S3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4639 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 16 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
APOLOGY: 1
MINUTES: 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 2
QUESTION TIME: 8
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: 21
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 21
A BRISBANE METRO PROJECT – REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION 38
B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR DECEMBER 2020 40
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 55
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LOCAL BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES FOR 2021 AND RETAIL TOOLKIT 57
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 59
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – SAFER PATHS TO SCHOOL 61
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 61
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MAJOR INNER CITY PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION IMPACT COORDINATION UPDATE 68
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INVESTIGATE MEASURES TO DISINCENTIVISE NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS FROM USING NORTHGATE ROAD, NUNDAH, BETWEEN SANDGATE AND TOOMBUL ROADS 69
C PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CAR PARKING SPACES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BAY TERRACE AND CHESTNUT STREET, WYNNUM 72
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REINSTATE THE FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BOUNDARY STREET, BRISBANE CITY, AND THAT A CROSSING BE PROVIDED AT THE INTERSECTION WITH IVORY STREET 73
E PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REMOVE THE PARTIALLY INSTALLED SPLITTER ISLAND ON ST CLAIR STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF BATTEN STREET, KEDRON 75
F PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPLEMENT A 40 KM/H SPEED LIMIT AND INSTALL SIGNAGE ON RAGNOR ROAD, HEMMANT, IN THE AREA OF PAUL CONTI PARK, AND A 20 KM/H SPEED LIMIT ON MAJESTIC CRESCENT, HEMMANT 78
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 80
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PARK UPGRADES IN PLANNING – 2020-21 85
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL DEFER DOG OFF-LEASH AREA TRIALS ON BEACHES AND FORESHORES UNTIL SIGNIFICANT DOG ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED 85
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL A SKATE PARK DESIGNED BY SKATEBOARDERS IN THE KENMORE AREA 88
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL LIGHTING AT THE SKATE PARK FACILITY IN AMAZONS PLACE PARK, JINDALEE 90
E PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL URGENTLY INSTALL A DUCK RAMP AT VECTIS STREET PARK, NORMAN PARK, AND URGENTLY REPAIR THE VECTIS STREET STORMWATER HARVESTING DEVICE TO BE USED BY LOCAL SPORTING CLUBS 91
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE 92
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT CENTRES 93
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE 94
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE FESTIVAL 2020 HIGHLIGHTS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2021 98
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE 99
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COUNCIL-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THE 2011 FLOOD 105
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 107
GENERAL BUSINESS: 107
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 111
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 115
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) | |
|Fiona HAMMOND (Marchant) | |
|Vicki HOWARD (Central) | |
|Steven HUANG (MacGregor) | |
|Sarah HUTTON (Jamboree) | |
|Sandy LANDERS (Bracken Ridge) | |
|James MACKAY (Walter Taylor) | |
|Kim MARX (Runcorn) | |
|Peter MATIC (Paddington) | |
|David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) | |
|Ryan MURPHY (Chandler) | |
|Angela OWEN (Calamvale) | |
|Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) (Deputy Chair of Council) | |
| |Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Jonathan SRI (The Gabba) |
| |Independent Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) |
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chair, Councillor Andrew WINES, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.
Chair: I declare the meeting open.
Are there any apologies?
Councillor CASSIDY.
APOLOGY:
482/2020-21
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 Steve GRIFFITHS.
MINUTES:
483/2020-21
The Minutes of the 4638 meeting of Council held on 9 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, I draw to your attention item number three, the public participant. Today we have two and I would like to first introduce Ms Katy Briggs to address the Chamber on the Norman Park Ferry cancellation.
Welcome, Ms Briggs, you may stand or sit, whichever you prefer.
Ms Katy Briggs: At my height I’ll probably stand.
Chair: You have five minutes which begins when you begin.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Ms Katy Briggs – Norman Park ferry cancellation
Ms Katy Briggs: Thank you very much. Mr Chair, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, my name is Katy Briggs and I’m a member of the Friends of the Norman Park Ferry group. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Norman Park residents have been provided with the following reasons for the abrupt closure of the Norman Park ferry. First, safety concerns concerning the monohull wooden ferries. Second, inaccessibility of the terminal by KittyCats. Third, wheelchair inaccessibility of the current terminal. Four, low patronage.
As the Council has not shared some critical data which informed the decision to cancel the ferry service, we have written to both the LORD MAYOR and to Councillor MURPHY, requesting the following. A copy of the feasibility report, including all findings and a copy of the BCC (Brisbane City Council) impact report to be made available for public scrutiny on the BCC website, with a period for scrutiny and community response as per our right. As yet we have not received anything from that request.
The TransLink alternative to the Norman Park ferry offered by Council adds 40 minutes to the New Farm trip. According to the Council’s own transport plan, the factors that influence whether to take a car or use public transport are how fast is my door-to-door trip, how accessible is transport, how long a wait, how far to walk. Additionally the plan notes that 40% of all public transport trips are for social, recreation, shopping and personal use.
Bearing in mind these facts, it’s likely that some of those 45,000-plus trips will now be made by car. This outcome will not meet Council’s own goal to decrease car traffic, congestion and pollution, a particular problem as you all know for Wynnum Road. In the absence of prior community consultation we request the answers to the following 11 questions, to provide transparency to the whole process of cutting a valued public transport link.
(1) What steps over the past years have been taken to upgrade the Norman Park ferry terminal, as well as meet critical disability requirements? We pay rates each year in the reasonable expectation that what services we do have will be maintained. (2) What were the specifications that formed the basis of the quote for the $7 million upgrade to the Norman Park terminal? The cost seems prohibitive, especially as the extensive New Farm terminal upgrade was a fraction of this cost in 2019. (3) Was a less expensive structure considered to allow access by KittyCats?
(4) What other alternatives were considered to ensure Norman Park residents continued to have direct access to the river and the CityCat network? (5) Why was there no prior community consultation embarked upon before this decision was taken? (6) What are the patronage figures for every ferry service assessed to allow a meaningful comparison of Norman Park’s 45,000-plus per annum trips with those other ferries? (7) What is the ferry patronage for the free ferries?
(8) What are the environmental and traffic impact studies to indicate
these 45,000 trips and actually where are they? (9) Is patronage the basis
upon which the Council will evaluate other Brisbane public transport
networks in the future? On that basis, a service such as the Sandgate Station/Sandgate/Deagon/Shorncliffe bus, which carries less than 2,000 passengers a year, might well next be in line for a cut. (10) Will other Brisbane communities be consulted prior to their public transport routes being cut because they are deemed underutilised? Or is the Norman Park model the new normal?
