee was advised of the Queensland and Australian Government’s economic stimulus grant programs in which Council has been successful.

9. The Committee was advised of the Project Pipeline Highlights for 2021-24, including:

- open level crossing removals at Beams Road, Carseldine, and Boundary Road, Coopers Plains

- the Indooroopilly Roundabout upgrade

- Rochedale Road network including the Gardner Road completion

- Bracken Ridge Road network including the Hoyland Street and Norris Road upgrade

- continuing major intersection upgrades.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Divisional Manager for his informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL CONSULT WITH RESIDENTS AND URGENTLY IMPLEMENT A LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE DORNOCH TERRACE TO MONTAGUE ROAD PRECINCT, WEST END

CA20/1154953 and CA20/1155578

468/2020-21

12. Two petitions from residents, requesting Council consult with residents and urgently implement a local area traffic management (LATM) plan for the Dornoch Terrace to Montague Road precinct, West End, were presented to the meeting of Council held on 27 October 2020, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.

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

14. The first petition (CA20/1154953) contains 350 signatures. Of the petitioners, 300 live in either West End or Highgate Hill, 34 live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane, nine did not provide an address and seven live outside the City of Brisbane. The second petition (CA20/1155578) contains 60 signatures. Of the petitioners, 51 live in either West End of Highgate Hill and the remainder live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane.

15. The petitioners have requested consideration of a LATM scheme on several streets between Montague Road and Dornoch Terrace, including Raven, Rogers, Ida, Mitchell, Drake and Ganges Streets and Dornoch Terrace itself, to reduce the volume of non-local traffic using these residential streets.

16. With the exception of Dornoch Terrace, which is a district road, the other streets referenced by the petitioners function as neighbourhood roads in Council’s road hierarchy contained in Brisbane City Plan 2014. District roads facilitate the movement of people and goods and Dornoch Terrace provides an important transport link into the West End peninsula. Neighbourhood roads provide access to local residential properties. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

17. LATM schemes are typically implemented over an area and involve 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. Road configuration changes, such as one-way streets, can also be considered as part of proposed area-wide treatments.

18. In the 2017-18 financial year, Council funded the construction of a number of traffic calming and safety improvement projects in the area bounded by Montague Road, Hardgrave Road, and Vulture Street to address concerns regarding safety and non-local traffic usage. These improvement works included kerb buildouts for Hoogley Street at Jumna Street, pedestrian refuges on Montague Road near Harriet and Rogers Streets, sightline improvements and yellow line installation on Hardgrave Road at Mitchell Street, and the conversion of Victoria Street to a ‘one way’ configuration eastbound between Montague Road and Beattie Street.

19. A number of the proposed projects were not supported by local residents during community consultation undertaken between February and March 2017. The proposed treatments that were not supported by local residents and did not proceed to construction included an additional speed platform and ‘Slow point’ on Ryan Street, a modified T-intersection on Ryan Street at Miller Street, a bike lane on Hardgrave Road near Archibald Street, and improvements to the bend at Ida Street/Rogers Street.

20. Of the streets referenced by the petitioners, Dornoch Terrace, Ganges/Hoogley Street and Rogers Street are the only three which contain no speed platforms. Rogers Street can only be accessed via Mitchell Street, which has three existing speed platforms. Ganges/Hoogley Street serves as an important bus route through the area and has existing LATM devices in the form of mountable roundabouts. Due to the presence of buses on this route, additional LATM devices are not supported on Ganges/Hoogley Street.

21. As a district road, a moderate level of non-local traffic use is expected on Dornoch Terrace and it also serves as a bus route. In addition, Dornoch Terrace forms an important cycle link as part of the popular ‘Brisbane River Loop’ route. The installation of traffic calming devices, which inherently impact on the efficient movement of people and goods, are generally unsuitable for district roads. However, in specific circumstances, modified treatments of intersections and build-outs could be considered, but speed platforms or chicanes are not suitable.

22. In 2019, Council released a proposed concept design for the Dornoch Terrace safety improvements project, between Gladstone Road, Highgate Hill and Hardgrave Road, West End. This project proposed bicycle lanes, traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle operating speeds, changes to intersections and pedestrian crossing points. In considering the most balanced and practical options for this important road, Council undertook a period of community consultation, including a survey, between 30 September and 25 October 2019 to seek community feedback on the proposed concept design.

23. The results of the survey were that 64% of respondents disagreed with the proposal. Based on this community feedback, Council decided not to proceed with the proposed concept design for Dornoch Terrace as presented at the time. The most supported elements of the project related to pedestrian connectivity and intersection safety improvements, and these will be considered for future funding and prioritised against other similar citywide projects.

24. In response to feedback received from residents of Mitchell, Rogers, Ida and Raven Streets, Council has recently implemented changes to on-street parking on Rogers Street to provide more parking opportunities and create a traffic calming effect. Further treatments may be considered based on the result of these changes, subject to funding availability. However, a 40 km/h speed limit is in place on Mitchell, Rogers, Ida and Raven Streets to accompany the existing LATM treatments.

25. Given the existing LATM treatments in the area referenced by the petitioners, the priority for implementing additional treatments is lower compared to other similar untreated streets across Brisbane. Notwithstanding this, undertaking further consultation and design work for an area wide traffic calming scheme requires funding in a future Council budget which has not been allocated at this time.

26. Speeding and reckless driving are primarily behavioural issues. Enforcement of such behaviour is under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) as Council is unable to enforce moving traffic violations. 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

27. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

28. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

29. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Steve Griffiths and Charles Strunk dissenting.

30. 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 References: CA20/1154953 and CA20/1155578

Thank you for your petitions requesting Council consult with residents and urgently implement a local area traffic management (LATM) plan for the Dornoch Terrace to Montague Road precinct, West End.

LATM schemes are typically implemented over an area and involve 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. Road configuration changes, such as one-way streets, can also be considered as part of proposed area-wide treatments.

In the 2017-18 financial year, Council funded the construction of a number of traffic calming and safety improvement projects in the area bounded by Montague Road, Hardgrave Road, and Vulture Street to address concerns regarding safety and non-local traffic usage. These improvement works included kerb buildouts for Hoogley Street at Jumna Street, pedestrian refuges on Montague Road near Harriet and Rogers Streets, sightline improvements and yellow line installation on Hardgrave Road at Mitchell Street, and the conversion of Victoria Street to a ‘one way’ configuration eastbound between Montague Road and Beattie Street.

A number of the proposed projects were not supported by local residents during community consultation undertaken between February and March 2017. The proposed treatments that were not supported by local residents and did not proceed to construction included an additional speed platform and ‘Slow point’ on Ryan Street, a modified T-intersection on Ryan Street at Miller Street, a bike lane on Hardgrave Road near Archibald Street, and improvements to the bend at Ida Street/Rogers Street.

Of the streets referenced by the petitioners, Dornoch Terrace, Ganges/Hoogley Street and Rogers Street are the only three which contain no speed platforms. Rogers Street can only be accessed via Mitchell Street, which has three existing speed platforms. Ganges/Hoogley Street serves as an important bus route through the area and has existing LATM devices in the form of mountable roundabouts. Due to the presence of buses on this route, additional LATM devices are not supported on Ganges/Hoogley Street.

As a district road, a moderate level of non-local traffic use is expected on Dornoch Terrace and it also serves as a bus route. In addition, Dornoch Terrace forms an important cycle link as part of the popular ‘Brisbane River Loop’ route. The installation of traffic calming devices, which inherently impact on the efficient movement of people and goods, are generally unsuitable for district roads. However, in specific circumstances, modified treatments of intersections and build-outs could be considered, but speed platforms or chicanes are not suitable.

In 2019, Council released a proposed concept design for the Dornoch Terrace safety improvements project, between Gladstone Road, Highgate Hill and Hardgrave Road, West End. This project proposed bicycle lanes, traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle operating speeds, changes to intersections and pedestrian crossing points. In considering the most balanced and practical options for this important road, Council undertook a period of community consultation, including a survey, between 30 September and 25 October 2019 to seek community feedback on the proposed concept design.

The results of the survey were that 64% of respondents disagreed with the proposal. Based on this community feedback, Council decided not to proceed with the proposed concept design for Dornoch Terrace as presented at the time. The most supported elements of the project related to pedestrian connectivity and intersection safety improvements, and these will be considered for future funding and prioritised against other similar citywide projects.

In response to feedback received from residents of Mitchell, Rogers, Ida and Raven Streets, Council has recently implemented changes to on-street parking on Rogers Street to provide more parking opportunities and create a traffic calming effect. Further treatments may be considered based on the result of these changes, subject to funding availability. However, a 40 km/h speed limit is in place on Mitchell, Rogers, Ida and Raven Street to accompany the existing LATM treatments.

Given the existing LATM treatments in the area you referenced, the priority for implementing additional treatments is lower compared to other similar untreated streets across Brisbane. Notwithstanding this, undertaking further consultation and design work for an area-wide traffic calming scheme requires funding in a future Council budget which has not been allocated at this time.

Speeding and reckless driving are primarily behavioural issues. Enforcement of such behaviour is under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) as Council is unable to enforce moving traffic violations. You are encouraged to raise any concerns with speeding motorists directly with the QPS via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).

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 8977.

ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING AND ANIMAL CROSSING SIGNAGE ON TOLLETT, TINCHBORNE AND TYBERRY STREETS, AND TORBAY ROAD, CHANDLER

CA20/1229992

469/2020-21

31. A petition from residents, requesting Council implement traffic calming and animal crossing signage on Tollett, Tinchborne and Tyberry Streets, and Torbay Road, Chandler, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 10 November 2020, by Councillor Ryan Murphy, and received.

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

33. The petition contains 30 signatures. Of the petitioners, 17 live in the subject streets, 12 live in other areas of the City of Brisbane and one lives outside the City of Brisbane.

34. The subject streets have 60 km/h speed limits and function as neighbourhood roads 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.

35. The petitioners’ request for traffic calming measures has been noted. Traffic calming measures commonly involve the installation of traffic calming devices such as speed platforms and chicanes to discourage use from high volumes of non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users.

36. Council considers the installation of traffic calming devices only where there is a combination of both a demonstrated widespread issue of non-local traffic utilising the prospective street or area and where there is a demonstrated speeding issue. Speeding issues alone are not sufficient to consider the use of traffic calming devices as speeding is observed to some extent in all streets throughout Brisbane. Instead, traffic calming devices are used as area-wide treatments in precincts where local roads are being used to bypass higher order roads under Council's road network hierarchy, which are more suited to through traffic.

37. A review of the data available for the subject streets identified that traffic surveys were undertaken in December 2019, over a seven-day period. The highest average daily vehicle total of 405 was recorded on Tinchborne Street between Tyberry Street and Old Cleveland Road with the remaining volumes being significantly less than this, ranging from 80 to 230 average vehicles per day. Attachment C (submitted on file) shows a summary of the respective traffic counts. These recorded volumes are not sufficient to warrant consideration of traffic calming devices. As such, Council does not propose to further investigate a traffic calming scheme at this time.

38. The petitioners’ request for ‘Local Traffic Only’ signage has been noted. The current traffic guidelines followed by Council state that ‘Local Traffic Only’ signs should only be installed on roads where there may be confusion on the direction of the major road ahead. The main access points into the local area are distinct turns off the major roads of Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road and Old Cleveland Road. Combined with the low traffic volumes referenced above, it is considered that most vehicles entering the network of roads have local destinations and the installation of ‘Local Traffic Only’ signs are not warranted.

39. The petitioners’ feedback about road safety on the subject streets has been noted. Council officers have reviewed the latest available data from the official Queensland Government crash database for the area from 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2020. There have been no recorded crashes of any kind during this time. The available crash data does not indicate that there are significant safety issues on, or near the subject streets.

40. The petitioners’ request for wildlife signage has been noted. Council is aware of koala presence and activity within and around the subject streets. More importantly, Council has identified this area as a hotspot zone for koalas and based on the current data of vehicle-related koala strikes, Council will be installing koala warning signs in this area. The proposed locations include:

- entrance to Tinchborne Street (from Old Cleveland Road)

- entrance to Torbay Road (from Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road).

41. Council also recommends the reporting of any injured wildlife to the RSPCA Native Animal Ambulance on 1300 ANIMAL and any deceased animal via Council’s 24-hour Contact Centre on (07) 3403 8888. This information will assist Council with assessments of wildlife movement solutions for the area in the future.

42. The petitioners’ feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. The traffic surveys also recorded speeding data from the precinct. Based on the results, there was no evidence of widespread speeding issues as most motorists are complying with the 60 km/h speed limit. However, as with all areas of the city, some speeding was recorded.

43. Speeding is a driver behaviour issue and the Queensland Police Service (QPS) is the designated authority for enforcing speeding and reckless driving. As such, 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). Providing specific information on days or times this activity is occurring can assist with coordinating targeted enforcement activities

Consultation

44. Councillor Ryan Murphy, Councillor for Chandler 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: CA20/1229992

Thank you for your petition requesting Council implement traffic calming and animal crossing signage on Tollett, Tinchborne and Tyberry Streets, and Torbay Road, Chandler (the subject streets), to minimise traffic and reduce speeding vehicles.

Your request for traffic calming measures has been noted. Traffic calming measures commonly involve the installation of traffic calming devices such as speed platforms and chicanes to discourage use from high volumes of non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. Road configuration changes, such as one-way streets, can also be considered as part of proposed area-wide treatments.

Council considers the installation of traffic calming devices only where there is a combination of both a demonstrated widespread issue of non-local traffic utilising the prospective street or area and where there is a demonstrated speeding issue. Speeding issues alone are not sufficient to consider the use of traffic calming devices as speeding is observed to some extent in all streets throughout Brisbane. Instead, traffic calming devices are used as area-wide treatments in precincts where local roads are being used to bypass higher order roads under Council's road network hierarchy, which are more suited to through traffic.

A review of the data available for the subject streets identified that traffic surveys were undertaken in December 2019, over a seven-day period. The highest average daily vehicle total of 405 was recorded on Tinchborne Street between Tyberry Street and Old Cleveland Road with the remaining volumes being significantly less than this, ranging from 80 to 230 average vehicles per day. These recorded volumes are not sufficient to warrant consideration of traffic calming devices. As such, Council does not propose to further investigate a traffic calming scheme at this time.

Your request for ‘Local Traffic Only’ signage has been noted. The current traffic guidelines followed by Council state that ‘Local Traffic Only’ signs should only be installed on roads where there may be confusion on the direction of the major road ahead. The main access points into the local area are distinct turns off the major roads of Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road and Old Cleveland Road. Combined with the low traffic volumes referenced above, it is considered that most vehicles entering the network of roads have local destinations and the installation of ‘Local Traffic Only’ signs are not warranted.

Your feedback about road safety on the subject streets has been noted. Council officers have reviewed the latest available data from the official Queensland Government crash database for the area from 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2020. There have been no recorded crashes of any kind during this time. The available crash data does not indicate that there are significant safety issues on, or near the subject streets.

Your request for wildlife signage has been noted. Council is aware of koala presence and activity within and around the subject streets. More importantly, Council has identified this area as a hotspot zone for koalas and based on the current data of vehicle-related koala strikes, Council will be installing koala warning signs in this area. The proposed locations include: 

- entrance to Tinchborne Street (from Old Cleveland Road)

- entrance to Torbay Road (from Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road).  

Council also recommends the reporting of any injured wildlife to the RSPCA Native Animal Ambulance on 1300 ANIMAL and any deceased animal via Council’s 24-hour Contact Centre on (07) 3403 8888. This information will assist Council with assessments of wildlife movement solutions for the area in the future.

Your feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. The traffic surveys also recorded speeding data from the precinct. Based on the results, there was no evidence of widespread speeding issues as most motorists are complying with the 60 km/h speed limit. However, as with all areas of the city, some speeding was recorded.

Speeding is a driver behaviour issue and the Queensland Police Service (QPS) is the designated authority for enforcing speeding and reckless driving. As such, 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). Providing specific information on days or times this activity is occurring can assist with coordinating targeted enforcement activities.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Brian Nichol, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 7674.

ADOPTED

D PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL FORMALLY NAME THE BRIDGE OVER BULLOCK HEAD CREEK ON BOUNDARY ROAD, RICHLANDS, AS FRANK HOLLAND MBE BRIDGE

CA20/1230119 and CA20/1323263

470/2020-21

48. Council received two petitions from residents, requesting Council formally name the bridge over Bullock Head Creek on Boundary Road, Richlands, as ‘Frank Holland MBE Bridge’. Petition CA20/1230119 was presented to the meeting of Council held on 10 November 2020, by Councillor Sarah Hutton, and received. Petition CA20/1323263 was presented to the meeting of Council held on 24 November 2020, by Councillor Charles Strunk, and received.

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

50. The first petition (CA20/1230119) contains five signatures and the second petition (CA20/1323263) contains 42 signatures. Of the petitioners, 44 live within the City of Brisbane, three live outside the City of Brisbane.

51. The petitioners have undertaken significant research and have provided documented evidence of Mr Frank Holland MBE’s connection to the Boundary Road area, where the bridge is located. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

52. The support of Mr Holland’s son has been noted. It is understood that he has since passed away and the request has been put forward by the local veteran community and the Richlands Inala History Group.

53. The petitioners’ request has been considered in accordance with Council’s Corporate Rule RN12 – Significant Transport Structures (Bridges and Culverts) Naming Procedure (the procedure). In line with the procedure, applicants wishing to name a structure after an individual are required to satisfy certain criteria which includes:

- a simple dedication name not exceeding 25 characters

- demonstrated community support

- the named person being deceased

- consent from the named person’s family members

- review of historic supporting information by Council’s City Architecture and Heritage team

- site inspection to identify appropriate locations for the proposed bridge name signs.

54. Council has reviewed the documentation provided and can confirm the proposed name ‘Frank Holland MBE Bridge’ is appropriate given this is less than 25 characters, as required under the procedure.

55. Of the 47 signatures provided, 38 are from the nearby suburbs of Richlands, Inala, Forest Lake, Oxley and Durack, which is considered an appropriate level of support from the community for the proposal. Council’s City Architecture and Heritage team has reviewed the supporting information provided prior to receiving this submission and has no objections to the naming proposal.

56. A suitable location for the proposed signs on the eastern and western approaches to the bridge has been identified during a site inspection. Attachment C (submitted on file) shows the proposed sign locations. As such, Council has determined that the submission is in accordance with the requirements of the procedure and will commence planning for the creation and installation of the signs to occur within four to six weeks.

Consultation

57. Councillor Sarah Hutton, Councillor for Jamboree Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

58. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

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

60. 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 References: CA20/1230119 and CA20/1323263

Thank you for your petitions requesting Council formally name the bridge over Bullock Head Creek on Boundary Road, Richlands, as ‘Frank Holland MBE Bridge’.

Council has reviewed your submission and confirm your request is in accordance with Council’s Corporate Rule RN12 – Significant Transport Structures (Bridges and Culverts) Naming Procedure. As such, Council will commence planning for the creation and installation of the bridge name signs.

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

E PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CALMING ON CREWE STREET, MT GRAVATT EAST

CA20/1280484

471/2020-21

61. A petition from residents, requesting Council install additional traffic calming on Crewe Street, Mt Gravatt East, such as speed cameras, street cameras or a properly designed chicane, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 17 November 2020, by Councillor Krista Adams, and received.

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

63. The petition contains nine signatures. All of the petitioners live on Crewe Street.

64. Crewe Street 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.

65. The petitioners’ request for an additional traffic calming device on Crewe Street has been noted. Traffic calming measures commonly involve 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.

66. Crewe Street has six existing traffic calming devices to discourage non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds. The street also has signs advising ‘local traffic only’ on both ends of the road. There is a high demand for traffic calming across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity for the wider community.

67. In response to this petition, Council requested a seven-day traffic survey to assess the current traffic speeds and volumes on Crewe Street. The results of this survey are shown in Attachment C (submitted on file). The survey occurred between 1 and 7 December 2020 and the results identify that approximately 1,156 vehicles travel on Crewe Street each weekday on average and 85% of all motorists are travelling at or below 47 km/h. Crewe Street provides direct access to several local streets and traffic speeds in general indicate that the majority of motorists comply with the default 50 km/h speed limit.

68. The petitioners’ proposed traffic calming device has been reviewed. Given there are no existing slow points (kerb build-outs) in the street, an additional speed platform would be the preferred traffic calming option. However, the proposed location does not have adequate street lighting which is a requirement of all traffic calming devices for safety reasons and adds significant costs to the project. In addition, it would be undesirable to install an additional traffic calming device at the next street light, adjacent to house number 110, due to the geometry of the roadway.

69. As Crewe Street already has multiple traffic calming devices and the traffic survey results do not highlight any significant non-local traffic or speeding issues, installing an additional device would be considered a low priority. Furthermore, as only nine residents of Crewe Street signed the petition, it is difficult to determine if there is a high level of concern from local residents regarding existing traffic conditions.

70. A search of the Queensland Government’s official crash database for Crewe Street between January 2015 to June 2020 has returned no recorded crashes of any kind, although, it is noted that traffic crashes where only vehicle damage occurs are not reported by the Queensland Government. Based on current data, it is not recommended to install additional traffic calming devices at this time.

71. The petitioners’ feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. Based on the abovementioned survey results, there was no evidence of widespread speeding issues as most motorists are complying with the 50 km/h speed limit. However, as with all areas of the city, some speeding was recorded.

72. Speeding is a behavioural issue under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police Service. Monitoring devices such as speed cameras form part of their enforcement activities and as such, the petitioners’ request for speed cameras has been referred to Commissioner Katarina Carroll APM, for consideration.

Consultation

73. Councillor Krista Adams, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

74. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

75. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Steve Griffiths and Charles Strunk dissenting.

76. 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: CA20/1280484

Thank you for your petition requesting Council install additional traffic calming on Crewe Street, Mt Gravatt East.

Your request for an additional traffic calming device on Crewe Street has been noted. Traffic calming measures commonly involve 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.

Crewe Street has six existing traffic calming devices to discourage non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds. The street also has signs advising ‘local traffic only’ on both ends of the road. There is a high demand for traffic calming across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity for the wider community.

In response to your petition, Council requested a seven-day traffic survey to assess the current traffic speeds and volumes on Crewe Street. The survey occurred between 1 and 7 December 2020 and the results identify that approximately 1,156 vehicles travel on Crewe Street each weekday on average and 85% of all motorists are travelling at or below 47 km/h. Crewe Street provides direct access to several local streets and traffic speeds in general indicate that the majority of motorists comply with the default 50 km/h speed limit.

Your proposed traffic calming device has been reviewed. Given there are no existing slow points (kerb build-outs) in the street, an additional speed platform would be the preferred traffic calming option. However, the proposed location does not have adequate street lighting which is a requirement of all traffic calming devices for safety reasons and adds significant costs to the project. In addition, it would be undesirable to install an additional traffic calming device at the next street light, adjacent to house number 110, due to the geometry of the roadway.

As Crewe Street already has multiple traffic calming devices and the traffic survey results do not highlight any significant non-local traffic or speeding issues, installing an additional device would be considered a low priority. A search of the Queensland Government’s official crash database for Crewe Street between January 2015 to June 2020 has returned no recorded crashes of any kind. Although, it is noted that traffic crashes where only vehicle damage occurs are not reported by the Queensland Government. Based on current data, it is not recommended to install additional traffic calming devices at this time.

Your feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. Based on the abovementioned survey results, there was no evidence of widespread speeding issues as most motorists are complying with the 50 km/h speed limit. However, as with all areas of the city, some speeding was recorded.

Speeding is a behavioural issue under the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police Service. Monitoring devices such as speed cameras form part of their enforcement activities and as such, your request for speed cameras has been referred to Commissioner Katarina Carroll APM, for consideration.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Brian Nichol, Senior Transport Network Officer, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 7674.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, we’ll move the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee please.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Mr—

Chair: 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 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor CUNNINGHAM.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Chair. I’d love to jump straight into the Committee presentation and honour the great work that’s been done by Council officers to create the Victoria Park Vision.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: But I do want to comment on some of the mistruths we saw in Question Time. As the LORD MAYOR has said, the Labor Party has no legitimate argument to make, no ideas or perspectives to offer and so sadly, they resort to throwing mud and generating fake news.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: But this LORD MAYOR does have a vision for Brisbane, it’s a Victoria Park Vision and it’s one—

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: —that residents of Brisbane strongly back.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: If a private developer with a site—

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: —outside Victoria Park—

Chair: Councillors, please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Chair. If a private developer with a site outside Victoria Park thinks it’s a good thing to hear Victoria—to be near Victoria Park and promote it, then that just shows how excited people are about this project, but it has absolutely nothing to do with us and the project. If those opposite knew about Victoria Park, they would know that Council has a Deed of Grant in Trust with the State Government and will be working very closely with the State Government on this project.

So, if Labor is keen to fly the idea of a residential development up the flagpole with their colleagues, they’re welcome to, but it won’t be coming from this Administration. Mr Chair, the only party talking about residential development at Victoria Park is the Labor Party.

On to the Committee presentation, we did have an update on this key project in this portfolio. The visioning process has involved significant community and stakeholder engagement. More than 16,000 people were involved in the visioning process and more than 5,000 ideas were submitted. Mr Chair, we have strong community buy-in and support for the project. There was 86% support for the draft vision, a strong endorsement for this transformational project.

The LORD MAYOR has committed $83 million over four years to kickstart the work and it will really get started on 1 July when the golf course closes and Brisbane can’t wait.

There were also two petitions on the agenda last week and I’ll leave the debate to the Chamber.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor DAVIS.

Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak to item C, which is a petition to install lighting at Grey Gum Park on Rode Road at Stafford Heights. For some time, patrons of the Rode Road dog park in Grey Gum Park have been speaking to me about the opportunity for lighting in both the small and the large dog off-leash areas (DOLA) in the park.

As outlined in the response to the petition, whilst lighting the path can be considered in future budgets against other local priorities, funding has now been allocated for the installation of the lights in both DOLAs.

Recently, I undertook some consultation asking residents to provide their feedback on the dog park lighting and, in particular, their thoughts on a turn-off time. The DOLAs are situated adjacent to the bushland at 818 Rode Road, so it was appropriate that in consideration of any lighting proposal, that an environmental investigation be undertaken to consider any potential impacts on native wildlife and, in particular, nocturnal wildlife.

As part of the project development, Council officers undertook an ecological investigation and whilst no specific concerns were identified, the investigation assisted the project team in considering the siting of the lights to minimise any potential impacts. It’s important as a community we try to balance the impacts to residents who live near our dog off-leash areas, as well as providing options for patrons who use them. The design specifies that the lighting will spill away from the properties that are adjacent to Grey Gum Park.

In considering the written and verbal feedback about the turn-off time, we received a range of views, from no lighting, to 24 hour lighting. However, it was clear that a 9pm turn-off time was the most supported. To address some of the issues raised by some residents, Council officers can make adjustments to the spill if needed, after the lights have been installed.

Mr Chair, the Rode Road dog park is a popular space for dogs to socialise and for dog owners to connect. I’m advised that work will be underway in the coming months, with a projected completion time of around mid-year. I’d like to thank everyone in the community who took the time to provide their feedback on this local project.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I might speak on items A and B and I’ll start with B, which is the petition for the park naming. I’m grateful that the Council officers and to Councillor CUNNINGHAM’s team for working collaboratively with me on this one.

I won’t give a long bio of Doctor Griffiths at this point in time, but suffice to say that she was a very active and much-loved member of her community and to see her pass away so young was very sad for a lot of people. She was really actively involved, not just in this particular bushcare group, but was a well-renowned forest entomologist who contributed greatly to knowledge in a range of areas regarding forestry management and invasive pest management. Her contributions as a scientist in those fields I think speak for themselves.

But I did also just want to highlight for the interests of other Councillors why we ended up at—with this particular wording for the petition. Which is, that myself and local residents agreed that while it was very important to memorialise Doctor Griffiths for the contribution she made to restoring this particular greenspace, it would perhaps be somewhat problematic to name this existing public space, which is remnant vegetation that has never been cleared since the European invasion a couple of centuries ago, that it would be inappropriate to give that the name of a non-Indigenous person without also giving it a dual name that was supported by local Aboriginal people.

So, I thought this was quite a positive approach, that the Council officers were also supportive of, which is that rather than just slapping on the name of a non-Indigenous person, we create a dual name system so that the park—the original names of that area can be recorded as well. I think that’s an important act of pushing back against colonisation and the whitewashing of history.

The challenge of course is that Council doesn’t have a particularly large and well-resourced Indigenous Liaison Team and so we’re still waiting for feedback from that team within Council as to what an appropriate Aboriginal name would be for that space. It’s certainly not my place as a non-Indigenous Councillor and it’s not the place of non-Indigenous residents to decide what an appropriate Aboriginal name would be for that park. But residents do feel very strongly that it should have a dual Aboriginal name.

So, I’m optimistic that the Council Administration will come back with some recommendations for a name soon and then we can formally give that park its dual name. We don’t want to rush ahead and just name it after Doctor Griffiths until we’ve confirmed what that other dual name will be.

I hope Councillor CUNNINGHAM’s team are clear on that, that we’re—we really don’t want the park named yet. We want to get that response from Council’s Indigenous Liaison Team and, hopefully, the other Chairs who are involved in that space might be able to look into that as well and just give us a bit of an update on how is—what are even the processes for Council’s Indigenous liaison unit to consult with relevant Elders and recommend names for parks in a context like this?

It would seem to me quite an important decision and perhaps a process that might become a bit more important over time in future. I know that a lot of other Councils around Australia are starting to adopt a general practice of dual naming, of asking local Aboriginal Elders to suggest names for public spaces, for public parks and streets, et cetera, which of course requires a bit of time spent on consultation and relationship building.

So, it will be important that Council actually invests the resources in that. Perhaps a good way to start with that would be to take on a few more Indigenous staff in that space who can proactively lead some of those consultations. So that when Councillors are wondering, what’s the correct protocol or who do we ask about this, there’s a team within Council that can provide that expert advice and can guide the decision-making of the Councillors and other officers and stakeholders.

Hopefully, that will be an opportunity for some position change over time and I look forward to eventually welcoming Councillor CUNNINGHAM out when we are ready to name that gully. It’s an amazing little place, for those who haven’t been. It’s pretty much surrounded by private properties, but to see a dense patch of forest right in the heart of Highgate Hill that’s never been cleared is quite special.

Until a few years ago, there were still reports of echidnas down there, but I don’t think anyone has seen one in the last couple of years. I saw a lace monitor there a couple of years ago though, which was quite exciting to see something that big roaming through the undergrowth.

I might turn now though to item A and the Victoria Park Vision. I distinctly remember the first time I started talking about converting golf courses to public parkland. I copped quite a bit of criticism and derision even from some of the LNP Councillors who were in the Chamber at the time.

It’s a frustrating position to be in where you come up with a good idea, it gets attacked and criticised and then a few years later, the people who attacked and criticised you for it, start to adopt it. So, I’ll try not to let that sour my enjoyment of this particular project. I think it really is very positive to see this Administration making this change and I congratulate the Mayor for being open to this idea. I would like to get some credit for it, but I’ll let my ego take a rest on that one.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SRI: The Mayor has just interjected to suggest that I take credit for plenty of stuff; I’m definitely taking credit for this one, this is 100% me. The LORD MAYOR can trumpet it all that he wants, but I’m genuinely grateful that we’ve gotten to such a positive space with this particular golf course conversion.

I remain concerned that there’s a little bit too much hardstand and parking in the site. I think particularly considering its proximity to public transport hubs, it would be better to see parkland used as parkland, rather than used as a car park. I’m sure you all know the Counting Crows song about paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. This is public greenspace; we don’t need to expand the car park; we need to keep it as parkland.

There are streets around the edge that have street parking, there are public transport hubs, there are going to be great active transport links to and through this site. So, I would urge Councillor CUNNINGHAM, in particular, if you get to a point where you can’t afford to do everything you wanted to do with the master plan and you’re working out what to cut costs on, maybe the first thing you should do is cut the funding for the car parks and put that money into trees and space for kids to play, instead. Because that’s really what our inner city communities need.

I might also note the concerns from the community that perhaps not enough space has been set aside for urban farming and community garden opportunities. There is some in the master plan and that’s really positive, but considering the proximity of Northey Street City Farm and the large number of people around that area who are really excited about urban farming, I think it’s a shame that more space hasn’t been set aside for urban farming and community gardening, noting that such projects can take many different forms and that perhaps there is space within Victoria Park for more intense suburban farming that’s focused on production and fruit orchards, et cetera, alongside community gardening, which is more about bringing people together and sharing knowledge and skills about gardening, even if they’re not actually producing as much.

It’s a really large site and there—I think there’s space for a range of forms of edible gardening and production there. Hopefully, that’s something that the officers can look at over time and will take a flexible approach to designing that parkland. Maybe we start with a smaller garden or urban farm and over time, it expands. That would be at least a—perhaps sub-optimal, but still better than nothing.

I do think in general though there’s a lot of good stuff in this Victoria Park Vision. I think it is going to be a really positive legacy for the city, but I hasten to emphasise that this is not new greenspace. Certainly, converting it into public parkland is a really positive step and it’s much better to see it used as publicly accessible parkland than a golf course that was only available to a minority of residents.

But it’s not the same as creating new, inner city public greenspace and that’s really what this Administration needs to do. I think the Council knows how miserably it is failing in terms of providing enough public greenspace to keep pace with population density. I think the Council Administration knows that inner city residents who live in apartments and don’t have their own backyards are more heavily reliant on public greenspace and that the need to create new public parkland is particularly pressing.

So, while this Victoria Park Vision is great and while this conversion of a golf course is a really positive step, the Council still needs to pick up its game and actually acquire privately owned sites to create new public parkland, particularly, in the Central Ward, Paddington Ward and The Gabba Ward. I think voters know that too and will hold this Administration to account if it fails to deliver on this basic public service.

Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, great. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to speak on the presentation that was the Victoria Park proposal and, look, it’s an amazing proposal. Very glamorous. Very visionary in lots of ways and I think the Chairperson said $84 million? $84 million in four years is going to be spent on this and the spending will continue for 10 years.

So, that’s 84 million reasons why people—and we’ve just heard the Councillor for The Gabba talk about the needs of inner city residents and how they want more parks, and how they need more money spent on them. For the other residents of the city, they actually need more money in their parks. They actually are screaming out for more money in their parks.

So I think this has the opportunity of becoming a very exclusive inner city park with $84 million of resident’s money being spent on it, that won’t deliver for the whole city and that concerns me.

I know I was at a meeting last night and I showed them this presentation and told them how much money is being spent on this park and they couldn’t believe it. They couldn’t fathom that you could spend $84 million on a park.

One part of the presentation said the residents who were consulted on this did not want a South Park.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: South Bank. South Bank. South Park. Yes, sorry about that.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: A South Bank. They didn’t want another South Bank, so it’d be interesting to know the amount of residents who visit South Bank, who use that, compared to the projected numbers for this particular park because we’re spending a lot of money on it. There are a few residents who are really going to benefit out of it, but a lot of residents right across Brisbane, I’m sure, will never get to it. I’m sure will never use it.