(11) Is Council proposing to only support profitable routes, which is not really the core purpose of public transport? To show good faith we request the Council provide answers to all 11 questions posed here, which I will happily leave here with contact details, as I don’t expect anybody to leap up and answer 11 questions. In conclusion, to lose a transport service for any community is a disaster. To be offered no reasonable alternative is appalling. To have no community engagement is unforgiveable. To be denied access to the data which backs up this decision is unbelievable. Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to speak to you.
Chair: Thank you, Ms Briggs.
I will now call upon Councillor MURPHY to respond.
Response by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Ms Briggs for taking the time to come in today and address Council on the closure of the Norman Park cross-river ferry service. I appreciate the passion that you have for your community and I understand the disappointment that you feel on losing this service. By way of history, the monohull ferries and the service that they provide have been a wonderful part of Brisbane’s cityscape, I think we can all agree, for the past 30 years. It was not an easy decision for Council to remove this service.
As you know, we did so in July last year, after concerns were raised about the safety and reliability of the monohull ferry fleet. Council did so out of an abundance of caution and in the interests of public safety and on that decision we have no regrets. Since the monohulls were removed from service we’ve sourced five KittyCats, as you know, to restore most of our cross-river and CityHopper services. As part of that, Council reviewed the network prior to the KittyCats commencing service, examining the compatibility of the existing terminals within the network with the KittyCats, as well as the patronage of each individual service and the vessel numbers that we needed to service the network, keeping in mind we only have five vessels.
The review found that the Norman Park terminal was not compatible with berthing the KittyCats, is not accessible by all members of the community and the costs to rebuild the terminal were prohibitive based on the numbers of passengers that it served. Discontinuing this service was not an easy decision to make and like all decisions that Council makes, we needed to weigh up the financial implications of this decision on a citywide basis. As you may be aware, patronage numbers dating back to 2007 were reviewed. So since 2010, the average daily patronage based on a financial year has not exceeded 139 passengers per day.
For comparison, the nearby service, the Bulimba to Teneriffe service, carries 574 passengers daily, so a significant difference. The figure of 133 passengers per day was calculated from July 2019 to January 2020, using pre-COVID-19 passenger numbers to ensure that the most recent figures were reviewed as part of the decision. This equates to unfortunately less than one person per service. The very concept of public transport is to make available group travel for use by the general public. Patronage of less than one passenger per service flies in the face of the principle of public transport.
Some Norman Park residents have suggested to me that the answer to this is to reduce the number of services available, to make the services hourly or some other frequency. But if a service that has unbearably low patronage on a frequency of 15 minutes, what is going to happen when we make that frequency one hour? I respectfully suggest to you, Ms Briggs, that it would not improve the service patronage. Nor would it lower Council’s costs, which are relatively fixed at running a vessel back and forth between New Farm Park and Norman Park, or the onshore and marine infrastructure which you mentioned, which is fixed at a high cost of approximately $7 million.
Now, it’s important to note that Norman Park as a suburb is well serviced by public transport. Over 6,000 people live in the suburb of Norman Park and there are 29 bus stops, 14 routes comprised of 11 regular routes, two district routes and a NightLink service, as well as a major train station on the Cleveland line. It’s perhaps for this reason that the ferry has been the last choice for many residents in the last decade since it was reintroduced.
Now, I accept that public transport options and alternatives do not provide as quick or an easy commute to New Farm Park. I understand that the alternatives are difficult, certainly for some passengers. But I’m glad, Ms Briggs, that you’ve come to this place because here in City Hall you’ll see in front of you the 26 Councillors, each from different parts of the city. Not many of them represent wards, I would suggest, with better access to public transport than Norman Park residents and each of them would have to sacrifice significant investments in public transport in their wards in order to allow funding to upgrade the Norman Park terminal.
Now, this is not to pick on anyone, but for example, one of our Councillors, Councillor ADERMANN, sits on the Public and Active Transport Committee and he has nearly 5,000 people living in the suburb of Moggill, so comparative to Norman Park. They have one bus stop and two regular bus services. So no ferries, no CityCats—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, allow the response to be heard in silence please.
No, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor MURPHY, please.
Councillor MURPHY: No ferries, no CityCats and no train line, Chair. The biggest recent public transport investment in his ward is that Council has invested $72,000 for a funded Maxi Taxi to help get kids to and from school. Just to give you, Ms Briggs, some perspective about the nature of investment required to keep the Norman Park cross-river ferry running. Now, I would say no one on this side of the Chamber takes any pleasure in removing public transport services and it’s true that we have made choices about the investments which will provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.
I want to thank you, Ms Briggs, for coming in today. I appreciate you sharing your experiences of the ferry and some of the questions that you have and I will endeavour to get back to you on as many of them as I can. Once again, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I can tell you that Council’s decision on the Norman Park cross-river ferry will not change. Thank you very much for coming in.
Chair: Thank you, Ms Briggs. Mr Peers will see to you.
Councillors, as I said a moment ago, there were two public participants today. The second is Mr Mark Stanton, who’ll be addressing us about the closure of the Norman Park ferry service.
Welcome, Mr Stanton, as I said, you may have heard earlier, you’re welcome to stand or sit, whichever is your preference and you have five minutes, commencing when you begin.
Ms Mark Stanton – Closure of the Norman Park ferry service
Mr Mark Stanton: Thank you, Mr Chair, LORD MAYOR and Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity again this afternoon to address this Council in regards to the matter which my previous colleague or counterpart mentioned and that’s the—I know when I talk of this this afternoon, I have the full support of not only the people of Norman Park, but the people of Brisbane who have expressed concern at the closure of such a service, knowing full well that that could come to their suburb in the near future.
So we’ve received many replies and letters of encouragement and so forth and post to the Friends of Norman Park Ferry society, to encourage us to pursue this and we do so with as much vigour as we possibly can. So referring to that, my colleague or my friend has already mentioned that previously and there might be a number of points here that she has raised that I might raise again, but I hope you bear with me and I’ll try and pass through those as quick as possible.
The bridge closure initially or essentially closes our ready access, which we’ve had for 100 years, to that part of the other side of the river, Norman Park to New Farm. There are a lot of amenities in that area, apart from the rivercats our only access, our ready access to the rivercats which then enables us to take our families and friends either to business or to other pleasures up and down the river. Like many other suburbs in our region, Norman Park continues to grow and as someone just mentioned, or the Councillor mentioned that the population is now about 6,000, so it’s grown substantially in the last 15 years. Obviously, so has rate revenue.
So residents of Norman Park, whilst we’re getting stories of the costs and so forth, we’re aware that we’re supplying additional revenue to that area. What is particularly disappointing in this aspect is the closure without any consultation whatsoever. At no stage before the previous Council election was this matter raised. At no stage was it even mentioned before the Council election that we could be undergoing activities to those rivercraft in the form of upgrades or servicing.