This will be a locked up little piece of paradise for the inner city people who are wealthy enough to live in there. Wealthy enough or lucky enough to live in there.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’s interesting that we had today—I’m hearing gasps. I’m hearing gasps.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I’m hearing gasps. Imagine if we spent that $84 million on parks around Brisbane? Imagine how much each of you in your wards could spend on your parks if this park wasn’t going ahead?

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Imagine that. Imagine what you could do with your parks and your communities. What this LORD MAYOR has done is said, no, we’re going to look after this privileged group in the inner city and we’re going to forget about all the residents in the outer city.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair. This is outrageous.

Chair: Point of order to you, DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: The relevance—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Hang on. Hang on. Everybody calm down.

Point of order, DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: The relevance of the people that live around Victoria Park to the report that we’ve got here at the moment, it’s actually quite offensive.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Excuse me, what’s the point of order?

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: I think it’s—hang on. Hang on.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Hang on, stop.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I’ll—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: It’s imputing motive, right?

Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’s a point of order, right?

DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, I will ask Councillor GRIFFITHS to report—to withdraw the offensive comments about the residents that live around Victoria Park.

Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS, the DEPUTY MAYOR has indicated that some comments were offensive. Would you withdraw those?

Councillor GRIFFITHS: No. There’s nothing offensive that I’ve said.

Councillor SRI: Point of order.

Chair: All right.

Councillor SRI: Point of order.

Chair: I’ve got—have another point of order.

Councillor SRI?

Councillor SRI: Sorry, I just wanted to clarify what were the—what was the offensive comment? I completely missed that.

Chair: Okay, what we’re going to do, we’re going to return back to the resolution—to the report in front of us. I’ve asked Councillor GRIFFITHS—I’ve addressed the point of order.

Councillor GRIFFITHS, please return to the substantive presentation.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Look, as I was saying about this park, there’s 84 million reasons why we should be concerned about it. It’s an exclusive park for an exclusive group of people and most residents of Brisbane would be horrified to find out how much money is being spent only in the next four years.

This spending will continue for 10 years. We don’t know the full cost of this project. I remain concerned about it. I remain concerned for my residents who can’t get basic facilities in their parks, who can’t get basic services in their parks, while this is being delivered for inner city residents. Thank you.

Chair: Further speakers?

The LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, Mr Chair. We’ve seen an extraordinary turn of events here. We’ve seen all the way through the last several years since Victoria Park was first announced by this Administration and our vision for Victoria Park. We’ve seen Labor indicate their support for this, although continuing to pedal fake news about theoretical or fake news development potential for the park. We’ve consistently ruled that out. Yet today—and a completely different position from Labor Councillors.

What we have seen today is Labor getting out the dog whistle and resorting to class warfare, which is the most disgusting, divisive and low-grade of politics you can resort to—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Look, I’m almost speechless, but—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —this has to be called out. This approach has to be called out because what happened to the visionary people of the past that proposed the Mt Coot-tha Botanic Gardens? Labor’s approach would not see that built because it’s in the western suburbs.

Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: What about the City Botanic Gardens? Who can afford to live in the city? Who can—who directly benefits from that? What about South Bank? All of these iconic city parks would not have been built if you take Labor’s current approach on Victoria Park.

I want to make it very clear that this will be designed to be a park for all.

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: A park for all and that is the exact reason why it is located on the connection of not only two metro stations, but also a Cross River Rail station and—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —a number of major roads and public facilities like a hospital right nearby. Would Labor suggest that the Royal Brisbane Women’s Hospital is only for wealthy people because of its location?

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: The reality is, this is one of the most accessible parts of the city from all corners of the city. You can get to that from all locations from across the city because it is a major public transport hub and thoroughfare through there, and that will only get better when Cross River Rail and Brisbane Metro are geared up.

So we want everyone, not only from around Brisbane, from every corner of Brisbane, from all suburbs of Brisbane, to enjoy these amazing parkland facilities, but we also want people from outside of Brisbane to come. We want this to be a destination for tourists from around Australia and indeed other parts of the world.

So for Labor to suggest that somehow this is only being done for the benefit of a few nearby residents is absolutely ludicrous. It is disgusting gutter politics. It is divisive and is not productive in the scheme of things here.

I can only assume that Councillor GRIFFITHS is freelancing with his approach here—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: —because certainly, this has not been a matter that’s raised or reflected by anyone in the Labor team until now. If it is indeed reflective of the Labor Opposition’s position, that is a disgrace and they should be ashamed of themselves.

These public facilities are for the benefit of everyone in Brisbane. Everyone in Brisbane will be able to get to these public facilities. There is going to be no gate there saying only certain types of residents can come into this park. Just like there is no gate in the City Botanic Gardens or the Mt Coot-tha Botanic Gardens, or South Bank, or Roma Street Parklands. It is open for everyone—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: The Sherwood Arboretum, indeed. These are public facilities for everyone to benefit from and it is absolutely disgusting, the approach that we’ve seen from Labor today.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on the Victoria Park item. Firstly, I think the only people who are doing a disservice here is the LORD MAYOR, who—and Councillor ADAMS who just didn’t like what was being said.

Now, I might not agree with—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —yes and there she is interjecting and no problem about that either. Now, I might not necessarily agree with everything Councillor GRIFFITHS said, but there is one thing that I completely agree with. When you tell people how much money Council is planning to spend on this park, they are shocked. They are really shocked.

The sad part of all of this is, the LORD MAYOR does not appreciate that $84 million is a—

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.

Chair: Point of order to you, DEPUTY MAYOR.

Seriatim - Clause A

|The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, requested that Clause A, COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – VICTORIA PARK, be taken seriatim for |

|voting purposes. |

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Well the last speaker is the parks Chairperson, but you know, she’s only been here 13 years.

Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, can you just talk about—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Hard for her to understand.

Chair: Can you just talk about the report, please?

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor JOHNSTON: So just let me be clear. I just want to put it on the record that this is a phenomenal amount of money and I don’t think the LORD MAYOR should make light of the fact that that is a deliberate decision of this Council. That means there is no money for other parks of the city.

I represent one of those areas where in the past decade, the only parks project we’ve had, has been $108,000 for Turley Street playground upgrade in Fairfield, where Council took the old playground away three years ago.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor JOHNSTON: It’s a deliberate decision and I think the point is well made that this is a phenomenal amount of money and Council has to be accountable for its expenditure to make sure that it is done in a transparent way and a way that benefits all residents.

This Council needs to be cognisant that that is a huge amount of money that is not otherwise going into suburban areas where people are walking to their local parks that don’t have these kind of facilities. So I think the LORD MAYOR is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, simply for purely political purposes.

There are two issues I briefly want to mention. Firstly, I am concerned about the commercialisation of Victoria Park. I appreciate that the LORD MAYOR probably won’t be as bold as selling off any of the park, he’s happy to let the State Government take big chunks back for their purposes, but—and cut roads through and all the rest of it, but the big concern I have and the passing of the question in Question Time earlier today was of great concern.

The LORD MAYOR ruled out any residential development on the site, but he certainly has not ruled out any commercial development on the site. Whether that’s a 50-year lease or a 30-year lease, which is what this LNP Administration tend to do, the commercialisation of this park defeats the purpose of the project.

If the project is to open the space back up to the public from not being a golf course, which a lot of golfers are extremely, extremely unhappy about, then it is incumbent on this Administration not to lock that space back up for commercial providers to make money out of.

It’s very unclear at this stage based on the presentation that I sat through last week about the extent of the commercialisation of Victoria Park. The LORD MAYOR did himself no favours in Question Time earlier today by playing silly political word games when he was asked about this because he did not rule it out.

So I am worried about the commercialisation of Victoria Park and that’s an issue I’ll be watching very carefully.

The second one that I am very concerned about is how the lake and/or wetlands areas are going to be handled. This Council has zero track record on managing man-made waterways and I just think that whilst I know a lot of people want water functions in these parks, we have problems where they are created.

Forest Lake, I don’t know how many millions is being spent because the system of managing the environmental flows and values of that lake are not done properly and it is a big smelly mess, I think it’s fair to say. It might be improving, Councillor STRUNK? But—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor JOHNSTON: It’s a lot better now, he tells me. That’s good, but the Arboretum, the lakes at the Sherwood Arboretum are in exactly the same boat. Without natural inflows and outflows, there are significant problems. Without proper drainage and without the environmental flows needed to flush out these lakes systems, we get really, really serious problems which lead to areas that are uninviting for people to use, environmentally problematic for native wildlife and species.

So to me, it seemed to be a big part of the master planning process that there’s going to be lakes and waterways, but there was very little detail on how these are going to be managed to ensure that they are safe, aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sound.

I think that this Council needs to recognise that if it’s going to put waterway corridors in here, man-made corridors, it needs to make sure that they will be safe, clean and environmentally friendly for many years to come and that we do not have a Forest Lake problem again at Victoria Park.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Mr Chair. Listen, I rise to speak on the—on Victoria Park and the presentation that Councillor GRIFFITHS showed me. I wasn’t there of course, but—and when it first came up as a project, of course, I didn’t have any idea and we weren’t really told how much this thing was going to cost. But honestly, $84 million plus, plus, plus is—it’s just absolutely obscene to me and I love parks. Anyone who’s ever talked to me, knows that I love parks.

I think we should have more parks, better parks—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor STRUNK: —better infrastructure in parks, all right, but we’ve got parks right around this city that are so—

Chair: Sorry, Councillor—excuse me, Councillor STRUNK.

Councillors, there is secondary chatter. Please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair.

Chair: Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: I—honestly, there are parks right around this city that are really in need of reconstruction as well. To put all that money, $84 million into one space when you consider all the parks that are around the inner city area and some really nice ones of course, the Botanical Gardens, South Bank, Roma Street Parklands. There are so many that people can already go to that the people in the suburbs have the right to have these quality parks in the suburbs.

They shouldn’t be all focused—except for of course the—what, the Botanical Gardens at Mt Coot-tha—shouldn’t be focused all in the inner city suburbs in five kilometres and surrounds because really, why should you have to travel a half hour to go to a really nice park, when you should be able to have one near your home?

I’m blessed with the amount of greenspace and parks I have in my ward and I could see some of that money, say $3.3 million if you divide the $84 million that we know of, by say, 26 wards. It’s about $3.3 million.

Kev Hooper Park, which is one of the largest parks in Brisbane, by the way—suburban parks in Brisbane, could—what we could do with $3.3 million and it would be a destination park for people right around Brisbane to come out to because we have the space. The—and of course the environment is absolutely phenomenal.

Anyways, back to Victoria Park. I had a look at the artist concept and I’m looking at this and, honestly, we’ve done a lot of consultation with some parks in my ward and I have a look at some of these concepts and I’m thinking, well, there’s no kids in my area that will want some of this stuff, I’ll tell you. Especially some of the playground area because they like to climb on things. They like to climb up and over and under, and I had a look at this and I’m thinking, where is all the climbing stuff?

I can’t see it, but maybe—it’s just a concept, maybe this is not exactly what it’s going to be, but honestly, I know we keep bunging on about the $84 million, but it is a hell of a lot of money and really, I think we should—I don’t know. I suppose it’s too far down the road to go back. To reverse everything that you’ve done in regard to the consultation, but I just think, honestly, when it comes to allocating money for parks in the future, please have a look at the suburbs and not the inner city suburbs. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to speak on this Committee presentation for Victoria Park and listening to other Councillors present, it’s been interesting listening to some of their perceptions about what this park means as the ALP would say, a local park within Victoria Park, which was initially in Councillor HOWARD’s ward, but then with redistribution, came into Paddington Ward.

I just have to acknowledge the vision of the LORD MAYOR in being able to take this space and turn it into a place for everyone, which it literally is.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor MATIC: This will be one of the most signature park developments that this city has ever seen.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor MATIC: The vision that he—and the Chair, Councillor CUNNINGHAM, have placed into this extraordinary place is amazing. The amount of investment that he has undertaken in public consultation has been outstanding and will continue to run throughout this entire process.

I really want to thank the LORD MAYOR and Councillor CUNNINGHAM for not only undertaking the citywide consultation, but importantly also the local consultation.

From that came many, many ideas from the local community about what they would also like to see and not see in there. One of the important issues that did arise from local residents was the impact of parking because they realise that this will be a signature development and will bring people from the entire city there. There have been references to places like South Bank and Roma Street. This will be like those other parks. This is not a park for the elite. This is a park for mum and dads, for the elderly, for all of those, literally, thousands of people that are in the Royal Brisbane Hospital precinct.

The fact that the State Government chose not to provide any of the residents that they’re proposing in any of the development or any of their staff, or any of the visitors to the hospital, any greenspace whatsoever. How many of the hospital staff and the patients will actually walk across the road and utilise this space on a daily basis? I’d say thousands, and rightly so. Because again, Mr Chairman, this Committee presentation and everything in it, is a reflection of a park for all. So as we move forward with this project we will continue to listen and liaise with the community broadly and locally.

Everything that is in this park at the moment is a reflection of what the community wants. We as an Administration, this LORD MAYOR will continue to deliver on that. This investment in greenspace is about the vision of where our city is going and a city that is growing. So when Councillors opposite say well they want something local for them, well of course they do. Every local Councillor wants something for them. Every single one of us does. But there’s funding available within our existing park footpath fund budgets. There’s funding within the actual Council process. On top of that, there’s this.

So the LORD MAYOR is budgeting and allocating towards the growth of our city as a whole. But this project, this signature project is something that, as a Council, we should all support. I can’t believe the amount of politicking that is being expressed today in this Chamber on a public space and a park. I thought that a park and public space was something that we could all agree on. When we get to a space as large as this, the vision that is presented across the entirely of that space, the connections that don’t currently exist from one side of the park to the other side, the vision that we’re establishing over the decades ahead, I would have thought that both this side and the other side of the Chamber would have met in agreement.

But, Mr Chairman, I continue to be surprised as to the antics of those opposite. But what I always rely upon, Mr Chairman, is that this side will continue to deliver for the people of Brisbane. This side of the Chamber will continue to listen to the people of Brisbane. That’s why this side of the Chamber continues to present a Brisbane that is liveable and is growing. That’s why so many people want to move here. Thank you.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor CUNNINGHAM.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Chair. Let me first start by thanking Councillor SRI for his strong support in recognising Council’s investment in inner city parkland. I would, through you, like to pick him up though. It was in fact Joni Mitchell and not the Counting Crows that he should quote. Now, Mr Chair, the cats are out of the bag. I note that the Labor party don’t support this project despite their Lord Mayoral candidate backing it at the time. Remember him? This $84 million figure is not new. In fact, it was announced in the LORD MAYOR’s budget some nine months ago.

So they’re just getting around to reading the Council budget from June last year. Awesome. Very good. Look, it’s in fact a matter of public record that the Oxley Creek Transformation project is having $100 million invested in that vital parkland. Perhaps through you, Mr Chair, Councillor GRIFFITHS and Councillor JOHNSTON are saying they don’t want that parkland anymore. They don’t want that investment.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Councillors—Councillors—no yelling. Please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.

Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you for your protection, Mr Chair. I just think it’s a real shame that they are suggesting that investment in public open space should not go ahead. What a shame for their residents that perhaps the Oxley Creek Transformation project is now in question as to whether or not they support that. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Chair: We will now put the resolution for item A.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for Clause A was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillor Sandy LANDERS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 24 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, 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, Andrew WINES, and the Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

Clauses B and C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B and C of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows(

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – VICTORIA PARK

472/2020-21

1. The Project Director Victoria Park, Major Projects, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Victoria Park project. She provided the information below.

2. The Victoria Park project (the project) was announced by the Lord Mayor in June 2019. The existing 18-hole golf course is due to close on 30 June 2021, and be integrated into a new, 64-hectare park.

3. An initial, idea-generating public engagement period occurred from August to September 2019, followed by public consultation on the Victoria Park Draft Vision (the draft vision) from January to July 2020.

4. The subsequent Victoria Park Vision was released on 6 December 2020, which included the Victoria Park Vision Community Engagement Report. The project is currently in the master planning and implementation plan phase. The Committee was shown a process flow of the consultation phases and next steps.

5. The project’s guiding principles are as follows.

- Recognition: creating a place to respectfully celebrate the connection between culture, history and nature, across past, present and future generations.

- Restoration: celebrating our unique interwoven landscapes and ecosystems.

- Reconnection: making transformational connections that stitch the parkland back to the city.

6. The project’s strategies are as follows.

- Room for water: lagoons, wetlands and a lake will bring water back to the site and restore natural cooling, cleansing and flood management systems.

- Connected habitats: revitalised ecosystems and restored habitats will draw wildlife back to the city and enrich our connection with nature.

- Health and recreation: outdoor adventures will challenge people of all ages and abilities, inspire active lifestyles, offer a natural experience in the city and support reconnection with the natural world for mental health.

- Connections: going green will be the easiest way to get to the park, with walking, cycling, bus and train the modes of choice. Every journey in the park itself will be an experience.

- Unique experiences: peaceful, natural spaces in the park’s quiet centre will be a striking counterpoint to its lively edge, where community life is played out.

- Cultural landscape: the park will inspire sharing, the telling of stories and learning in the landscape, with opportunities to understand and engage with Brisbane’s cultural heritage.

- Creative expression: world-class architectural forms and unique public spaces will enable cultural expression, facilitate community gatherings and make the park a showcase for visitors from around the globe.

- Relationships and partnerships: well-located links to neighbours and future partnerships will invite people into the park, adopting its spaces and places as their own.