So it is particularly annoying then that no consultation process happened with the residents and upon finding this out—and the only way we found out was by a general letter to the public when the servicing was nearly complete, that unfortunately the rivercats would not be all returning, that some would be replaced by KittyCats, but unfortunately to the residents of Norman Park, nothing for you. So here we are now left without our crossing, not to mention a bridge or anything in the pipeline to happen to get us across there.
We find that Brisbane the River City, we’re forever hearing, Brisbane the River City, Brisbane is about the river. Brisbane the hopeful hosts of the coming 2032 Olympic Games, where public transport will be a critical issue given that this city will be one of the first major cities in the world that will not have an underground railway system. Brisbane forever being told by the Council to use public transport at all costs. What the Council has actually done now is put more road users back on an already congested system running through Norman Park and they are well aware of that because of the funds they’ve just spent upgrading, or trying to upgrade from the area of the Riding Road cemetery through to Mowbray Park.
So the reasons given, as Katy has already explained, one of the main reasons is cost. Costs of $7 million for an upgrade we find absurd and ludicrous. Why do we find it absurd and ludicrous? We find it so because directly opposite us in 2018 the Council spent $7.2 million upgrading the New Farm Park terminal, $7.2 million, which accommodates two large rivercats at any one time, plus other craft. Alongside it they have recently spent ratepayers’ funds of $2.3 million to place a hub there, it is called a hub, which is to take recreational activities. Recreational activities must never and should never come before the supply of public transport.
Public transport should be high on the agenda of any Council, as along with water supply and other pressure rates requirements for the general public. So again, I stipulate that $2.3 million spent on a hub which is vastly underused at this stage, particularly during the week, is only used of a weekend at this stage by operators who collect patrons going on river tours. So very minimal use there and I can assure you, very minimal use with other craft that lodge there. In particular, those craft that do lodge there are overstaying and illegally staying overnight and to my knowledge, nothing’s been done about that at this stage.
Chair: Mr Stanton, you have eclipsed the five-minute mark that you were allocated. If you wouldn’t mind, would you mind taking a seat and we’ll allow Councillor MURPHY to respond to you.
Councillor MURPHY.
Response by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you, Mr Chair and thank you, Mr Stanton, I really appreciate the time that you’ve taken out of your day to come here and address Council on an issue that’s very important to you and the rest of the Norman Park community. I note, Mr Stanton, that you have corresponded with Council on a number of different issues, including the recreation hubs and the ferries, so I want to thank you for the correspondence that you’ve sent to the LORD MAYOR and myself on that. As I stated in my response to Ms Briggs, that our decision to remove the service was not an easy one and I can assure you that this is not a party-political issue. You were alluding to elections before.
Without reiterating my previous response, the history of the cross-river ferry from New Farm to Norman Park is interesting, you mentioned the 100 years. It operated from 1912 until its closure in 1996 by the Soorley administration, when CityCat services were first introduced. The terminal was closed until December 1998, when Norman Park was reopened on a trial basis, with residents being told at the time by that administration to use it or lose it, that was once again the Soorley administration. Due to low patronage the service was again cancelled and the terminal was closed in December 2000 by the Soorley administration.
Then the last time that the Norman Park terminal reopened was in January 2007 on a trial basis, fulfilling an election commitment by the then Liberal Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman. The service was reviewed on a regular basis during that trial period to determine passenger demand and subsequent continuation of the service. For more than a decade since that time, patronage has remained consistently low and as I mentioned previously, the Norman Park to New Farm Park is the lowest, or was the lowest patronised ferry of all Council’s cross-river ferry services.
As I mentioned previously, the numbers from the pre-COVID-19 period July 2019 to January 2020, indicate comparative patronage figures for other cross-river services is significantly higher than Norman Park. In my earlier response I gave an example of two different suburbs with extremely different access to public transport, to provide some perspective on why we need to look at each service not on just its local merits, but also as part of a holistic citywide network. Each person in the city deserves access to public transport. While the quality of it may not be uniform across the city, as much as we can strive to provide equitable access, we should.
This task is made harder when we have to invest significant amounts of money in services that residents simply aren’t using in numbers that are viable. You mentioned the recreation hubs, I’d like to make the point that the last recreation hub that Council delivered came at a cost of $1.4 million, which is far less than the cost of the terminal upgrade we would have needed to deliver the upgraded Norman Park cross-river ferry terminal. This is a cost that has been relatively consistent through our upgraded ferry terminal fleet over time and space.
The river hubs that we use are not used for Council-owned public transport; they are what you would consider, I guess, public access infrastructure, not unlike public toilets or a boat ramp. They’re used for launching and short-term use of passive crafts, like kayaks, canoes and stand-up paddleboards, short-term use for recreational vessels, potential future water taxi drop-off points, private water taxis, or a rest point or destination within the network of other public pontoons. So it’s about creating a network.
We have seven currently across the city, including Northshore Hamilton, Murarrie, Bretts Wharf, New Farm Park, City Botanic Gardens, West End and Dutton Park. Mr Stanton, I appreciate the time that you’ve taken to come and address Council today and I understand how nerve-wracking it must be to come in here and address us all on an issue that you’re very passionate about. However, Council will not be reinstating the Norman Park cross-river ferry at this time.
I certainly understand there is a lot of enthusiasm in the community for the Norman Park ferry, as there has been each time that it has been cancelled previously. But what history shows us is that whilst there is enthusiasm for the ferry, it never translates into patronage growth. In fact while Brisbane has boomed, growing by 20%, patronage on the Norman Park ferry terminal has continued to decline. No public transport service can continue without sustainable patronage, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate.
What I am able to do is confirm what I have stated previously, that there will be public consultation on the future of the site and Council remains committed to undertaking this as soon as we have completed the relevant investigations. I can’t give you an exact timeframe for that unfortunately. Again, thank you, Mr Stanton, for the time that you and Ms Briggs have taken to come and address Council today. I’m sorry on this occasion we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you.
Chair: Thank you, Mr Stanton, Mr Peers will attend to you.
484/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Jared CASSIDY moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That Brisbane City Council immediately reinstates all public transport services it has permanently cut or paused in the last 12 months.
Chair: Right, so that is being distributed to Councillors.
Councillor CASSIDY, you have three minutes to urgency—one moment, I have an urgency resolution proposed by Councillor CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor GRIFFITHS. It is being distributed.
Councillor CASSIDY, three minutes to urgency please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. This is particularly urgent now because we have just heard from the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee and we assume that is also the LORD MAYOR’s decision, that these cuts to public transport are permanent at their decision at a Civic Cabinet level decision. Now, this isn’t a decision that this Council Chamber has made, so we know that the LORD MAYOR and Councillor MURPHY are ignoring residents, but this Council need not ignore residents. So this is a very, very simple issue, it’s about whether as a Council, as a whole Chamber here we accept the decision of Civic Council to permanently cut public transport services.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I appreciate the point you’re making. Can I please ask you to come back to urgency, to the matter of urgency. Your comments are substantive, not urgent, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Well this is urgent that this Council deals with this matter and that we have a debate here, because last week there was a meeting of 300 local residents that Councillor MURPHY said he would go to and then decided not to attend that. The LORD MAYOR wouldn’t attend that meeting either, so these residents we’ve heard today have come in here and are pleading with this Chamber, not just with the LORD MAYOR and members of the Civic Cabinet, but us as all Councillors making decisions on behalf of the city to reinstate that service at Norman Park.
We know there are other services paused or cut as well, so we think this is an entirely appropriate thing for this Chamber to debate and have everyone on record whether they support the decisions of this LORD MAYOR and this Chair of the Public Transport Committee in slashing the services. It’s urgent, Chair.
Chair: Please come back to urgency.
Councillor CASSIDY: It’s urgent, because right now those 50,000 trips that would otherwise be taken on the Norman Park ferry service are forced somewhere else. We know that Wynnum Road is one of the most congested roads in this city. It takes people 50 minutes to get from the Bulimba Peninsula, including Norman Park, into the city and the decision that the LORD MAYOR and Councillor MURPHY have made are making congestion worse. When I put to Councillor MURPHY whether he thought public transport services would make congestion worse, he agreed.
Chair: Again, Councillor CASSIDY, I’m going to make the same point. You’re making a substantive argument, not a procedural one. Can I please ask you to return your comments to urgency.
Councillor CASSIDY: Well again, Chair, it’s urgent because this LORD MAYOR refuses to listen to residents, but this Chamber need not refuse to listen to residents.
Chair: I’ll now put the resolution proposed on a matter of urgency, on a procedural matter of urgency.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Peter CUMMING 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: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
QUESTION TIME:
Chair: Councillors I will now move to question time.
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a chair of any standing committees?
Councillor ADERMANN.
Question 1
Councillor ADERMANN: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, over the last two days there has been an attempt by Labor Councillors to rewrite history on the matter of unpaid rates at the property known as Lamb House. Could you please outline the facts when it comes to disposal of property for unpaid rates and the Opposition’s record on this matter?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair and through you, Councillor ADERMANN. Labor rewriting history, surely not, surely not. We discovered today that Labor shut down the Norman Park ferry. They didn’t tell anyone that, did they? They said use it or lose it, well people didn’t and it has gone and it will remain gone, Mr Chair, because it is the right decision for the people of Brisbane. But one thing that we know Labor does consistently is to rewrite history and a classic example just came up recently in this Chamber, where we dealt with the issue of the protection of Lamb House.
Now, it’s been interesting to watch Labor shifting position on this, because it goes entirely to their credibility on this and so many other matters. Now, we saw an article appear in the paper just in recent days where Councillor CASSIDY had made the claim that Council was running roughshod over the decision-making process when it came to Lamb House. Now, it’s interesting because it wasn’t actually clear what that meant, but there are two distinct issues here. (1) Is the protection of the heritage and the prevention of any redevelopment of the site. (2) Is the issue of outstanding rates. Which one is it? What is he concerned about? So we went back through the records.
Now, on 1 September 2020, so last year, a motion came through this place to sell the property for unpaid rates. Now, is that what Labor was talking about when we’re apparently riding roughshod, because that was the claim that was made. Yet, if you look at the voting record, they didn’t vote against that; they took the courageous decision to abstain. Full of courage and vigour on this issue, they were so outraged that they abstained. But guess what their concern was, guess why they abstained, it wasn’t because of the issue you’re thinking of. They said we didn’t move fast enough to sell the property. They said—and I quote—'it appears that the rate and charges on this property have been in arrears for more than three years.’ So why is Council just acting now?
Back in September we hadn’t moved fast enough. Today apparently we’re moving too fast. So I just can’t understand where Labor is coming from here. So maybe it’s the other issue, maybe it’s not the rates. Maybe it’s the planning changes that we made to protect the dwelling, maybe that’s what we’re riding roughshod over. Well guess what, when we brought that through Council, Labor voted in favour of it. So I do not understand what their issue is. All I can understand and all we can gather out of this is they are, once again, seeking to rewrite history, play political games and mislead the people of Brisbane.
There is a person on the other side of the world who is very famous, who Councillor CASSIDY appears to have gotten all his tips from. That person used to be the President of the United States. We are not, Councillor CASSIDY, in the post-truth era. You cannot behave like Donald J. Trump and think that it is suitable for Brisbane City Council politics. You need to tell the truth, and to continually try and mislead people, to continually rewrite history, I can promise you, Councillor CASSIDY, we will call you out every time. We are happy to be judged on the decisions we make and our record.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, in future, could you please direct all comments to and through me, please?
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. We are happy to be judged on our record. We would expect nonetheless, but we will not be judged on the rubbish that Labor continues to peddle. Now, here’s another example of rewriting history. Labor would like people to believe that they are the champions of the annual kerbside collection. Well, guess what? There was no annual kerbside collection under Labor. This is an LNP initiative and it has been paused momentarily, but we will bring it back. The LNP will bring it back.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Guess what? Under Labor, there was no annual kerbside collection. That’s their policy on kerbside collection. That’s their record on kerbside collection.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, please.
LORD MAYOR, please return to the topic.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, we will continue to fight fire with fire. When Labor comes out with lies, we will challenge them on it. We will call them out—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —because, in the end, the people of Brisbane deserve the facts and not lies. They deserve the facts and not rewriting history, not mistruths, and we will continue to put out the accurate information for people to work with, to make their decisions on, and just like what we’ve seen with the Norman Park ferry, some of these decisions are not popular. I get that. Some of these decisions that we make, people will be angry at. They will be upset at. That is the nature of leadership. It’s often said, if you want everyone to be happy with you, go and sell icecream, but even then, some people will complain about the cost.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, LORD MAYOR, LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 2
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. I think the LORD MAYOR might need to replace his pacifier sometime soon. My question is to him, last Tuesday, I asked the LORD MAYOR if he would be attending a community meeting at Norman Park to listen to local residents about the impacts his decision to cut their ferry service is having on their community. As predicted, he dodged and weaved the question. In the end, he refused to attend the meeting on Wednesday night and his Public and Active Transport Chair, Councillor MURPHY, also chose to avoid those residents at all costs. Can the LORD MAYOR, Chair, please explain why he didn’t have the backbone to meet with people who pay his wage and explain why he thinks cutting their public transport service is acceptable?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Well, it’s an interesting question, Mr Chair, because as far as I can recall, we’ve just spent a lot of time discussing this matter in the Chamber. Our position is very clear. The reasons for it are very clear. Nothing has changed. There is no new information whatsoever. Now, we understand, as I said—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Could Councillors please allow the LORD MAYOR’s answer to be heard in silence?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: We understand, as I said, that there are some people upset with this decision. At any given time, there are always people upset with any leader in any office from any party. That is the nature of making the decisions that need to be made, but this is the right decision for the City of Brisbane. This is the right decision. Now, there are a number of questions raised by the public speakers. I can recall very clearly that pretty much all of those questions have already been answered and are on the public record. Now, whether Labor Councillors choose to share that information with them is a matter for themselves—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —but we have always answered the questions that have been asked to us.