7. More than 2,000 pieces of feedback, submissions and survey responses were received in response to the draft vision. Eighty-six per cent of respondents were in support of the draft vision and more than 35,000 people engaged with the draft vision online. The feedback noted features to resolve in the master planning phase, including:

- car parking

- golf course and golf complex (driving range, putt-putt and bistro)

- productive gardens

- dog off-leash areas

- Lake Barrambin

- The Wetlands

- connector bridge

- new shared bridge

- canopy walk

- Cultural Hub.

8. The Committee was shown an illustrative concept plan of the project including the Cultural Hub and visitor centre, the Green Amphitheatre, Lake Barrambin, Nature and Water Play Gully, Lake Wetlands Boardwalk, the canopy walk and treehouse, and the community garden.

9. The Committee was shown a snapshot of the draft vision’s consultation responses which helped to reshape the Victoria Park Vision.

10. The focus and scope of the project in 2020-21 includes:

- planning and staging: preparing a detailed Master Plan and Implementation Plan including technical studies, design and staging for works and implementation

- communication and engagement: managing ongoing community and stakeholder engagement

- opening of the park: planning for the transition and closure of the golf course on 30 June 2021, including the early works package and operational model for future park management, activation and programming of the works prior to staged improvements.

11. The Committee was shown a schedule of project milestones until late-2021.

12. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Project Director Victoria Park, for her informative presentation.

13. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RENAME DERBY STREET PARK, HIGHGATE HILL, TO ‘DR MANON GRIFFITHS PARK’ AND RECOGNISE THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF THE LAND BY INVITING THEM TO PROPOSE AN ABORIGINAL NAME FOR THIS SITE

CA20/834702

473/2020-21

14. A petition from residents, requesting Council rename Derby Street Park, Highgate Hill, to ‘Dr Manon Griffiths Park’ and recognise the traditional owners of the land by inviting them to propose an Aboriginal name for this site, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 4 August 2020, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.

15. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

16. The petition contains 42 signatures.

17. Derby Street Park (the park) is a naturalised, vegetated gully which borders the Brisbane River. The park is landlocked on all boundaries and the only public access is at the northernmost point from 1 Derby Street, Highgate Hill. This park is not recommended for public access due to the steep decline into the park.

18. The park’s main function is the collection of overland flows, due to the natural topography directed towards the Brisbane River. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows an aerial view of the topography of the park, towards the Brisbane River.

19. Neighbouring residents of the park, have formed an informal community group which has been active for 10 years, undertaking park improvements by clearing weeds from the gully, removing rubbish and replanting vegetation.

20. Following the recent passing of Dr Manon Griffiths, who was an active member of the community, the group, including the local community wish to formally name the park ‘Dr Manon Griffiths Park, in honour of Dr Griffiths’ efforts and work improving the park.

21. Council also supports the invitation of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to propose names for the park and is currently liaising with local Traditional Custodian groups to consult on potential names.

22. Council will consider renaming Derby Street Park, Highgate Hill, to ‘Dr Manon Griffiths Park’ and after the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, in accordance with Council’s OS03 Naming, Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.

Funding

23. Funding will be obtained through Central Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, Parks Maintenance Budget.

Consultation

24. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

25. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

26. RECOMMENDATION:

tHAT The draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.

Attachment A

Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA20/834702

Thank you for your petition requesting Council rename Derby Street Park, Highgate Hill, to ‘Dr Manon Griffiths Park’ and recognise the traditional owners of the land by inviting them to propose an Aboriginal name for this site.

Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.

Council acknowledges that Dr Manon Griffiths was an active member of the community and contributed to the improvement of Derby Street Park.

Council also supports the invitation of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to propose names for the park and is currently liaising with local Traditional Custodian groups to consult on potential names.

Council will consider renaming Derby Street Park to ‘Dr Manon Griffiths Park’ and after the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, in accordance with Council’s OS03 Naming, Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Warwick Davies, Regional Coordinator Parks, Central Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3027 4387.

Thank you for raising this matter.

ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL LIGHTING AT THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA AND PATHWAY IN GREY GUM PARK, STAFFORD HEIGHTS

CA20/911575

474/2020-21

27. A petition from residents, requesting Council install lighting at the dog off-leash area and pathway in Grey Gum Park, Stafford Heights, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 25 August 2020, by Councillor Tracy Davis, and received.

28. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

29. The petition contains 33 signatures.

30. Council previously considered at its meeting on 26 November 2019, two petitions requesting lighting to be installed in the dog off-leash area and pathway between Remick Street and Rode Road, at Grey Gum Park. From this, Council listed for consideration the installation of lighting in the dog off-leash area at Grey Gum Park, as part of Council’s future capital works program.

31. The installation of lighting in the dog off-leash area at Grey Gum Park has been approved and funding will be obtained from Council’s 2020-21 capital works program. The approved funding for the lighting plan in the dog off-leash area is $136,000.

32. The project is currently in the planning phase and the lighting plan will incorporate a timing system to minimise impacts on residents.

33. At this stage, the Grey Gum Park lighting project is anticipated to be completed by mid-2021.

34. The installation of lighting along the pathway between Remick Street and Rode Road is listed for future funding consideration in Council’s budget. The petitioners’ suggestion for the lighting treatments they would like to see implemented has been noted and passed onto Council officers for their information. However, funding to install lighting for the pathway has not yet been allocated and is subject to an assessment of its priority against other similar citywide priorities. Once the estimates are available Council will list it for consideration as part of Council’s future capital works program.

35. Each year in June, all such listed works are assessed in relation to the overall needs of the City. Those works that are approved are considered to have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefited in relation to the cost.

36. This request has also been forwarded to Councillor Tracy Davis, Councillor for McDowall Ward, for her consideration as part of the Suburban Enhancement Fund.

Funding

37. Funding for lighting in the dog off-leash area at Grey Gum Park, Stafford Heights, to be obtained from Council’s 2020-21 capital works program, under Service 3.3.3.2, Park Maintenance and Renewal, Dog Off-Leash Area Refurbishment, Schedule 241 or the McDowall Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.

Consultation

38. Councillor Tracy Davis, Councillor for McDowall Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

39. The installation of lighting in the dog off-leash area will provide dog owners additional hours of use.

40. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

41. RECOMMENDATION:

THAt the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.

Attachment A

Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA20/911575

Thank you for your petition requesting Council install lighting at the dog off-leash area and pathway in Grey Gum Park, Stafford Heights.

Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.

Funding has been approved to install lighting in the dog off-leash area at Grey Gum Park. The project is currently in the planning phase and the lighting plan for the dog off-leash area will incorporate the lighting to be placed on a timing system to minimise impact on residents. This work is anticipated to be completed by mid-2021.

The lighting proposal for the pathway in Grey Gum Park has been listed for future funding consideration as part of Council’s budget. The petitioners’ suggestion for the lighting treatments they would like to see implemented has been noted and passed onto Council officers for their information. However, funding to install lighting for the pathway has not yet been allocated and is subject to an assessment of its priority against other similar citywide priorities. Once the estimates are available Council will list it for consideration as part of Council’s future capital works program.

Each year in June, all such listed works are assessed in relation to the overall needs of the City. Those works that are approved are considered to have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefited in relation to the cost.

This request has also been forwarded to Councillor Tracy Davis, Councillor for McDowall Ward, for her consideration as part of the Suburban Enhancement Fund.

Each local Councillor decides which new projects are funded from their Suburban Enhancement Fund, following consultation with adjacent property owners. In the 2020-21 financial year, $14.68 million has been distributed evenly between each ward to enable delivery of ward-focused projects relating to pedestrian infrastructure, parks, road reserve and community facility improvements.

If you would like to discuss your request directly with Councillor Davis, please contact her ward office on (07) 3403 7690.

The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Ted Krosman, Regional Coordinator Parks, North Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0845.

Thank you for raising this matter.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, City Standards, Community Health and Safety please.

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 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor MARX.

Councillor MARX: Yes thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to briefly mention that we had a presentation on the apprentices, trainees and work experience within the Field Services branch. It outlined what a successful program it is. A lot of workers will either continue to stay with us or they may go back out into the private field, but then eventually find their way back home to us knowing that we are a really good organisation to work for. There was one presentation there which I’m happy to leave debate to the Chamber.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just very briefly on this matter. I did not support this petition in Committee and I just want to put on the record the comments I put in Committee last week as well, that the advertising laws with respect to electronic billboards, particularly, are out of control under the LNP. They are a blight on our neighbourhoods. They are a blight on our roads. It is appalling that this Council has allowed them to spring up everywhere, in my view, where they are dangerous as well as being unsightly. It is a tiny drop in the bucket, what it is in the Advertising Amending Local Law. It only relates to commercial character areas.

It doesn’t relate to other areas. So I understand why the people of Paddington were extremely upset about this situation. But the rest of Brisbane is also—needs to be addressed so the proliferation of electronic billboards does not continue. They are dangerous, they are unsightly, they are unnecessary. They are a blight on the streetscape of residential communities and key road corridors all over Brisbane.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor MARX?

I will 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 – APPRENTICES, TRAINEES AND WORK EXPERIENCE IN FIELD SERVICES

475/2020-21

1. The Manager, Construction, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on apprentices, trainees and work experience in Field Services. He provided the information below.

2. The Corporate Apprenticeship Program supports trade talent in Council. It assists in the engagement and retention of young people within the organisation and contributes to a well-skilled and knowledgeable workforce. It additionally provides vocational development for apprentices focusing on building self-management, leadership and life skills through courses including:

- conflict management

- ownership and accountability

- adapting to change

- building a strong reputation

- personal budgeting

- mental health

- resilience

- mentoring skills.

3. The Pre-trade Work Experience Program is a feeder program to the Corporate Apprenticeship Program and targets students currently completing a pre-vocational training course with a registered training organisation and/or high school students.

4. As at December 2020, there were 34 apprentices and five trainees working in branches within Field Services, these include:

- 19 apprentices and three trainees in Construction

- 12 apprentices in Urban Amenity

- three apprentices in Fleet Solutions

- two trainees in Commercial Services and Business Improvement.

5. Field Services offers the following apprenticeships and traineeships:

- Certificate III Electrotechnology (Electrician, Electrical Fitter and Electrical Mechanic)

- Certificate III Plumbing

- Certificate III Painting and Decorating

- Certificate III Carpentry

- Certificate III Heavy Commercial Vehicle Mechanical Technology

- Certificate III Automotive Electrical Technology

- Certificate III Parks and Gardens

- Certificate III Arboriculture

- Certificate III Fabrication (Boilermaking/Welding)

- Certificate III Business Administration

- Certificate III Civil Construction.

6. Goals of the Corporate Apprenticeship and Pre-trade Work Experience Programs include:

- encouraging reputation and ownership

- providing access to resources and information to build confidence and create courage to make a difference

- building an understanding of Field Services

- succession planning

- developing diverse skill sets that are sought after in the industry

- on-the-job training and certification

- systems and processes

- promoting safety and wellness

- opportunities for career progression and emerging leaders initiative

- establish high-level standards and customer service.

7. In 2020, there were 28 nominations for the Apprentice of the Year awards. Of these, 21 were from Field Services. The nominees are peer nominated and interviewed and assessed against Council’s values. Images of the 2020 award winners were shown to the Committee. Award categories include:

- Outstanding Apprentice Mentors

- Council Values awards:

- Value for money

- Working together

- Getting things done

- Responsive customer service

- Courage to make a difference

- Passion for Brisbane

- Respect for people

- Best Year Trade awards:

- First year apprentice award

- Second year apprentice award

- Third year apprentice award

- Fourth year apprentice award

- Overall Apprentice of the Year award.

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager for his informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

B PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE BILLBOARD AT PADDINGTON VILLAGE, AND THAT FUTURE DECISIONS BE APPROPRIATELY VETTED WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

CA20/1125340

476/2020-21

10. A petition from residents, requesting the removal of the billboard at Paddington Village, and that future decisions be appropriately vetted with the local community, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 20 October 2020, by Councillor Jonathan Sri, and received.

11. The Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the following information.

12. The petition contains 1,148 signatures.

13. Council regulates advertising signs under the Advertisements Local Law 2013 and Advertisements Subordinate Local Law 2005.

14. An application was lodged with Council on 23 August 2018 for a 27 square metre, one-sided digital billboard, measuring nine metres by three metres. The local laws outline that a billboard sign type is generally appropriate in this commercial location, and standard conditions allow for a maximum billboard size of 48 square metres.

15. Council had concerns with the size and design of the original proposal and advised the applicant that the built form should be designed to take into account the amenity of the adjoining properties and the surrounding area. Therefore, Council asked the applicant to consider reducing the size of the sign, and in response the applicant proposed to reduce it from 27 square metres to 18.2 square metres. The applicant provided a Visual Impact Assessment Report by a qualified Urban Designer and Landscape Architect, with a reduction in size, to address Council’s concerns.

16. Council assessed the new design in relation to the compatibility with the local character and determined the sign would not substantially detract from the inherent character or visual qualities of this commercial centre. Council further determined that the sign would respect the amenity of other property owners and would not obscure, dominate or overcrowd the views of existing or prospective development on the neighbouring properties.

17. Further, the applicant submitted an expert traffic advice report endorsed by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland in relation to road safety. With respect to expert advice, it was outlined that a driver’s view of traffic signals and the pedestrian walkway approximately 125 metres west of the proposed sign would not be unreasonably impacted by the inbound facing sign. The assessing officer reviewed the report and considered the sign proposal to be acceptable in its proposed form and location.

18. After conducting a comprehensive assessment of the signage application and supporting information, a decision was made by Council to grant approval for the one-sided digital billboard, with an area of 18.26 square metres, measuring 2.2 metres by 8.3 metres, on 2 May 2019. The sign permit contains a variety of conditions to ensure safety and minimise impacts. These include a condition where luminance is to be a maximum 300 candelas per square metre, and they must be switched off daily between 10pm and sunrise the following day.

19. Residents’ dissatisfaction with not being notified of the application or installation of the sign is noted. However, consultation is not required for this type of application. Section 29 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 provides the power for Council to make and enforce local laws that are necessary or convenient for the good rule and government of Brisbane. There are no appeal provisions for surrounding residents under the current legislation.

20. In response to community feedback Council is reviewing how it regulates digital advertisements in Brisbane. On 17 November 2020, Council resolved to make the Advertisements Interim Local Law 2020 (Interim Local Law). The Interim Local Law will be in effect for up to six months and prohibits digital advertisements with an electronic display component greater than four square metres in prescribed locations of heritage or character. These provisions do not apply to advertisements approved prior to the commencement of the Interim Local Law.

21. Council will also undertake a review of the Advertisements Local Law 2013 and Advertisements Subordinate Local Law 2005. The community will be formally consulted should Council decide to amend these local laws.

Consultation

22. Councillor Peter Matic, Councillor for Paddington Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

23. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Peter Cumming and Nicole Johnston dissenting.

24. 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: CA20/1125340

Thank you for your petition requesting the removal of the billboard at Paddington Village, and that future decisions be appropriately vetted with the local community. Council acknowledges that some members of the community are concerned with the approval of this sign.

Council regulates advertising signs under the Advertisements Local Law 2013 and Advertisements Subordinate Local Law 2005.

An application was lodged with Council on 23 August 2018 for a 27 square metre, one-sided digital billboard, measuring nine metres by three metres. The local laws outline that a billboard sign type is generally appropriate in this commercial location, and standard conditions allow for a maximum billboard size of 48 square metres.

Council had concerns with the size and design of the original proposal and advised the applicant that the built form should be designed to take into account the amenity of the adjoining properties and the surrounding area. Therefore, Council asked the applicant to consider reducing the size of the sign, and in response the applicant proposed to reduce it from 27 square metres to 18.2 square metres. The applicant provided a Visual Impact Assessment Report by a qualified Urban Designer and Landscape Architect, with a reduction in size, to address Council’s concerns.

Council assessed the new design in relation to the compatibility with the local character and determined the sign would not substantially detract from the inherent character or visual qualities of this commercial centre. Council further determined that the sign would respect the amenity of other property owners and would not obscure, dominate or overcrowd the views of existing or prospective development on the neighbouring properties.

Further, the applicant submitted an expert traffic advice report endorsed by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland in relation to road safety. With respect to expert advice, it was outlined that a driver’s view of traffic signals and the pedestrian walkway approximately 125 metres west of the proposed sign would not be unreasonably impacted by the inbound facing sign. The assessing officer reviewed the report and considered the sign proposal to be acceptable in its proposed form and location.

After conducting a comprehensive assessment of the signage application and supporting information, a decision was made by Council to grant approval for the one-sided digital billboard, with an area of 18.26 square metres, measuring 2.2 metres by 8.3 metres, on 2 May 2019. The sign permit contains a variety of conditions to ensure safety and minimise impacts. These include a condition where luminance is to be a maximum 300 candelas per square metre, and they must be switched off daily between 10pm and sunrise the following day.

Residents’ dissatisfaction with not being notified of the application or installation of the sign is noted. However, consultation is not required for this type of application. Section 29 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 provides the power for Council to make and enforce local laws that are necessary or convenient for the good rule and government of Brisbane. There are no appeal provisions for surrounding residents under the current legislation.

In response to community feedback Council is reviewing how it regulates digital advertisements in Brisbane. On 17 November 2020, Council resolved to make the Advertisements Interim Local Law 2020 (Interim Local Law). The Interim Local Law will be in effect for up to six months and prohibits digital advertisements with an electronic display component greater than four square metres in prescribed locations of heritage or character. These provisions do not apply to advertisements approved prior to the commencement of the Interim Local Law.