Chair: Councillors — Councillor CASSIDY, please.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: LORD MAYOR—
Councillor CASSIDY, you have asked the question. Please allow the LORD MAYOR an opportunity to answer that question.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: One of the interesting things that keeps coming up is this question, for example, of the $7 million to upgrade the Norman Park ferry terminal. Look, it is a good question because $7 million is a lot of money, but I can tell you, that is the bottom end of the ferry terminal upgrade program in terms of cost. In fact, we’ve got terminals now that can cost up to $13 million to deliver, depending on their site-specific conditions, depending on the velocity of water at a particular time, depending on the constraints of the site. So $7 million would be the absolute cheapest to provide a disability compliant terminal, according to the standards that Council expects and the standards that are required under Federal disability legislation.
So yes, it is an extraordinary amount of money, and that is exactly why we are going to make sure that that money is invested in the areas where there are growing patronages, not in areas where there have been multiple trials and no growth in patronage. So these are, unfortunately, the decisions that we must make in a big, growing city. We’ve already heard that the suburb of Morningside, like many parts of Brisbane, has grown significantly, yet the patronage on this ferry has not grown. I can say that providing a $7 million terminal, I have no doubt, will not suddenly and magically grow the patronage. Reality is, there is limited demand for this cross-river service.
There are some local destinations on the other side of the river that people want to go to, such as New Farm Park, but it is not a major generator of trips and we’ve seen that. That’s not my opinion, that’s what the figures show, and so we need to continue investing in our ferry network in areas where there’s more required. Another thing, Councillor CASSIDY, through you, Mr Chair, your urgency motion, I believe, was entirely incompetent because you asked us to reinstate all of the services that had been stopped. Well, at the moment, we’re down from nine cross-river vessels down to six. So I don’t know how—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —we could possibly reinstate these services. We’ve got six vessels—
Chair: Councillors!
LORD MAYOR—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, please allow the answer to be heard in silence. All Councillors—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no, there’s interjections from all sides. Please allow the LORD MAYOR’s answer to be heard.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: He doesn’t like being called out, Mr Chair. He squawks very loudly.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: The reality is, we have six vessels which we secured through a great arrangement on the new contractor SeaLink’s behalf, so they own the vessels. We do not own the vessels.
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: This answer has been going for a long time, but the question was, why didn’t the LORD MAYOR attend the meeting at Norman Park last week? He’s going all around the world, calling me all the names under the sun, but that was a very simple question.
Chair: No, I understand that, there was—no, no, thank you. I understand the point of order you’re making. There was—that was a component of your question, but there were many components of your question and I also believe the LORD MAYOR has—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: I believe the LORD MAYOR has answered the point that you are asking for.
LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. As has been said repeatedly, the decision and the facts around the decision, the reasoning behind the decision, people may not agree with it but those facts have not changed. There is no new information here, and I can tell you, Councillor CASSIDY, we knew that there would be some people upset about this decision. That is not new either. We understood that, because we know that sometimes, decisions that are tough need to be made and there will be some people upset with us, but as I said, that is the nature of the issue.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor LANDERS.
Question 3
Councillor LANDERS: My question is to the Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, Councillor HOWARD. Councillor HOWARD, Council is committed to maintaining outstanding community facilities and our next plan will see the Carindale Library expanded for residents in the eastern suburbs. Can you outline for the Chamber what this upgrade entails?
Chair: Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Well, thank you Mr Chair, and through you, a thank you to Councillor LANDERS for the question. Carindale Library has served the community well for more than 21 years, with the first Carindale Library opening on 13 April 1999. The original library was at ground level in the same Westfield Shopping Centre. Westfield demolished the Carindale Road side of the shopping centre for a major extension of the centre in 2010. The library was moved to a temporary location at the Carindale Homemaker Centre for 18 months during construction, and then moved into its current location in 2012.
Carindale Library is one of our most loved libraries, with more than 4.4 million residents visiting since 2012. This vibrant library is well-known for its children’s literacy programs and attracts large audiences for high-profile author talks and sustainability events. There are more than 51,000 items in the diverse library collection, including collections in Chinese, Greek and Afrikaans language. As the smallest of the regional libraries, the upgrade realises an opportunity to deliver improved amenity and provide more spaces for people to meet, learn, create and enjoy our wonderful library programs.
The larger total floor space will evolve the library space to meet modern needs for public library service delivery now and into the future, in line with industry trends. This includes acknowledging the varied needs of our residents in terms of what we know they like to do when they visit our libraries, things like quiet reading, study and work, engaging with the library’s extensive program of reading, learning and cultural events, supporting programs and initiatives which build knowledge and skills through practical, hands-on learning, making and creating, and also spaces which allow residents to meet and connect in their local community.
So I am pleased to announce that works will soon begin on the Schrinner Council Administration $1.2 million upgrade to Carindale Library to provide more space for the community to enjoy, including more desks and lounges for people to study, work or enjoy a good book, a new, flexible library space that will double as a reading and study lounge, which can be transformed into a great space to deliver even more children’s programs, sustainable living programs and more author talks. We will be delivering a new kitchenette and audio-visual equipment to create a community space for everyone to enjoy.
We will also be delivering a new dedicated adult maker space to support digital literacy and lifelong learning and deliver more of our Tech Connect programs and our new ways of practical learning, making and creating. Hearing loops will be installed in both the new program and the maker space areas. We will be extending the children’s area in the main part of the library so that children have even more space to enjoy, and we will also be installing new smartblade return shelving to make it easier and more efficient to return books.
We are giving Carindale Library the very first in-library media conversion station in Brisbane. The new media conversion station will help preserve all of our special memories by converting old VHS tapes, photographs and cassettes into DVDs or onto USB to help preserve stories and history for future generations. The media conversion station will include a range of different, multimedia equipment for conversion of different types of media into digital formats. Librarians will be there to help residents learn how to use the equipment so that everyone has the opportunity to access this technology.
The media conversion station project has received financial assistance from the Queensland Government through the State Library of Queensland. This new, exciting upgrade will deliver an extra 460 square metres of space to deliver a larger total floor space of more than 2,000 square metres. Now, I know that Councillor MURPHY was very excited to see the new plans for the upgrade last week and to get a sneak peek of the wonderful things that we have in store for the Carindale Library. Works will begin later this year and we are looking forward to opening the doors to this great new space for the community to enjoy in July.
Best of all, the library will not close during construction works. The $1.2 million upgrade was only made possible by the Schrinner Council Administration’s 16 years of responsible economic management and, of course, this isn’t the only library upgrade we are delivering this year. Thanks to the more than $40 million in grant funding from the Morrison Government, we will also be delivering a $1 million upgrade to Inala Library, and this Administration has—
Chair: Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you.
Chair: Disappointingly, your time has expired.
Are there further questions?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Question 4
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, the last time Team Schrinner ordered a review of public transport services, they cut two ferry services and put a pause on two others, leaving commuters stranded. Under your Administration, Thornton Street, Kangaroo Point and Norman Park permanently closed, while Dockside and Eagle Street terminals temporarily closed. Those services were shut down without warning or community consultation, forcing thousands of residents to jump in their car and add to already congested roads across Brisbane. LORD MAYOR, you have said you will be reviewing the current bus services when the Brisbane Metro has finished.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, we know what that’s code for. LORD MAYOR, through the Chair, what other public transport services are the LNP planning to cut without telling residents?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: That’s an easy answer to that question. None, because we invest in public transport.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We spend more and more each year, and that’s one thing that you can count on.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: That’s one thing that you can see in the figures, year after year after year. We invest more on public transport. We upgrade facilities. We upgrade fleet. We upgrade bus stops and bus stations. We upgrade ferries. We build new ferries. We bring on new services. We—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: This is the thing. Once again, Labor seeks to rewrite history, because when Labor was in office, we had eight CityCats.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Eight, just eight CityCats. How many do we have now, Councillor MURPHY?
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: In fact, I’m losing count, there’s so many of them. There’s 23.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Okay, Councillors, Councillors, please.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS—no, excuse me, sorry, not Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor CASSIDY, Councillor CUMMING. Please excuse me, Councillor GRIFFITHS. Please allow the LORD MAYOR’s answer to be heard.
LORD MAYOR: Right now, at Murarrie, there’s two more under construction of the double-decker CityCats, which are fantastic vessels, and which Labor wants to bag out. Why? They’re local jobs. It’s a local company building them. They are fantastic. The community loves them. The new CityCats—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Labor are so out of touch here, because the reality is, all they rely on is hoping that people won’t remember what they did when they were in office.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: They whinge and whine and carry on, they throw out blatant mistruths, and it was interesting because one of the speakers before used an example about a service that might be cut in the future from the Deagon Ward. I wonder where that came from.
Councillor interjecting.
A conspiracy theory about services that might be cut in the Deagon Ward.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We have no intention of doing anything—
Chair: Okay, Councillors. All right, Councillors, there’s a lot of chatter around the whole room. Please allow the LORD MAYOR to answer the question in silence.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. We have no intention of doing anything but investing more in public transport, in delivering better services and an upgraded fleet and upgraded facilities, because we want to see more people on public transport. The reality is, any serious transport planner anywhere in the world would know that, if a service is not being used, is not growing as the population grows, then you need to reassess where that funding can be reinvested to generate more return, to generate—and when I say return, I’m not talking about profit because public transport does not make a profit.
There are only two or three cities in the world where that can happen, and the profits are largely based on property development, in fact. Places like Hong Kong where the money comes from property development above stations, not from actually people paying for fares. So we don’t have an expectation that public transport services will generate a profit, but we have an expectation that they’ll be used.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: That’s a reasonable expectation. So if a service is not used, that’s not somehow our decision. That’s the voters’ decision. That’s the passengers’ decision on whether to use that service or not. So we have a responsibility to make sure that the public funds that go into public transport are directed towards where the highest priorities are, where there’s growing demand, where there’s overcrowding on services that we can add additional services to, and we know that that’s exactly what has happened again and again and again in the public transport network.
We’ve invested more and we’ve tried to target that investment where it is needed the most. We’ve seen—until COVID-19, as well, which has obviously impacted on public transport patronage—we’ve seen good growth across the network in recent times and we know that that growth will only continue in the future. As I said recently in this place, even if you don’t use public transport, there is a good reason for all Brisbane residents to be supportive of investment in public transport because we all benefit from it, whether you’re a motorist, whether you’re a public transport user, you benefit from public transport use and that’s why we continue to invest more and more each year.
We are proud of our record on public transport. We are proud of the new vessels that are in place. We are proud of our investment in the bus fleet and in the Brisbane Metro project, and a whole range of other public transport improvements. We will continue to invest more and more. Now, Labor would suggest that this is somehow a cost saving exercise. That’s the narrative that they’re trying to feed in here. We’re not saving any money. We’re reinvesting into areas where it is needed and that’s what we will continue to do.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Further questions?
Councillor HUANG.
Question 5
Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, Councillor ALLAN. Councillor ALLAN, last week we heard Councillor CUMMING prompt the Chamber about the City of Brisbane Investment Corporation’s (CBIC) Annual Report, a great report, to say the least. Can you please give an update on CBIC’s 2020 Annual Report?
Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor HUANG, for your question. I was pleased to hear from you that Councillor CUMMING’s keenness to raise CBIC’s 2020 Annual Report during his General Business contribution last week—certainly, as you’re suggesting, it was a very informative document, very fulsome, and it provided a lot of information about CBIC’s performance. Councillor HUANG, I know that you in particular are very keen to support the financial future of this city in your capacity as the Deputy Chair—
Chair: Councillor ALLAN, can I just—could I ask you to direct your comments to and through me, please?
Councillor ALLAN: Certainly, Chair. And certainly, Councillor HUANG’s commitment to the financial administration of this city—has a keen interest in CBIC. So, CBIC is Brisbane’s urban wealth fund and is charged with delivering value for Brisbane City Council and the residents of Brisbane, a duty it continues to fulfil. Since 2008, CBIC has delivered $151 million in dividends to Council. Annualised, this return is approximately 11.4% for the 12 years to June 2020. In a currently volatile marketplace, not witnessed in many of our lifetimes, CBIC’s ability to continue a stable return is highly favourable.