Council will also undertake a review of the Advertisements Local Law 2013 and Advertisements Subordinate Local Law 2005. The community will be formally consulted should Council decide to amend these local laws.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Glenn Davidson, Principal Officer, Built Environment, Compliance and Regulatory Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, on (07) 3403 6358.

Thank you for raising this matter.

ADOPTED

Chair: We will now proceed to Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy 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 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I move to the report, it was a pleasure to announce last week that we will be giving Brisbane a massive economic boost by bringing forward dozens of local community and infrastructure projects thanks to a $40 million funding injection from the Morrison government. This $40 million funding boost from the Morrison government will give our city the economic boost it needs to keep Brisbane’s economy going strong by creating and supporting an additional 320 jobs this year.

I saw that Councillor CASSIDY was very grateful for the LORD MAYOR’s hard work in securing $150,000 in funding from the Morrison government to upgrade the AV equipment at Sandgate Town Hall to open up the hall to more community users for more uses and to ensure it continues to be one of the best local venues in the northside of Brisbane. I did see that Councillor CASSIDY was excited to promote this great project with his Federal Labor colleague. As I outlined last week, this project is funded by the Morrison government as a result of the funding submission put forward by the Schrinner Council Administration.

It was certainly interesting to hear Councillor CASSIDY thank the Federal Member who supposedly, along with him, secured this funding, given that she seemed to have no idea about the project. I note that she wrote to Council late yesterday requesting details on the project she claimed credit for, describing it as a ‘huge win’ for her community. I look forward to providing a response to her enquiry about the funding so she is clear on who exactly put this project forward. I am also looking forward to hearing in General Business Councillor CASSIDY thank the LORD MAYOR and the Morrison government for securing this funding for his ward so the record can be set straight. Mr Chair—sorry I—

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillors please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.

Councillor HOWARD: Should I take that as an interjection?

Chair: That was an interjection. Yes, I would ignore it and carry on if I was you.

Councillor HOWARD: What did he say? I didn’t quite hear.

Councillors interjecting.

Councillor HOWARD: Don’t hold my breath.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: I am also saying don’t hold your breath. Keep talking is what would be my advice.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair. Well I won’t hold my breath because I’ve got a lot more to say because this is a fantastic portfolio that I’m responsible for.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillors please allow—

Councillor CASSIDY, please allow Councillor HOWARD to continue.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY, I consider that you’re displaying unsuitable meeting conduct in accordance with section 21(5) of the Meetings Local Law 2001. I hereby request that you cease interjecting and refrain from exhibiting this conduct.

Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, it was also lovely to pop into the LORD MAYOR’s City Hall Concerts today and meet Roy Orbison and his rocking band play to hundreds of our beloved seniors downstairs in the Main Auditorium, which was absolutely packed to the rafters in line with all COVID-19 restrictions, of course. I want to say a big thank you to the producers, the MC (Master of Ceremonies) and the wonderful range of talent that come into City Hall every week to put on these wonderful performances for our seniors.

Producer Gary Wood, Evast Entertainment; MC Shane Fogarty who knew everything about Roy Orbison and enthralled us with the history of Roy; Mike Winkworth who in fact was our new and improved Roy Orbison, together with his band Les Woodford, Russell Bain and Bill Bruce Baker. Thank you for putting on today’s concert. The Roy Orbison tribute is one of our most popular of the LORD MAYOR’s City Hall Concerts and it was great to see just how much these free concerts are loved and enjoyed by our seniors.

It is an honour and a privilege to work with LORD MAYOR, Adrian SCHRINNER, and our wonderful Council officers in delivering a program that brings so much happiness to our seniors residents. Now, Mr Chair, moving to the report last week we had a wonderful presentation from Council’s Manager of Library Services on the brand new Brisbane Library app that launched last year. Everyone in the Committee was excited to learn about the amazing usefulness of the app that makes it easier than ever before to borrow a book, place a hold and browse our amazing library catalogue anywhere, any time.

You can even print from the app. It also helps parents to keep track of books borrowed by their little ones by easily seeing all of your family’s accounts in one place. The app is already being used by more than 30,000 residents since being launched in March last year and has been used to conduct more than 420,000 searches, placed more than 120,000 holds and renew more than 100,000 books. It can do so much more. So Chamber, if you haven’t already got the app make sure that you get into the app store and download the app now. I’ll leave debate to the Chamber.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor HOWARD?

I will 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 – THE BNELIBRARIES APP

477/2020-21

1. The A/Manager, Library Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to provide an update on the BNELibraries App. She provided the information below.

2. The BNELibraries App (the app) was a joint project between Council’s Library Services; Information Services, Organisation Services; and the vendor, SirsiDynix. The app is the next step in innovation within the SirsiDynix suite of library management system products, providing an improved mobile experience in line with modern customer expectations. The app also responds to feedback received from residents during Future Libraries research in regard to integration of services, personalisation, and seamless and convenient access.

3. Images displaying how Council’s library catalogue system (eLibCat) is presented on the web and the app (in tablet and mobile phone view), were shown to the Committee.

4. The app is available on iOS and Android platforms. It provides easy access to key library services and collections including:

- the ability to conduct a simple search of the collection, showing availability of items and providing seamless access

- access to ‘My account’, which provides a list of checked out items, with renewal and hold functions

- access to mobile printing and AskALibrarian services, and links to library events and social media channels

- a carousel of book covers, which are curated and regularly updated to promote the collection

- promotion of key library programs, such as Summer Reading.

5. The Find a library feature uses a device’s geolocation capability to find the nearest Brisbane City Council library. The app also allows the customer to have their login remembered and link all their accounts, which can be managed within one page.

6. Images displaying how eLibCat is presented on the web and the app (in tablet and mobile phone view), were shown to the Committee.

7. The app went live on 30 March 2020. Since it’s commencement, the app has:

- been downloaded on 32,700 devices

- conducted 425,838 searches of the library collection

- had 124,137 holds placed

- had 100,212 renewals made.

8. The most popular pages within the app are:

- Find a library

- Digital resources

- Brisbane libraries are open (provides library information during COVID-19)

- Tips for downloading eBooks and audiobooks

- Overdrive (library eBook platform)

- Join online.

9. Content is regularly updated by the Centralised Library Services team, tailoring the app to the Brisbane community. Collaboration with the vendor for continuous improvement and development is ongoing. The following future improvements for the app are in development.

- Customer self-checkout, using near field communication and radio frequency identification technology to checkout items anywhere in the library.

- Push notifications, advising of library notices and events.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the A/Manager for her informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

Chair: Councillors, the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee please.

Councillor HUANG.

FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE

Councillor Steven HUANG, Deputy Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 2 February 2021, be adopted.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor HUANG.

Councillor HUANG: Yes, thank you Mr Chair. In last week’s Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee we had a presentation and report delivered by Council’s Corporate Treasurer. The presentation and the report were about the net borrowings, that is cash investments and funding for the December 2020 quarter. The presentation provided some detailed insights into things like global and domestic economies, including outlooks; trade tensions between Australia and obviously China; Reserve Bank of Australia COVID-19 measures; International Monetary Fund beliefs and assumptions.

Also, as per usual, it is always an interesting presentation that gives us an oversight of the current state of the finances. This report also details the corporate cash holdings invested and the status of Council’s funding activities. We were also presented with a Bank and Investment Report for November 2020. This report provides a monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 27 November 2020. I will leave further debate to the Chamber.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor HUANG?

I will 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 AND REPORT – NET BORROWINGS – CASH INVESTMENTS AND FUNDING FOR THE DECEMBER 2020 QUARTER

109/800/148/25

478/2020-21

1. The Corporate Treasurer, Financial Analysis and Treasury Management, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services, attended the meeting to present a report to the Committee on Council’s net borrowings for the December 2020 quarter. The report details the corporate cash holdings invested and the status of Council’s funding activities.

2. The report provided a market and economic review, and a summary of the following issues in relation to Council’s investments:

- cash position

- review of cash activity

- earnings on investments

- funding capability

- borrowings

- facility performance

- leases.

3. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Corporate Treasurer for her informative presentation.

4. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.

ADOPTED

B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – NOVEMBER 2020

134/695/317/1157

479/2020-21

5. The A/Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services, provided a monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 27 November 2020.

6. In the November period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) including Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC), increased by $44.2 million to $377.8 million excluding trusts (Ref: 2.5 in the Bank and Investment Report). The net increase is predominantly due to reduced total cash expenses when compared to the previous period, in which a $39 million quarterly payment was made for the Emergency Management Levy to Queensland Fire and Emergency Services.

7. During the November period, Council had paid CHF 97,108.17 (AUD 145,786.17) to HESS (supplier for the Brisbane Metro Project). Council held a cash deposit of CHF 18,703.93 valued at AUD 27,999.90 as at 27 November 2020 calculated at the spot rate of 0.6680 as published by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

8. Council funds (including QIC investment) in Australian dollars as at 27 November 2020 held by bank and investment institutions (per general ledger) totalled $371 million (Ref: 1.5/2.6 in the Bank and Investment Report). 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).

9. The majority of unreconciled bank transactions at the end of the period have since been reconciled.

10. All relevant general ledger accounts were reconciled and analysed. The Bank and Investment Report sets out Council’s November cash position, as summarised above.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, as submitted on file, BE NOTED.

ADOPTED

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION:

(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)

480/2020-21

The Chair of Council (Councillor Andrew WINES) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON to move the motion. Accordingly, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS—

That that this Council brings development application (A005541414) for a large commercial, retail and childcare centre at 293 Honour Ave, 4 Mortlake Rd and 92-98 Verney Rd W, Graceville to a full Council meeting for decision to ensure an open and transparent decision is made by all Councillors given the significant impacts on the Character Residential Zone sites within the application.

Chair: Is there any debate?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am moving this motion today because last week the LNP refused to support it as an urgency motion. It is of great concern to the community that I represent that we are seeing a huge commercial development take over three Character one residential blocks in Graceville. This site comprises four blocks, one of which is in the District centre. It’s the old Nanette Lilley Real Estate Agency fronting onto Honour Avenue near Graceville rail station for those who know it. I want to start by saying that I do support appropriate redevelopment of the site that is zoned in the District centre area.

It is a good place for further investment and further commercial and retail use. I have certainly spoken to the developer about this and I indicated to him well back at the beginning of this process that was my position. What is of great concern is the fact that the three adjoining Character residential one (CR1) blocks behind this block are being proposed for commercial use as well. So they are the blocks facing to 4 Mortlake Road and 92-98 Verney Road West. The composition of the site is actually 1300 square metres of the site, which is the Character residential one zone, is the majority of the site for development.

The District centre zone is only 1100 square metres. So, by doing this the developer is more than doubling the size of the commercial footprint out of centre. Now that is inappropriate. The Sherwood/Graceville neighbourhood plan for all its faults did a couple of things. Very clearly—Rory Kelly was the Assessment Manager at the time—he was very opposed to centre creep and did not want to see centre creep down main roads through Sherwood Graceville area. Look, the Planning Chairperson couldn’t even be bothered to stay and debate this issue. I just think that’s so appalling. Councillor ADAMS has just bailed as has the LORD MAYOR.

But let’s be clear, whenever the planning scheme is being overridden it is important that it is made in a transparent and accountable way. That means bringing this DA up to full Council for decision. I know that so far there have been a huge number of objections. The few letters of support are very generic; they support childcare. I think most people don’t really understand that it includes residential blocks, not just the Nanette Lilley site. So a few other character issues with this: there’s 90% site cover, so this is a phenomenally-sized commercial building. There is one frontage tree on Mortlake Road. There is one on Verney Road. Otherwise the deep planting is in the area behind separating the houses and the development.

You look at the landscaping plans and you’re forgiven for thinking there’s all these great mature trees. They’re actually the street trees out on the footpath. So it is really quite limited in terms of greenspace. The loss of character is a concern to the community I represent. The intensification of the commercial uses. This is not a small commercial use which CR1 does allow some small commercial uses. This is not that. This is taking three blocks zoned CR1, 1300 square metres—more than half of the whole site of the development—and turning it into a huge commercial development.

That is contrary to the intent of the planning scheme. There is a huge amount of additional traffic that will be generated. Parking is already massively problematic in this area due to the proximity to the rail station. Residents are concerned about design. So there are a lot of issues that have been raised through the process to date and public advertising. I don’t support the development in its current form. I want the opportunity to vote on behalf of my community. I want all Councillors to be accountable for their decision here. This is not just about allowing a small childcare centre.

This is a huge commercial development that takes three CR1 blocks. Two of the houses on these blocks are not significant in any way. One is still in really excellent shape. But at the moment they are low impact family homes. They should be treated as low impact family homes in the future as well under the zoning decided by this Council. Now I’ve spoken with the Council officers about this matter. They are well aware that I am bringing this matter up here for debate as well. It is incredibly important that this Council is accountable for overriding the planning scheme when it happens on such a scale as is proposed here.

The residents who live in Verney Road and Mortlake Road did not buy their homes thinking they would be adjoining a major commercial development. Some homeowners who have spent a phenomenal amount of money—a phenomenal amount of money—are now going to adjoin a large commercial development. They are extremely concerned about the impact of this. So I think it is incumbent upon this Council to ensure that where major developments are happening—and this is an impact assessable development—that overrides the existing zoning; it overrides the Sherwood-Graceville neighbourhood plan intent for the area; it overrides the Character residential one zoning.

It certainly is of a size and intensity that is beyond what is proposed for the commercial development. Now I know that we’re getting to the point of a decision being made. I checked that as well. I urge all Councillors to make sure this DA comes up here. Over the last year or so this Administration has brought code assessable after code assessable DA up to this Chamber. This is a significant impact assessable DA that overrides the intent of the planning scheme. It is of such a nature that it should be decided by full Council decision, not by Council officers.

Sure, they’re going to make their recommendations to full Council for decision. But we as the elected representatives need to decide about the value of Character residential one blocks. I know in my community it is the most important residential zoning that there is. Our community expect us to protect Character residential one land from major commercial development. It is, in my view, inappropriate that officers decide this application behind closed doors. I am calling on this Council to support the escalation of the decision making on this DA to full Council in due course. I certainly at that time will be urging people to vote against it.

Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I rise to speak in support of this motion. For any residents who might be watching the live stream or reading the transcript later I want them to understand the ramifications of what is being discussed here. Right across this city I hear from residents who are concerned that decisions about planning and development are being made behind closed doors. They’re right, because that’s actually what happens, is that on a regular basis important decisions about major development projects that have significant impacts on the lives of nearby residents are made not by elected representatives, but by unelected public servants who aren’t directly accountable to the people whose lives they are impacting.

Now, we know from experience that the LNP’s general narrative and position is that they don’t want to make these decisions. They want to leave it up to the, quote unquote, ‘experts’ within the Development Assessment team. But what’s really important to understand is that those experts have very limited scope in terms of the factors that they are able to consider and have, to be blunt, a limited understanding of the broader ramifications of some of these development projects beyond the planning ramifications. What I mean by that is that a development like this has a range of flow-on impacts in terms of the economy, the ecology of the neighbourhood, the community connectedness.

These are factors which aren’t easily captured within the scope of the City Plan. They are factors which actually local representatives are better placed to assess and consider. I think what disgusts me, and one of the reasons I have such contempt for the way that the LNP Administration treats planning and development, is that the elected representatives in this Chamber whose residents have put them here to make decisions about the future of our city, abrogate that responsibility. They wash their hands of it. They say, it’s not my place, I’m going to leave it up to someone else.

Then, when problems emerge, when residents raise concerns down the track, the elected representatives in this Chamber say, oh no, no, it wasn’t my decision. That was the Development Assessment team. Oh that was that planning officers. Nothing to do with me. That kind of buck-passing is exactly why so many people consider politicians to be spineless, consider politicians to be reckless of the broader public interest. It’s because people like the LORD MAYOR, people like the DEPUTY MAYOR are willing to take the pay cheque, are willing to take the credit for the good stuff the city does. But when push comes to shove and it’s important to make these tough decisions about what kinds of development are appropriate in our neighbourhood, those elected representatives pass the buck and throw their Council officers under the bus and leave them to make the tough decisions knowing that the scope of the decision-making framework that those Development Assessment officers are dealing with, is very, very limited. There have been quite a few developments that I have seen in my time as a Councillor that were clearly contrary to the public interest, but which complied with the neighbourhood plan.

That doesn’t mean they were good developments. It just means that someone did a bad job of drafting the neighbourhood plan. But the problem is that when these decisions are farmed out to the Development Assessment team with no oversight and scrutiny from elected representatives, there’s no scope to consider the broader public interest. There’s no scope to consider the needs of future generations or the wider city as a whole.

As a result, we end up with piecemeal development assessments that don’t consider the cumulative impacts of these projects, that underestimate the traffic impacts, that underestimate or misidentify the economic impacts, that completely overlook the impacts on the amenity of local residents in the surrounding community. That’s what this LNP Administration is facilitating. I have a lot of criticisms of the Labor party and I have a lot of criticisms of the way Labor used to operate this place when it held the majority. But at least the Labor party was willing to bring development applications to the Chamber for debate so that the elected representatives took responsibility for the decisions that their Council was making.

That’s my challenge through the Chair to the Council—to the Councillors here in this Chamber who thought they were putting their hands up to be representatives of their community. That’s what your communities expect of you. Yet if you continually delegate decision-making responsibility to people who are unaccountable for those important decisions you’re not fulfilling your responsibility as elected representatives. You’re collecting a pay cheque, but you’re not doing the work. That’s really what I think so many people find so offensive about the way development and planning operates in this city.