Through the delivery of superior, risk-adjusted, long-term returns, CBIC maintains a commitment to responsible investment principles. From little things, big things grow. This adage can be attributed to CBIC’s funds under management pool of some $308 million, all from a seed funding of $135 million. In fact, the 2019-20 financial year was CBIC’s most profitable since the fund’s inception in 2008, with a 12% return, some 4.5% above target. CBIC’s dividend assists Council to continue our investment in the city’s parks, sporting fields and public recreation spaces.
The State Government has QIC, or the Queensland Investment Corporation, and we have CBIC. In QIC’s 2020 Annual Report, they only declared a dividend of $44.2 million, particularly underwhelming when you consider the $79 billion of funds under management. They have many, many times more than CBIC. Simply put, the responsible and stable economic management of this Administration and our foresight to establish the fund in the first place is delivering returns for the rate payers of Brisbane and supporting our vision for a cleaner, greener and more liveable Brisbane.
It really is ill-informed when Labor has nothing more to say than CBIC is some form of secretive investment vehicle. There is plenty of information available on CBIC via the Annual Report, which is available via the website, and there’s also a tremendous amount of additional information on the website. So I would also add that—not only to potentially reflect on some of the information that’s available, but also the fact that CBIC is highly regarded in the investment community and is considered an excellent counterparty.
So, reflecting on some of the comments Councillor CUMMING made, the CBIC benchmarked their performance against the MSCI/Mercer Australia Core Wholesale Property Index Fund. Now, this fund measures the performance of these types of investment vehicles and I would note that the Mercer Index or the MSCI/Mercer Index does not contemplate or reflect the impact of income tax. So, they are like-for-like comparisons, so the notion that the CBIC returns are better because of tax treatment is incorrect.
Now, in the context of profits, during the full year 2020, CBIC sold two investment properties and these sales resulted, again, on sale of investment property, of $4.16 million, and this is reflected in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income, so there’s no vagueness around where the profits are coming from and how they’re being deduced. In terms of the selling expenses, you raised a point on this. $636,000 of selling expenses against the total sale value of $44.75 million or 1.4%.
So, certainly, not a significant amount. The dividends of $20 million are welcomed by this Administration every year. They aim to produce stable income. So, there’s no smoke and mirrors here. It’s abundantly clear that Councillor CUMMING is hard pushed reading an annual report or any sort of financial statement. It just proves that, if they can’t comprehend the fundamentals of finance and accounting, they can’t be trusted with the finances of the city. Thank you.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor interjecting.
Question 6
Councillor JOHNSTON: Some staffers worked hard on that one. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, the State Government has written to residents, acknowledging that there were discrepancies in the assessment of the tree protection zone for the river red gum in Francis Lookout which forms part of the DA (development application) proposal for 9 Francis Street, Corinda, something that Council has simply denied.
Given that Council relied on a faulty or inaccurate arborist report to approve the DA at 9 Francis Street, putting the significant river red gum in the park at risk, and the developer on this project is the subject of Council enforcement action on another residential development project in the western suburbs, will you now reconsider purchasing this historic parkland in Corinda to ensure it is protected and not adversely impacted by the approved DA and three future DAs adjoining the site?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Through you, the question is news to me, but what I have learnt time and time again in the future is—in the past is not to rely on what Councillor JOHNSTON says in the Chamber, because she is very crafty at using words which say one thing but may not be reflective of the actual situation. So, look, I am not going to take your word for it, Councillor JOHNSTON, because I have seen no such information. You talk about some information from State Government, I would hope that you would table that information.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, LORD MAYOR—
LORD MAYOR: Through you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Please, yes.
LORD MAYOR: Yes. It would be good if Councillor JOHNSTON, Mr Chair, could table such information, because I am certainly not aware of that information. If Councillor JOHNSTON has such information, then I’d like to see it. Thank you.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Question 7
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of City Planning and Economic Development Committee, Councillor ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, it was recently announced that Brisbane City Council are a recipient of the 2021 Readiness Challenge from the Smart Cities Council. Can you outline what this award means to Brisbane?
Chair: Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor HAMMOND, for the question, because we are very, very excited to add another notch to the awards belt for the Schrinner Council Administration in a time, in this global arena, recognising Brisbane City Council as one of the world’s leading smart cities. So, with our lifestyle and liveability brand firmly cemented, it is fantastic to gain recognition from this leading authority for our commitment to data-driven decision making and intelligent city management. I’ve updated the Chamber here numerous times over the past year on the work that we’ve been doing to monitor and report on the impacts of the coronavirus and track our economic recovery.
In a world of increasing complexity and disruption, this data has quickly become the organisation’s most valuable asset. The City Analytics team is the nexus to where our city becomes smart. We have the oversight in our city now on how businesses are performing, and we are able to take a more proactive approach to city management. From launching our open data website in 2015, which was very ground-breaking at the time, as well, a little bit nerve-wracking for some of us in our first steps to deploying 20 smart poles in 2020.
We have now been delivering on the ground informative projects for many years, but it’s what’s actually happening behind the scenes that is most impressive and has earnt us the spot as one of the world’s leading smart cities. I’d like to share with you just some of the ways in which we use this data to transform the way we operate and adapt policy to save costs and improve service delivery for our residents. City Life Dashboard is something we’re all familiar with. It shows changes in activity and movement, including pedestrian and cycle counters, traffic, e-scooters, bus patronage and parking.
We’ve been presenting that every quarter when we come to our City Planning and Economic Development Committee presentations, but these changes are reported daily, weekly and monthly, and are used to better understand the emerging trends and patterns observed. As we move through periods of lockdown and then begin to open our city to workers and visitors, we can draw direct correlation between these movements and where people are choosing to spend their money and across which industries, including retail, accommodation, dining and entertainment.
Break this down further into day and nighttime economy precincts, factor in major events, festivals, holiday seasons, and we have a pretty clear picture of our city’s path to recovery. In doing so, we’re also able to determine then where additional services may be required and to inform future investment opportunities, but it’s not just COVID-19-related and it’s not just CBD-focused. These insights are allowing us to visualise demand and usage trends across numerous suburban precincts, facilities, and Council assets. In our parks and open spaces, as urban growth continues in our suburban areas, we are able to monitor park usage, ensure we have adequate facilities in place to service its users.
Ever improving our status as a clean, green and sustainable city, our network of intelligence infrastructure spanning more than 200 square kilometres has been deployed to monitor air and water quality, weather activity, and moisture in our sporting fields. This means we have real-time and reliable data to inform actions such as watering those sporting fields or maybe mosquito monitoring and spraying, as well. Waste collection, our city’s rubbish truck fleet of 80 trucks have been fitted with cameras to improve asset management and efficiency, and bin sensors to tell us which bins are used most and where we may need to install additional bins to meet demand.