So, I congratulate Councillor JOHNSTON for bringing this motion to the Chamber. Because at least she is willing to have a debate about these issues. She and I certainly don’t agree on every issue of local urban planning. But we certainly agree that elected representatives, that elected city Councillors, should be taking responsibility for these decisions that the city Council is making. As Councillor JOHNSTON pointed out, this is an impact assessable development. That means that the developer is arguing that they should be allowed to ignore elements of the neighbourhood plan and City Plan because the project they’re proposing serves the broader public interest.

That’s not a planning question. That’s not a technical question about whether or not the development complies with the neighbourhood plan. That is a political decision. It is a political decision about whether this project serves the public interest and whether the public interest justifies overriding acceptable outcomes in the neighbourhood plan. So what this Council Administration is doing, what the divisional managers are doing, what the delegates are doing, what the team managers of those Development Assessment teams are doing, are allowing unelected Development Assessment officers to make political decisions.

The politicians aren’t making the political decisions other than making a political decision to let someone else make the decision. It’s quite a crafty move because it insulates you from public criticism and allows you to continue to scratch the backs of the property industry, to do favours for your mates—

Chair: That’s—look there have been a lot of statements that I think you know aren’t true. But that one—you know—

Councillor SRI: I beg your pardon?

Chair: You know full well that that is not true. That is—a Councillor cannot make an adverse reflection on another Councillor to that extent. Please do not proceed further down that line.

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: What? What happened to freedom of speech? I’m perfectly entitled to assert—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: No.

Councillor SRI: No?

Chair: No. The rules are quite clear. Rules that you often like to use against other people apply to you as well.

Councillor SRI: Chair, can you please clarify what rule you think I’m breaking?

Chair: Adverse reflection of other Councillors.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SRI: Adverse reflection of other Councillors.

Chair: A Councillor cannot reflect adversely upon another Councillor.

Councillor SRI: That’s fine. I’ll reflect adversely on the Council Administration as a whole then, which is not adversely reflecting on an individual Councillor. I’m not singling out individual Councillors. This is a systemic problem. It goes beyond either party. This is not about Labor or Liberal. This is a systemic problem where the property industry has far too much influence over Council decision making. As a result, the entire planning framework, including at the State Government level, has been created in such a way as to facilitate the approval of developments that do not serve the public interest.

That’s not a controversial statement. That’s something that the majority of residents of this city would agree with if anyone had the courage to actually put it to a survey. The majority of residents in this city feel that decisions about planning and development serve the property industry’s interest above and beyond the interests of ordinary residents of this city. If the Councillors feel like that’s a controversial statement, go out and survey the residents of your electorate. You’ll find that actually the majority of them agree with me on this one.

I know that a lot of residents don’t agree with me on some issues. But they certainly agree with me on this concern, that property developers have too much influence over planning and development approvals in this city. There are a range of reasons for that. We know that developers have special access to decisions at the State—

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.

Chair: Point of order to you DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Relevance to the motion before us.

Councillor interjecting.

Chair: No, no, please lay out—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: Hang on. I have a point of order, I will make a decision. I think that because the nature of the resolution is about the decision making process I will allow a level of discussion about that process. But I also can encourage—can I encourage all Councillors to make statements that are reflective of the planning laws with which we live, rather than which we want to live. Okay? I think that’s an important distinction that Councillor SRI is not—that’s an important distinction not being made.

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Sorry to disappoint you, Chair, but the nature of this Chamber is that we are free to discuss how we think the city should be run in addition to how the city is currently run. I don’t think it is controversial to suggest that at times when neighbourhood plans are being drafted, at times when amendments to the City Plan are being drafted, that the property industry is treated as a special stakeholder and benefits from access to decision makers. That’s a statement of fact. If Councillor ADAMS—

Chair: I’m not sure—

Councillor SRI: If Councillor ADAMS disagrees with that, she’s welcome to get up and debate the point. It’s not—

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: I suppose—

Councillor SRI: You can speak after me if you wish, Councillor ADAMS, through you, Chair. But I don’t think it’s the Chair’s responsibility to debate the points I’m making. The Chair’s responsibility is to facilitate open public discourse in this Chamber rather than to censor people who are speaking—

Chair: Yes, well I—okay well now I am taking umbrage. I have not censored anybody. I am one of the most pro-free speech people in this place.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: I have defended your right to say things in this place far more than you would ever let me say things in this place. I assure you—I assure you of that and that I know that if the Greens were in majority they would silence me every week if I were in minority. I know that to be a fact as well. So please don’t reflect on me what you think I am. Please stick to the facts.

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Chair, your actions will speak a lot louder than your words. I’ll hold you to that.

I would also just suggest for the record that it’s not appropriate for the Chair to be using party political language in facilitating these meetings. I encourage you to resist that temptation.

Chair: So okay, I’ll address that. So I can be criticised in that manner, but I cannot address it in response. That’s not right or fair either, Councillor SRI.

Councillors interjecting.

Chair: So please continue. That is not right or fair either. Please continue.

Councillor SRI: Look, I’m not going to be diverted from the topic. The point here is that this Administration is called upon to make an important decision about a development approval that lots of residents have raised concerns about. Local residents want the elected representatives to decide this development application. That’s what you’re elected to do. That’s what you’re paid to do.

To continually pass the buck, to delegate these decisions to officers whose scope for decision making is very limited and who don’t have access to the resources and the broader public networks to make good decisions about whether the public interest is best served is a complete dereliction of your duty as elected representatives and is one of the key contributing factors to the fact that planning and development is going so poorly in this city. I think the Administration would do well to reflect on that and consider a change of strategy.

Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor ADAMS.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I—Councillor SRI on one hand we hear that we are corrupt and, quote unquote, ‘doing deals’ with property developers.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.

DEPUTY MAYOR: But on the other hand we are—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.

Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: It is an adverse reflection to say Councillor SRI called people corrupt. He did no such thing. It was Councillor ADAMS that actually said it in her interjection.

Chair: No I’m not—

Councillor JOHNSTON: It’s not appropriate for her to reflect language—

Chair: No, no no.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —that is adverse.

Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, I understand the point of order you’re making. Councillor SRI used a phrase, scratching the back of developers or something to that effect which is clearly implication of corruption.

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chair: Noted.

Councillor ADAMS.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I’ll be very clear, Councillor SRI as you said, Mr Chair, said we are scratching the back of developers and then on the other hand we are abrogating our duty. Wants it both ways as usual. He wants to be able to have free speech, but goodness help if we make him look slightly bad as well. All I can say to Councillor SRI is if you think there are any deals being done over here you have a legislative requirement to report it to the CCC (Crime and Corruption Commission). I look forward to seeing if you can find anything because there is nothing that is done adversely when it comes to Development Services.

As you would know since I’ve become Planning Chair all Councillors have the ability as elected representatives to speak to their Development Services Managers or their Assessment Managers on any application with which they don’t have a conflict in their local ward and communicate those feedback, whether it be two sentences, or as we know Councillor SRI is wont to do, two pages of feedback. That is their absolute unrestricted resources to the community. They speak to you. You are sent emails every single week on every single DA. You get Development.i alerts every single day to give you feedback.

Every elected representative has that ability to do so. The proposal before us is a two-storey building, including a childcare centre, shop, office, food and drink outlet. It’s on an existing site which is zoned district centre.

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.

Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Will Councillor ADAMS take a question?

Chair: Will Councillor ADAMS—no, she declines.

Councillor ADAMS.

DEPUTY MAYOR: As well as three lots which are in a Character residential zone. One of the houses has an existing demolition approval on it. Two of the houses were built after 1946 even though they are in the Character residential zone. They are though, in this district centre, only 80 metres away from the Graceville train station. It is impact assessable to everyone in the community, including the local Councillor. Unlimited resources to what the community wants to our Development Assessment Services Managers has meant there were 109 properly made submissions: 23 in support, 86 objected, with a note that 45 of those objections were pro forma submissions.

The application remains under assessment by the Council officers. I urge Councillor JOHNSTON to make her feedback and representations on the community clear to her assessment managers. My belief is that if the officers require further information based on that feedback from the applicant, they will then—a further advice letter will be issued. This is yet to be determined.

Chair: Councillor SRI, your misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Thanks Chair. I thought I was very clear in my comments that I was offering a systemic critique. It’s not about individual Councillors. It’s about a broken planning system which Councillors have voted for and endorsed.

Chair: Thank you Councillor SRI.

Further speakers? Further speakers?

Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. In summing up I want to make the following points. Thank you to Councillor GRIFFITHS and the Labor party for seconding this motion so we can have this important debate. Thank you to Councillor SRI whose debate went a little bit beyond the actual issue to some, I think, valid policy points. But to Councillor ADAMS who completely ignored the motion—so she stood up, repeated something that was so basic that my 13-year-old niece could have looked it up online—and did not address the motion. Now this is the Planning Chairperson.

So let’s be clear, she thinks I should give feedback. Not only have I given verbal feedback, I’ve made one of those properly made submissions. I’ve repeatedly spoken to the Planning Assessment Manager about this. I’ve held a public meeting about this. I’m very, very clear on the issues that are involved here. It is not appropriate for a decision to override the planning scheme where there are three large Character residential blocks. They are 1300 square metres, the majority of the site under development. It is not appropriate for a decision to be made behind closed doors to overturn the planning scheme.

That is the point here. That is what the motion is about. If Councillor ADAMS wants to support this development application she can debate it, support it and vote for it in this place. But it is of great concern to me that this decision will be made behind closed doors. There is no planning and guidance committee any more, to my knowledge, so the officers are out there working at the delegation level. It is critically important that if the planning scheme is going to be overridden and one of the most important zones in this city, Character residential, is going to be overturned, that there is a clear policy direction from Council. That is us, the elected representatives of this place.

Let me be clear, I’ve read many of the submission online. Some of the submissions in support simply refer to supporting childcare. Now if the childcare centre is important it can be built on the existing district centre zoning on the 1100 square metre site. That would be an appropriate use of that site. That is not what the proposal before us today is about. The proposal before us today is seeking to add three Character residential one blocks to a district centre to build a huge commercial development. In this part of Graceville it is not appropriate. The streets can’t cope with it. The traffic can’t cope with it.

The neighbours who have spent, in this case, millions of dollars on their homes are going to be adjoining a commercial centre. They certainly did not expect that when they bought their properties three doors down. Councillor WINES said something very interesting in one of his many contributions to the debate today. He said, let’s debate the planning laws under which we live. That’s exactly what I’ve done, that is exactly what I’ve done. So I look forward to his support when he votes yes on this motion. The key here is our planning laws set guidance down.

At this point the development application before Council overturns those planning laws. It is not appropriate that that is done behind closed doors. This is a very significant development that will set some precedent. I do not want to see Character residential one blocks being lost to commercial development on the high side of Chelmer, Graceville and Sherwood. I don’t want to see them lost anywhere in my ward or anywhere in the city. Let me be clear on that.

It is critically important that if this Council wants to overturn the planning scheme and the clear intention of the neighbourhood plan, the clear intention of the planning scheme and the zoning, that that is a policy decision that is made by this Council and this elected Chamber, not by officers behind closed doors. To finish on this matter, I’ll just start out as I—I’ll just finish up as I started: I absolutely support redevelopment of the commercial centre in the old Nanette Lilley block., but I do not support redevelopment of the Character residential one blocks.

I urge all Councillors to support this motion. If it’s good enough for every code assessable DA to be brought up here for full Council endorsement then an impact assessable DA of such significance to the community I represent, and probably to the city, it should be brought to full Council for decision. I encourage all Councillors to support the motion.

Chair: I will now put the resolution.

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

Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON 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: 18 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, 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.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chair: Before we move to petitions, I just want to make a quick reminder that when you offer a petition, please read out the meaning of it and then leave it in your space. It will be collected after the meeting.

Are there any petitions?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair. I have a petition on behalf of Councillor COOK requesting upgrade of Lytton Road, Morningside, including Junction Road roundabout and Thynne Road intersection.

Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a petition from residents of Newstead wanting talking poles in Newstead Park to be removed.

Chair: Councillor MACKAY.

Councillor MACKAY: I have a petition requesting Council instal a basketball hoop and concrete key area in Biami Yumba Park, Fig Tree Pocket.

Chair: Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: I have a petition from residents requesting construction of a green bridge from Fig Tree Pocket to Corinda.

Chair: Any other petitions?

May I please have a resolution to accept them?

481/2020-21

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 |

|CA21/121613 |Jared Cassidy on behalf of Kara|Requesting Council upgrade Lytton Road, Morningside, including the Junction |

| |Cook |Road roundabout and Thynne Road intersection. |

|CA21/128092 |David McLachlan |Requesting Council disconnect the four ‘Alice in Wonderland’ themed talking |

| | |posts in Newstead Park, Newstead. |

|CA21/121434 |James Mackay |Requesting Council install a basketball court in Bimba Yambi Park, Fig Tree |

| | |Pocket. |

|CA21/121515 |Ryan Murphy |Requesting Council construct a green bridge from Fig Tree Pocket to Corinda for|

| | |pedestrians and cyclists. |

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chair: Councillors, before we move to General Business if you have not signed the book to say that you are attending, please do so at your convenience. It is in the usual place in front of me here.

Councillors, are there any matters of General Business?

Are there any statements required as a result of the Office of the Independent Assessor or a Councillor Ethics Committee order?

I see no one moving.

Councillors are there any matters of ordinary General Business?

Councillor OWEN.

At that time,5.56pm, the Deputy Chair, Councillor Steven TOOMEY, assumed the Chair.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you. I rise to speak tonight on a number of items in regards to some commemorative events and also the significant multicultural events that are occurring this week. Mr Deputy Chair, can I just firstly acknowledge that 14 February 2021 will be a combination of the service to recognise the 2/10th and the 900 Queenslanders who fought during the battle for Singapore in World War II. The majority of the regiment were prisoners of war and served in captivity until the end of the war. Also, to the 70th anniversary for the National Servicemen’s Association on that same day.

This Friday, 12 February, brings about the change of the Lunar New Year and we are now at the turning point from leaving the Year of the Rat, which has not been a very good year with COVID-19 and all of its implications, but we are now entering into the phase of the Metal Ox. The Metal Ox is a symbol of diligence, persistence and honesty. These are key traits that, I think, all of us in our community should embody.

To all of our friends in the many different multicultural communities, whether they are Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Korean, or even Indian, who will be celebrating Holi Festival. Firstly, I would like to extend Lunar New Year greetings, so I beg indulgence, Mr Deputy Chair, to speak in those relevant languages.

So, can I say to my many friends, Gong Xi Fa Cai, Xin Nian Kuai Le, Chúc Mùng Năm Mói, and to my Korean friends, Sae-hae bok mani badeu-seyo. This is a very important time when we see different traditions come to the fore. We see firecrackers going off, we also see the lighting of the moon house and, also, we see a lot of this light which is the reflection of good triumphing over evil.

Can I also say, in regards to Holi Festival—and I know that Councillor HUTTON will be there at Rocks Riverside to celebrate with me once again, we often go to some of these events, and Holi Festival is one—the festival of colours—that is getting a bit of momentum across the city because it is that bit of fun where everyone does go and they engage in colouring each other. So, I thought I would actually share what those colours mean in this Chamber because a lot of people just go and they see the colours, but they don’t realise some of the implications behind it.

So those Gulal colours that are celebrated at Holi, the blue colour is to reflect calmness in your house and your life; red is to embody positive energy; and green is to promote prosperity.

So, Holi Festival is known by a number of names. It’s known as Holika Dahan, Choti Holi, or Rangwali Holi, and really it is to reflect the arrival of spring. Again, that triumph of good over evil.

So to all of my Indian community who will be celebrating Holi, and this is a very significant event in the Hindu calendar, can I say Holi ke shubh acsar par, Ullas aur Umang se ho aapka din rangeen, which means, happy Holi to you and your family.

This is a very special week and I know all Councillors will have probably received many invitations with many events happening all at the same time. I know there are multiple events all happening on particular days where there’s three and four events at the same time.

To each and every one of you across our community of the City of Brisbane, can I wish you a happy New—Lunar New Year and I know that on behalf of all of us on this side of the Chamber, we look forward to sharing the Lunar New Year with our multicultural community and supporting your festivals. It’s great to see some of these festivals coming back despite the COVID-19 restrictions. Thank you.

Deputy Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor STRUNK.

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Listen, can I echo the sentiments of Councillor OWEN, in regards to the Lunar New Year festivities. Certainly, the festival out my way, which is going to be a first in a long time that it’ll be actually held in Darra, and because of the COVID-19 restrictions that the Civic Centre car park, which has been host—hosting that festival now for a few years, isn’t able to be COVID Safe.

So the chapter—the Vietnamese Chapter have moved it over to along Ipswich—Darra there, which is not in my ward, sadly, but certainly I know Councillor HUTTON is looking forward to it—to going to it, as she probably will each year anyways, but she’ll be representing the LORD MAYOR which is quite exciting, I’m sure, for her.

The Premier will be there, but it will be a much smaller event this year, sadly. But you know, you can’t keep a good person from Vietnam down, I’ll tell you, because they’re going to find a way to celebrate safely and respectfully and they have found it, even though of course the crowds will be far less this year as it would have been the previous years.

So, that’s on Friday. It’s only going to be Friday for a few hours, sadly, but they’ll do all the formal stuff that they would normally do to celebrate the Lunar New Year. We’ll have some speeches and—from a number of dignitaries and so they will celebrate the Lunar New Year, but in a smaller version this year.

I’d also like to talk about another couple of events that have been happening down on the lake stage on the new terracing just in front of the lake stage. We had a really successful, but again COVIDSafe Christmas carols down there that the Elevate Church put on, and that was a nighttime gig and so it was really good to see the whole lake stage and the terracing all lit up.

Councillor—the Federal Member for Oxley, Milton Dick, was there and myself, along with a number of other community leaders that took part in the—in that particular event.

We also have had two jazz Sundays. This last Sunday, and the Sunday before. We have a trio that has some guest artists that come in as well and they play—it’s really nice to go along from 3pm until 6pm on a Sunday and just have a listen to the jazz band, and just sit back and relax after, I’m sure, a very hard week for a lot of people—just like to sit down and maybe have a beverage of some sort and just kick back and enjoy.

The group themselves is a trio, one of them, the—Phil, the singer, he is local, just lives across the road. So he came in and saw me and said, listen, this is what I’d like to do on a fortnightly basis so we’ve had the—we’ve had two gigs so far and I’m looking forward to—in a fortnight’s time, with the next one.

Finally, I, like Councillor DAVIS, I have had a dog park lit up. The College Avenue dog park was lit up a couple of Fridays ago and the lights stay on until about 9pm. I tell you what, people are really taking advantage of the nighttime venue for taking their dogs—because I mean, it’s a bit hot during the day and, also, people of course are at work and they will be able to use that space. It’s very active now at nighttime.

It was a really good addition for the dog park. It’s the premier dog park in my ward. It’s the only one, unfortunately, at this stage that is lit, but we’ll continue to work with those communities who want their particular dog park lit up as well and we’ll pursue that one so thank you, Chair.

Deputy Chair: Further speakers?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I rise to speak briefly about public parkland. I’ve made a few comments about this in the Chamber over recent months, but I just wanted to hammer home the point and make sure it really is on the LORD MAYOR’s radar and, particularly, on the radar of the DEPUTY MAYOR, as Chair of City Planning, and simply emphasise the fact that while there are certainly merits to inner city densification, that model of urban development fails miserably if we don’t provide enough public greenspace to cater for the growing population.

The—we did a little bit of, I guess, research last year, just to drill down into the figures. We took some—this is Council’s own data, so we took the parks data off the Council website and the population estimates which are from 2019, so might be slightly out of date.

But we actually went through all the wards and got a ratio of how much parkland there is per person. So, in the ward of Walter Taylor, for example, there’s about 52 square metres of parkland per resident. Fifty—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SRI: I didn’t quite hear that, but 52 square metres of parkland per resident. So that means that for every resident in the area, there’s about 52 square metres greenspace.

Comparatively, Northgate Ward, which is sort of, I guess you’d say, in the north or middle northern suburbs—Northgate Ward has 174 square metres of parkland per resident. So, Northgate Ward is doing quite well.

Pullenvale is actually within this respect, so Pullenvale has 768 square metres of parkland per resident—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SRI: Yes, plenty of room for ponies, Councillor CUMMING said. Yes, people have very big private backyards as well out that way. So, it’s interesting to go through these figures. I see somewhere like Runcorn comes in kind of halfway up the list. Runcorn had—has 62 square metres of parkland per resident. Enoggera’s getting a little bit tighter. Enoggera only has 43 square metres of parkland per resident—Enoggera Ward.

Morningside Ward actually is even tighter. Morningside Ward only has 39 square metres of parkland per resident. Then it gets really tight as you get in closer to the inner city because the Coorparoo Ward has seen a bit of population growth lately and parts of The Gabba boundaries have been added to Coorparoo. So, the Coorparoo Ward, it only has 25 square metres of parkland per resident.

So, you compare that to that figure of Pullenvale—Pullenvale has 768 square metres of parkland per resident. 768 square metres parkland for every single resident—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SRI: I know, it’s wild, isn’t it? Whereas Coorparoo Ward only has 25 square metres per resident. But then you get down to Central and The Gabba Ward. Central Ward, based on Council data, has 13.7 square metres of parkland per resident, and The Gabba Ward is down to 12.75 square metres of parkland per resident. However, if you add in South Bank parkland, it goes up to 14 square metres per resident.

So, if you don’t include South Bank, we’re just below Central Ward. If you do include South Bank, we’re just above Central Ward. I guess I would argue Central Ward also now has Victoria Park just on its edge, so it’s probably better served.

But the point here is that over recent years, the Council Administration has crammed in a huge amount of additional density, particularly into inner city areas, but has not delivered parkland in the area to match that.

So, there’s a real mismatch going on where the Council Administration wants to encourage people to live closer to their place of work. Wants to encourage people to live closer to public transport hubs and to the inner city, but isn’t providing the public greenspace that will deliver that quality of life and that positive amenity.

So, through you, Chair, to Councillor CUNNINGHAM, I know your team has some difficult decisions to make because considering the variations in land values, it’s often cheaper to buy land out on the suburban fringe and you can get more parkland per dollar than you can in the inner city. But as the figures I’ve just been reading through show, there are a lot more people in a much denser urban landscape closer into the inner city.

So, the broader public value of delivering parkland in that area is significantly higher. It’s not just about the square metres per se, it’s about the fact that those inner city residents also don’t have private backyards. They don’t have access to other greenspaces that they can use. They often live in much smaller and more cramped apartments.

I do take Councillor GRIFFITHS’ point earlier that there is a bit of privilege in the inner city, but there’s also still a lot of people who don’t have high-quality residential homes, who don’t have a lot of space themselves, and who depend very heavily on public space and particularly public parkland.

So I really want to implore the LORD MAYOR and the DEPUTY MAYOR, and Councillor CUNNINGHAM, and Councillor ALLAN, who I assume will have a bit of a hand in the budget as well, not to lose sight of the importance of public greenspace.

We know from the community events that happen in our public parks, from how much people love our public spaces, how important and valuable they are, but I worry that in times of fiscal tightening, there’ll be a temptation not to invest in the creation of new public parkland.

I want to emphasise that I think that would be short-sighted and a grievous error because it will mean that the quality of life in these neighbourhoods will diminish significantly and, as a result, the flow-on negative impacts to the community and the local economy will be significant as well.

So, the facts—the figures speak for themselves. There’s demonstrably a chronic shortage of parkland in the inner city. Paddington Ward was pretty bad until Victoria Park got added into the ward boundaries. Paddington Ward’s now at—I think it’s—about 41.9 square metres of greenspace per person. Without Victoria Park, you guys are in a really bad—through you, Chair, to Councillor MATIC—your ward is very poorly served by parkland as well and there are parts of Milton and Auchenflower, et cetera, that really are quite low on greenspace.

This certainly isn’t a problem that’s purely within The Gabba Ward, but it’s most acute around Central Ward, The Gabba Ward and Paddington Ward.

I’ve been struck by the fact that in the last couple of years, the Administration has spent a fair bit of money on upgrading existing parkland within the inner city—and I welcome that—but to be honest, to be perfectly blunt, I would rather have seen that money go towards acquiring sites for new public parkland within the inner city. That would actually be a better use of money.

Residents want open spaces for sport and recreation. They want spaces for community gardens. They don’t need a huge amount of money spent on facilities. What we really need for our communities is money spent on creating new public greenspaces that we can adapt and upgrade over time.

That’s my request to this Council Administration, is that suburbs like West End, South Brisbane, Woolloongabba, Kangaroo Point, they’re growing very, very quickly, but the parkland isn’t there to mee the need so that needs to change. Thank you.

Deputy Chair: Councillor HUTTON, how are you?

Councillor HUTTON: Well, thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Deputy Chair: The mic is yours.

Councillor HUTTON: Chair, I rise to speak—to reflect and remember the 10-year anniversary of the floods in our city and a community art project that we’re launching in my ward to remember this occasion.

So, 12 January 2011, is a date that many in our city simply won’t forget. I remember hearing the flood warnings, packing up my tiny four-week old baby and two dogs to rush to my parents to save their home. Like many across this city, we spent hours stacking furniture and ensuring precious keepsakes like photos were safe.

Sadly, 200,000 Brisbane residents, many, Jamboree locals, were badly affected by these floods. But, as our city faced some of the darkest days, the spirit of Brisbane locals shone. To remember this spirit, the strength of our community, at the suggestion of one of my locals, we are launching a community rock art project for young and old to be involved.

I have just received a number of painted rocks from a very talented local artist that are truly highlights of the community and the efforts during the flood. Things like the SES (State Emergency Service), the Mud Army and words of inspiration.

In addition to this, I put together some words to reflect and remember this anniversary that I wanted to share with you.

The rush of water was phenomenal, something you simply could not comprehend. Leaving behind was a trail of destruction. It felt like the world was about to end.

The stench was indescribable. Thick brown mud as far as you could see. Mud covered everything that was left. Streets piled with mountains of debris.

I won’t forget the tears of grief. The loss left many heartbroken. Some still choose to forget this time in history, because of the emotion.

Despite the loss, the pain and grief, our pride did not go under. When the LORD MAYOR called for volunteers, they turned up in huge numbers. Thus began the massive clean-up. The Mud Army was in command. It was inspiring to watch strangers roll up their sleeves to lend a hand.

The united spirit was unstoppable. To get rid of all that mud. It was a sense of teamwork and mateship, that became the highlight of the flood.

It is important to acknowledge the exceptional work of a few. To the Australian Army and the SES, we owe a lot to you. The kindness, generosity and humour of the 25,000 volunteers, your efforts will not be forgotten, regardless of the years.

Chair, I look forward to updating the Chamber on this great project in my area. Thank you.

Councillors interjecting.

Deputy Chair: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you. I’d like to complement the previous Councillor on her poetry, that’s very well done.

I just want to speak briefly on the CBIC (City of Brisbane Investment Corporation) Annual Report which was released late last year, and I’ll just go straight to the points I want to make.

The Corporation compares its investment performance to several benchmarks and most of its assets are property and the benchmark uses the MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International)/Mercer Australia Core Wholesale Property Fund Index.

Now, the problem of comparing the performance of the CBIC with private sector funds is, you’re not comparing apples with apples. The fundamental reason for this occurs is because as a Council entity, the CBIC pays no tax. The CBIC pays no income tax and no capital gains tax. So, comparing the returns of the CBIC with private entities which pay tax is not appropriate.

The fact that the CBIC pays no tax inflates the return it makes. So, page 41 of the CBIC Annual Report confirms the fact. It states, ‘income of local government, public authorities and their subsidiaries are exempt from income tax, including capital gains tax, under the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936’.

Another reason—another concern I have is the lack of transparency and how much profit, if any, was made on the sale of each property sold during the year. The CBIC sold, or partly sold, three properties during 2020. This is listed on page 18.

The South Regional Business Centre was sold for $35.25 million, but nowhere does it state exactly how much profit was made. On page 21, it says 16 Industrial Avenue, Wacol, was sold for $9.5 million, but what was the profit?

Then on page 23, it refers to the Augustus Residences at Towong and it states, ‘the final five units were settled with the project’s returns exceeding CBIC’s long-term targeted returns’. But it didn’t say—didn’t disclose—the level of profit and the return made. Now, I pose the question, why the secrecy?

At page 43, the gain on sale of, presumably—I’m just guessing now because it doesn’t say specifically—the South Regional Business Centre and the Industrial Avenue, Wacol, property is only $4.16 million. So, my question is, how much profit was made on each property? So, the percentage return on the book valued assets was 10.41%. What about the Augustus Residences?

The selling expenses of $636,000 for the two properties sold seems excessive. I’d like to see a breakdown of these amounts. I realise commercial properties are more expensive to sell than residential properties, but $636,000 for two properties?

Of course, the fundamental flaw in the claims of spectacular returns for the CBIC is the business model which entails ratepayers through the Brisbane City Council (BCC), giving land to the CBIC, asking them to build a building which is guaranteed a tenant, namely the BCC, and guaranteeing the building a spectacular level of rent from the BCC.

If these non-competitive projects which have grown—it is these non-competitive projects which have grown the CBIC’s so-called above market returns for so many years, as well as the tax-free status of the CBIC.

These projects, which currently exist, which are—have got Brisbane City Council as tenants are of course the North Regional Business Centre; the South Regional Business Centre; 20 Trade Coast Drive, Trade Coast Central; 16 Industrial Avenue, Wacol, which was sold in the year; and the mighty Wynnum Library.

The dividend is another matter which I feel like I need to comment on. The much-awaited dividend of $20 million paid by CBIC to the Brisbane City Council needs scrutinising as well. Private company normally pay a certain percentage or range of profit as the dividend. Why is this not done with CBIC? It’s a lump sum of $30 million and has been for several years. What percentage of profit is this? Is this 50% of the profit? 10% of the profit? It’s not clear.

The other concern I have with the CBIC profit is, it’s not all cash. In fact, 22.55% of income, which is $10,250,000, is what is described as, fair value gain on investment property. As a percentage of the net profit of the revaluation makes up 29%.

As well, there was a revaluation of the CBIC investment in property trusts, which went up 64.55%. Three—nearly $3.5 million from $5.281 million to $8.69 million. Then this seems an excessive revaluation in one year.

Finally, to a couple of annoying errors in the CBIC Annual Report. The first is somewhat parochial, as I object to the CBIC property in Wynnum Central, at 145 Florence Street, as being described as Wynnum Shopping Centre. The property consists of the Council library, a Woolworths supermarket and a BWS (Beer, Wine, Spirits) outlet and a coffee shop. I think, with respect, that doesn’t rate a description as a shopping centre.

But even worse, is that further up the same street on the corner of Florence Street and Bay Terrace, there is an older shopping centre which was also called the Wynnum Shopping Centre. So, I think CBIC needs to come up with its own name and not pinch someone else’s.

My final point relates to the Director’s bio for—the CEO of the Brisbane City Council, Mr Colin Jensen, which can be found on page 29 of the report. Colin is a Director of the CBIC, and the first sentence of the bio reads as follows.

Managing an annual budget of $3.18 billion and an asset base of $28.3 billion, Colin Jensen is the Chief Executive Officer of Brisbane City Council, serving a population of 2.4 million people. Pick the error, Mr Chair. Why of course, the population of Brisbane is 1.25 million people, not 2.4 million people.

So, unless Mr Jensen has also been moonlighting as CEO of Redlands, Logan, Ipswich and Moreton Bay Regional Council, this fundamental statistic is just plain wrong and I’ve no evidence of Colin moonlighting at those other councils.

The LORD MAYOR’s foreword in this actual CBIC report refers to the population of Brisbane being 1.25 million, as does the Council’s website so this is very amateurish, Mr Chair. You can’t get even—can’t get the population of Brisbane correct.

So, to sum up, then. The CBIC Annual Report lacks sufficient detail, lacks a proper dividend policy, and claims a rate of return inflated by not having to pay tax. It needs to be read with caution.

Deputy Chair: Further speakers?

I see no one getting to their feet.

I therefore declare the meeting closed.

Thank you.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:

(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 4 February 2021

Q1. How much money from Council was allocated to the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust over the last 3 years?

a. 2018/19

b. 2019/20

c. 2020 to date.

Q2. How much money was donated to the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust over the last 3 financial years through the $15 rates donation option?

a. 2018/19

b. 2019/20

c. 2020 to date.

Q3. How much money was donated to the Lord Mayor’s Charitable trust over the last 3 years from other sources?

a. 2018/19

b. 2019/20

c. 2020 to date.

Q4. Please list the entities that received money from the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust over the last 3 years?

Q5. Who are the individuals on the panel that decide and allocate the donations given to entities from the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust?

Q6. What is the process that groups and/or individuals have to go through to access the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust?

Q7. How many COVID-19 Suburban Priority Projects have commenced in the Wards and where are they located?

Q8. How many COVID-19 Suburban Priority Projects have been completed and where are they located?

Q9. How many cars are in the Council fleet?

Q10. How many trucks are in the Council fleet?

Q11. How many ute vehicles are in the Council fleet?

Q12. How many cars in the Council fleet are hybrid?

Q13. How many cars in the Council fleet are electric?

Q14. How many cars in the Council fleet are diesel?

Q15. How many cars in the Council fleet are petrol?

Q16. How many trucks in the Council fleet are hybrid?

Q17. How many trucks in the Council fleet are electric?

Q18. How many trucks in the Council fleet are diesel?

Q19. How many trucks in the Council fleet are petrol?

Q20. How many utes in the Council fleet are hybrid?

Q21. How many utes in the Council fleet are electric?

Q22. How many utes in the Council fleet are diesel?

Q23. How many utes in the Council fleet and petrol?

Q24. How many dog attacks have been registered with the Brisbane City Council Contact Centre in the last 12 months?

Q25. How many dog attacks where investigated by council officers in the last 12 months?

Q26. How many dogs were declared as dangerous in the last 12 months due to dog attacks?

Q27. How many dog attacks on people occurred in the last 12 months?

Q28. How many dog attacks on other animals occurred in the last 12 months?

Q29. How many fines were issued in the last 12 months for dogs found off leash?

Q30. How many Council officers are employed to investigate dog attacks that are registered with the Contact Centre?

Q31. What is the timeframe for Council to investigate a dog attack, from registering with the Contact centre to closure of investigation?

Q32. Please provide the total number of Brisbane City Council-owned public toilets, with a breakdown of how many have needle disposal units.

Q33. Please advise the total number of needle stick injuries reported to Council for the following calendar years:

|Year |Total Number of Reported Needlestick Injuries |

|2020 | |

|2019 | |

|2018 | |

|2017 | |

|2016 | |

Q34. Please provide the top 5 types of locations where needlestick injuries on Brisbane City Council property were reported in 2016-2020.

Q35. Please provide the top 10 suburbs where needlestick injuries were reported in 2016-2020, with the number of reports.

Q36. Please provide the total number and length of Brisbane City Council managed roads broken down by the following road hierarchy classifications:

|ROAD HIERARCHY CLASSIFICATION |NUMBER OF ROADS |TOTAL LENGTH OF ROADS |

|Motorway | | |

|Arterial | | |

|Suburban | | |

|District | | |

|Neighbourhood | | |

|Local | | |

|TOTAL | | |

Q37. Please provide the following details regarding the Brisbane City document titled “Victoria Park Vision” released in December 2020:

|ITEM |AMOUNT/NUMBER |

|Total number printed | |

|Total printing cost | |

|Total cost of artist impressions | |

|Total cost of photographics | |

|Total cost of the video fly-through | |

Q38. Please provide details of where the printed copies of the “Victoria Park Vision” document have been distributed.

Q39. Please provide a breakdown of the $84M allocation to Victoria Park this Council term?

Q40. Please advise the total number of Brisbane City Council Kitchen Organic Bins have been distributed.

Q41. Please advise the total number of Brisbane City Council Kitchen Organic Bins have ordered from the supplier, and the total cost.

Q42. Please advise how many people have registered for the Brisbane City Council’s Community Composting program.

Q43. Please detail the total lease fees paid by Council on premises/facilities in the 2019-2020 financial year at the following properties:

|PROPERTY |TOTAL LEASE FEES PAID IN 2019-2020 |

|Rivergate Marina | |

|7 Rivergate Place, Murarrie | |

|TradeCoast Central | |

|20 TradeCoast Drive, Eagle Farm | |

|North Regional Business Centre | |

|375 Hamilton Road, Chermside | |

|Wynnum Shopping Centre | |

|145 Florence Street, Wynnum | |

|16 Industrial Avenue, Wacol | |

|(until 13 November 2019) | |

|South Regional Business Centre | |

|665 Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly | |

|(until 30 April 2020) | |

|TOTAL AMOUNT PAID | |

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 Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 2 February 2021)

Q1. Please provide details of how much has been spent on artists’ impression graphics and fly through animations for Council projects in the following financial years broken down by project:

|FINANCIAL YEAR |LIST OF PROJECTS AND COSTS |

| |ARTIST IMPRESSIONS |FLY THROUGH ANIMATION |

|2019-2020 |Project Name: |Project Name: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2018-2019 |Project Name: |Project Name: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2017-2018 |Project Name: |Project Name: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2016-2017 |Project Name: |Project Name: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2015-2016 |Project Name: |Project Name: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

A1. This information was unable to be collated within the timeframe that accords with the Meetings Local Law 2001, without removing Council officers from normal duties.

Q2. Please provide details of the total number and cost of trees planted, broken down by category, for the following financial years:

|FINANCIAL YEAR |STREET TREES |PARKS |BUSHLAND |OTHER |

|2019-2020 |Number: |Number: |Number: |Number: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2018-2019 |Number: |Number: |Number: |Number: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2017-2018 |Number: |Number: |Number: |Number: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2016-2017 |Number: |Number: |Number: |Number: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

|2015-2016 |Number: |Number: |Number: |Number: |

| |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |Total Cost: |

A2. Please note, some costs are unable to be calculated (UTC) within a timeframe that accords with the Meetings Local Law 2001.

|FINANCIAL |STREET TREES |PARKS TREES |BUSHLAND (Council land)|OTHER |

|YEAR | | |(Plantings include | |

| | | |trees, shrubs or | |

| | | |grasses) | |

|2019-20 |Number: 14,760 |Number: 1,705 |Number: 40,952 |Number: 221,514 |

| |Total Cost: $3,690,000 |Total Cost: $426,250 |Total Cost: $1,752,623 |Total Cost: UTC |

|2018-19 |Number: 12,348 |Number: 396 |Number: 32,885 |Number: 145,334 |

| |Total Cost: $3,087,000 |Total Cost: $99,000 |Total Cost: $1,573,867 |Total Cost: UTC |

|2017-18 |Number: 10,108 |Number: 631 |Number: 41,983 |Number: 77,921 |

| |Total Cost: $2,527,000 |Total Cost: $157,750 |Total Cost: $1,189,592 |Total Cost: UTC |

|2016-17 |Number: 8,305 |Number: |Number: 27,154 |Number: 258,676 |

| |Total Cost: UTC |1,812 |Total Cost: $527,627 |Total Cost: UTC |

| | |Total Cost: UTC | | |

|2015-16 |Number: 7,910 |Number: 1,499 |Number: 31,071 |Number: 208,495 |

| |Total Cost: UTC |Total Cost: UTC |Total Cost: $515,026 |Total Cost: UTC |

Q3. Please provide details of the total number of approved applications and total amount for the First Home Owner Rebate scheme from 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020 for newly-built homes.

A3. There were 42 approvals for the First Home Owner Rate – New Build.

As at January 2021, the total amount processed in rates billing was $12,890.06.

Q4. Please provide details of the number and breakdown of JC Decaux’s advertising panels as part of the amended Brisbane City Council’s Brisbane Public Bike Hire Scheme contract approved by Council in December 2020:

|TYPE |NUMBER |

|CityLight Panels | |

|Premier Panels | |

|Large Billboards | |

A4. Commercial-in-Confidence information has been provided to Councillors separately.

|TYPE |NUMBER |

|CityLight Panels |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |

|Premier Panels |[Commercial-in Confidence] |

|Large Billboards |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |

Q5. How many complaints has Council received for breaches of development conditions in the 2019-2020 financial year?

A5. Council received 2,152 contacts about potential breaches of development conditions.

Q6. How many complaints has Council received for breaches of development conditions in period 1 July 2020 – 31 December 2020?

A6. Council received 1,073 contacts about potential breaches of development conditions.

Q7. How many notices has Council issued for breaches of development conditions in the 2019-2020 financial year?

A7. Council issued 842 notices relating to breaches of development conditions.

Q8. How many notices has Council issued for breaches of development conditions in period 1 July 2020 – 31 December 2020?

A8. Council issued 344 notices relating to breaches of development compliance.

Q9. How many fines has Council issued for breaches of development conditions in the 2019-2020 financial year?

A9. Council issued 25 infringements and 3 warning infringements.

Q10. How many fines has Council issued for breaches of development conditions in period 1 July 2020 – 31 December 2020?

A10. Council issued 5 infringements and 2 warning infringements.

Q11. Which suburbs and how many jobs per suburb have been lodged for collection of illegal dumping since 1 April 2020?

A11.

|Suburb |Number |

|ACACIA RIDGE |22 |

|ALBION |11 |

|ALDERLEY |8 |

|ALGESTER |9 |

|ANNERLEY |17 |

|ANSTEAD |1 |

|ARCHERFIELD |1 |

|ASCOT |2 |

|ASHGROVE |4 |

|ASPLEY |1 |

|AUCHENFLOWER |7 |

|BALD HILLS |17 |

|BALMORAL |5 |

|BANYO |6 |

|BARDON |3 |

|BELLBOWRIE |1 |

|BELMONT |1 |

|BOONDALL |10 |

|BOWEN HILLS |1 |

|BRACKEN RIDGE |17 |

|BRIDGEMAN DOWNS |5 |

|BRIGHTON |19 |

|BRISBANE CITY |6 |

|BROOKFIELD |5 |

|BULIMBA |7 |

|BURBANK |5 |

|CALAMVALE |29 |

|CAMP HILL |5 |

|CANNON HILL |9 |

|CARINA |6 |

|CARINA HEIGHTS |16 |

|CARINDALE |17 |

|CARSELDINE |2 |

|CHANDLER |4 |

|CHAPEL HILL |2 |

|CHELMER |1 |

|CHERMSIDE |17 |

|CHERMSIDE WEST |3 |

|CLAYFIELD |10 |

|COOPERS PLAINS |12 |

|COORPAROO |16 |

|CORINDA |2 |

|DARRA |12 |

|DEAGON |3 |

|DOOLANDELLA |36 |

|DREWVALE |8 |

|DURACK |18 |

|DUTTON PARK |3 |

|EAGLE FARM |1 |

|EAST BRISBANE |12 |

|EIGHT MILE PLAINS |21 |

|ELLEN GROVE |9 |

|ENOGGERA |3 |

|EVERTON PARK |15 |

|FAIRFIELD |4 |

|FIG TREE POCKET |3 |

|FITZGIBBON |13 |

|FOREST LAKE |35 |

|FORTITUDE VALLEY |6 |

|GAYTHORNE |4 |

|GEEBUNG |6 |

|GORDON PARK |3 |

|GRACEVILLE |2 |

|GRANGE |5 |

|GREENSLOPES |6 |

|GUMDALE |1 |

|HAMILTON |11 |

|HEATHWOOD |14 |

|HEMMANT |7 |

|HENDRA |3 |

|HERSTON |5 |

|HIGHGATE HILL |7 |

|HOLLAND PARK |4 |

|HOLLAND PARK WEST |10 |

|INALA |74 |

|INDOOROOPILLY |12 |

|JINDALEE |2 |

|KALINGA |3 |

|KANGAROO POINT |5 |

|KARANA DOWNS |4 |

|KARAWATHA |6 |

|KEDRON |5 |

|KELVIN GROVE |11 |

|KENMORE |11 |

|KEPERRA |7 |

|KHOLO |1 |

|KURABY |14 |

|LARAPINTA |1 |

|LOTA |3 |

|LUTWYCHE |6 |

|LYTTON |1 |

|MACGREGOR |7 |

|MANLY WEST |9 |

|MANSFIELD |5 |

|MCDOWALL |1 |

|MIDDLE PARK |2 |

|MILTON |4 |

|MITCHELTON |4 |

|MOGGILL |2 |

|MOOROOKA |10 |

|MORNINGSIDE |8 |

|MOUNT GRAVATT |2 |

|MOUNT GRAVATT EAST |13 |

|MURARRIE |2 |

|NATHAN |1 |

|NEW FARM |21 |

|NEWMARKET |4 |

|NORMAN PARK |4 |

|NORTHGATE |2 |

|NUDGEE |3 |

|NUDGEE BEACH |1 |

|NUNDAH |18 |

|OXLEY |6 |

|PADDINGTON |9 |

|PALLARA |5 |

|PARKINSON |7 |

|PETRIE TERRACE |2 |

|PINKENBA |2 |

|PULLENVALE |2 |

|RANSOME |2 |

|RED HILL |2 |

|RICHLANDS |17 |

|RIVERHILLS |2 |

|ROBERTSON |5 |

|ROCHEDALE |14 |

|ROCKLEA |8 |

|RUNCORN |16 |

|SALISBURY |3 |

|SANDGATE |8 |

|SEVENTEEN MILE ROCKS |2 |

|SHERWOOD |2 |

|SHORNCLIFFE |1 |

|SINNAMON PARK |6 |

|SOUTH BRISBANE |3 |

|SPRING HILL |9 |

|ST LUCIA |10 |

|STAFFORD |4 |

|STAFFORD HEIGHTS |5 |

|STONES CORNER |3 |

|STRETTON |4 |

|SUNNYBANK |11 |

|SUNNYBANK HILLS |9 |

|TAIGUM |12 |

|TARINGA |9 |

|TARRAGINDI |6 |

|TENERIFFE |2 |

|THE GAP |10 |

|TINGALPA |7 |

|TOOWONG |13 |

|UPPER KEDRON |1 |

|UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT |15 |

|VIRGINIA |2 |

|WACOL |2 |

|WAKERLEY |4 |

|WAVELL HEIGHTS |7 |

|WEST END |7 |

|WESTLAKE |2 |

|WILLAWONG |3 |

|WILSTON |2 |

|WINDSOR |8 |

|WISHART |3 |

|WOOLLOONGABBA |3 |

|WOOLOOWIN |4 |

|WYNNUM |4 |

|WYNNUM WEST |13 |

|YEERONGPILLY |5 |

|YERONGA |7 |

|ZILLMERE |27 |

Q12. Which Ward offices have requested extra waste voucher booklets for the 2020/21 period?

A12. Runcorn, Bracken Ridge, Chandler, Deagon and Forest Lake.

Q13. How many extra waste voucher booklets by Ward have the offices been given from waste?

A13. The above ward offices have been provided with an additional 200 vouchers since their initial delivery of 200 vouchers at the start of the financial year.

Q14. How many jobs have been completed under the Good Neighbour Program for residents wanting to dispose of unwanted large items since 1 April 2020?

A14. 1,532 collections have been completed.

Q15. How many requests have been received for the Good Neighbour Program since 1 April 2020?

A15. 2,217 requests have been received for the program.

Please note, many of these requests are scheduled for collection on future dates.

Q16. How many wood fire BBQ’s are there in Council parks? Please list their locations.

A16. 92 wood-fired BBQ’s in Council Parks.

Wood-fired BBQ Locations: (Please note some parks have more than one BBQ).

|Suburb |Park Name |

|Yeronga |Jacaranda Park |

|Wynnum |Kitchener Park |

|Tingalpa |Kianawah Park |

|Norman Park |Wilson Park |

|Mount Gravatt East |Chester Park Reserve |

|Camp Hill |Tarana Street Park |

|Keperra |Oxford Grove Park |

|Ashgrove |Dorrington Park |

|Gordon Park |Gordon Park Playground Park |

|Zillmere |Victor Grenning Park |

|Zillmere |Joseph Lee Park |

|Mt Coot-tha |Mt Coot-tha Reserve |

|Moggill |Moggill Ferry Reserve |

|Brookfield |Brookfield Recreation Reserve |

|Sandgate |Sandgate Foreshores Park |

|Brighton |Sandgate Third Lagoon Reserve |

|Brighton |Sandgate Third Lagoon Reserve |

|Sandgate |Sandgate Second Lagoon Reserve |

|Sherwood |Strickland Terrace Park |

|Sherwood |Sherwood Arboretum |

|Oxley |Rikki Bailey Park |

|East Brisbane |Heath Park |

|Fairfield |Princess Street Park (No. 5-21) |

|Yeronga |Rowlinson Park |

|Tarragindi |Tarragindi Recreation Reserve |

|St Lucia |Guyatt Park |

|Taringa |Robertson Park |

|Indooroopilly |Sir John Chandler Park |

|Indooroopilly |Sir John Chandler Park |

|Taringa |Taringa Playground Park |

|Mansfield |Broadwater Picnic Ground Park |

|Nudgee |Nudgee Waterhole Reserve |

|Pinkenba |Myrtletown Reserve |

|Toowong |Anzac Park |

|Taringa |Oakman Park |

|Lota |Herbert Street Park |

|Rocklea |Fauna Parade Park |

|Salisbury |Bill Moore Park |

|Inala |Cormorant Street Park |

|Belmont |She-Oak Park |

|Coorparoo |Leicester Street Park |

|Carindale |Meadowlands Picnic Ground Park |

|Mansfield |Tillack Park |

|Bellbowrie |Booker Place Park |

|Algester |Col Bennet Park |

|Chapel Hill |Rebecca Street Park |

|Indooroopilly |Carinya Street Park |

|Graceville |Graceville Riverside Parklands |

|Ascot |Mikado Street Park |

|Algester |Lorikeet Park (Algester) |

|Durack |Durella Street Park |

|Lota |Bill Lamond Park |

|Chapel Hill |Marmindie Street Park |

|Chapel Hill |Clarina Street Park |

|Carindale |Anna Smith Obe Quota Park |

|Kenmore |Twilight Street Park |

|Yeronga |Ron Goeldner Park |

|Fig Tree Pocket |Fig Tree Common Park |

|Sinnamon Park |Settlers Park |

|Chapel Hill |Cicada Park |

|Bellbowrie |Fiddlewood Crescent Park |

|Archerfield |Kerry Road Park |

|Chermside West |Martindale Street Park |

|Newmarket |Free Street Park |

|Aspley |Rainbow Lorikeet Park |

|Coopers Plains |Joy Taylor Park |

|Forest Lake |Pacific Parade Park |

Q17. How many wood fire BBQ’s have been replaced since 1 August 2020?

A17. Three.

Q18. How many animal clubs or associations have had their application rejected for the hire of a Council hall in the last 3 years?

A18. There have been two instances in the last five years where it was requested that animals be permitted on site and those requests were declined.

1. Cavy Owners and Breeders Society of Inala Inc. requested hire of New Inala Hall for showing guinea pigs in January 2021, and;

2. Queensland Gundog Association requested hire of Forest Lake Hall in August 2016 for a dog handling and grooming class.

Alternate facilities for these requests were suggested, such as the designated dog pavilion and facilities at the Durack Showgrounds that Dogs Queensland manage.

Note that animal clubs or associations are permitted to hire Council’s community facilities if the venue is available for their desired time. Animal clubs or associations bringing their animals into the venue is not permitted, as per the Hire Agreement under Clause 6.2 (d).

Q19. How many Council hire contracts have been varied to allow an animal club or association to hire a Council hall?

A19. Zero.

Q20. What are the steps to vary a Council hall hire agreement?

A20. A proposal to vary is drafted and reviewed by Council’s City Legal team to ensure all aspects of legislation are adhered to, with final approval given by the Branch Manager.

Q21. Since 1 August 2020 how many calls has the Contact Centre registered for residents requesting a waste voucher booklet as they did not receive one in the mail?

A21. The Contact Centre received and processed 2,954 requests.

The process for reissuing vouchers includes steps to ensure the requestor is entitled to receive the vouchers. The number has increased since July 2020 when the process for delivery of vouchers changed to include tenants for non-owner occupied properties.

Q22. It was reported in the Courier Mail on the 17th January 2021 that a small Maltese pup was mauled to death by another dog in Doolandella; can you please advise on what street this happened in Doolandella?

A22. Rockfield Road, Doolandella.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6:23pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIR

Council officers in attendance:

Victor Tan (A/Senior Council and Committee Officer)

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.

Google Online Preview   Download