Suburban retail centres, tracking spending patterns, vacant shopfronts on retail strips, and employment figures in suburbs. With our record investment in transformational infrastructure projects over the next four years, we now have the ability to capture before and after data to measure the direct economic, social and environmental impacts on our city. From economic uplift in our suburban shopping strips, through the Village Precinct Project program, to additional scooter, pedestrian and cycle movements across our soon-to-be-here green bridges, we will have our finger on the pulse at all times to deliver targeted support where it’s needed most and transform the way we plan, build and innovate for the city.
I’d like to thank the Smart Cities Council for this highly regarded award. We look forward to leading a cohort of cities in the city data leadership program this year, sharing knowledge and learnings in data solutions to create greater value for our communities. Well done to our Economic Development team. You do a fantastic job.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 8
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. We’ve just received the very latest bus driver assault statistics, and despite the Labor team in Council raising concerns around driver safety repeatedly over previous years, the number of assaults have climbed dramatically. Despite patronage being down by around 30% in December, bus drivers were either verbally or physically abused 81 times during that month. That is a doubling of assaults from the previous month.
These are Council workers, and this LNP Administration has a responsibility to make sure it does everything within its power to protect them and make sure they have a safe working environment, but all this LORD MAYOR has done is point fingers at the State Government and parade around the idea of drivers getting a COVID-19 vaccine first. A COVID-19 vaccine, Chair, won’t stop drivers from being punched, kicked and spat at, so why does this LORD MAYOR not care about the safety of Brisbane’s bus drivers?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Mr Chair, the question is, unfortunately, old and predictable and completely consistent with Labor’s MO, which is throw mud, be negative, but not actually have any real, positive solutions to improve things. The record of this Administration when it comes to bus driver safety, when it comes to investment in our bus fleet and improving the fleet is second to none in the country, second to none in the country. We have seen more investment happening in our fleet and to improve the safety of our fleet than anyone else has done in Australia, as far as I am aware, and I am proud of that record and we will continue to invest in the fleet.
It’s why, for example, with the new Brisbane Metro fleet, the vehicles, which are being designed from the ground up will have a fully separated driver compartment. That’s, in my view, a way that we can help ensure the safety of drivers. Now, we’ve talked about, for example, in the past, the difficulty in retrofitting existing buses with full driver encapsulation, and some of the challenges that come out of that, and we know that the drivers themselves are not at one when it comes to whether they want full encapsulation or not.
So what we have done is, we have trialled a number of different driver protection initiatives, whether these are different types of barriers we’ve based our decision on the feedback of drivers, and we have rolled out those barriers across the fleet. That comes on top of investment in CCTV cameras for all of our bus fleet in shatterproof glass, in a whole range of safety features in the buses, in emergency duress alarms and a whole range of protection initiatives and safety initiatives. It also comes on the back of two reports which were done in recent years, aimed at boosting and bolstering the safety of both passengers and the bus operators themselves.
So we received recommendations from both reports and we have implemented those recommendations so, while Labor Councillors can come in here and make negative claims, this Administration has a proud record when it comes to investing in the safety of our fleet and protecting our drivers.
Now, I can tell you that one of the challenging things that we have had during COVID-19 is, there’s been—in the second part of last year in particular, but all the way from March through to the end of the year, a significant and concerning uptick in crime across the community.
I do believe—this is my assumption or I guess my observation, is that—and we know one of the basic principles of public safety is called casual surveillance, and that is effectively that if there are a lot of people around, people who are prone to do the wrong thing, will be less likely to do the wrong thing if there are lots of people around in a public place. So public spaces and facilities are designed with that casual surveillance in mind.
What we had during COVID-19 is a lot of people away from the city. A lot of people away from public transport and we had an increase in crime. That was a factor in the Queen Street Mall, that was a factor for businesses throughout the city—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: There was a whole range of crimes that were up during that period and I do believe that there could well be a link when it comes to these assaults on bus drivers, where it’s a verbal assault or a physical assault.
So obviously, that is a concerning thing, but Councillor CASSIDY, through you, Mr Chair, it is certainly not because we haven’t done our part when it comes to investing in driver safety.
Now, we know that Councillor CASSIDY takes his marching instructions from the RTBU (Rail, Tram and Bus Union) and he’s been very public about that. It was very amusing to see Councillor CASSIDY pretending to be one of the workers down there in King George Square.
I remember when Councillor CUMMING was the Leader of the Opposition, he could turn up thousands of union people to the King George Square for a rally. I think Councillor CASSIDY got about 12 and he had to get all of the Labor Councillors along—and tell you what, Councillor CUMMING wasn’t happy to be there. We could tell by the look on his face.
But we saw them pretending to be workers with their loudspeakers, their loud hailers, yelling out the songs of solidarity and it was just a pathetic and tragic sight because—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time is expired.
LORD MAYOR: —there are more important things for them to be doing.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
There’s a point of order. Point of order to you, Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: It’s not relevant—
Chair: Okay, thank you.
Are there further questions?
Councillor DAVIS.
Question 9
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM, can you please give an update on Council’s Draft Brisbane Off-Road Cycling Strategy?
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to Councillor DAVIS for the question. I’m so proud that Brisbane is Australia’s most biodiverse capital city with 38.9% natural habitat cover. Our climate and lifestyle means there’s demand and enjoyment for use of our natural areas.
Within Council’s vast bushland reserves, we aim to meet the demands of a diverse range of outdoor activities, but at all times it must be done while managing and protecting the values of these natural areas.
Particularly during COVID-19 times, there’s been a growing demand for off-road cycling which includes mountain bike riding, gravel riding, cyclo-cross, riding on trails, pump tracks, skills tracks and dirt jumps.
Bike sales are growing and more people are turning to two wheels, not just for transport but for recreation. Nearly 20 years ago, back in 2003, Mt Coot-tha Reserve became the first and only designated location for single-track mountain biking in Brisbane.
Today, the tracks and trails at Mt Coot-tha are visited more than 700,000 times each year. A high level of use at peak times means that this facility is at capacity. Being at capacity, we know that it has led to illegal construction of unauthorised tracks and strong demand for additional facilities remains.
This is why Council has released the Draft Brisbane Off-Road Cycling Strategy. The draft strategy aims to guide future long-term off-road cycling opportunities in a select number of reserves and parks. It aims to offer facilities for children, adults and families with a range of skills and abilities from beginners through to advanced.
There needs to be a range of rides available from leisurely to technically challenging. At the same time, we’re trying to strike a balance where we can minimise the risk of degrading our most important habitat areas.
Critical to this will be the compliance, monitoring and management of outdoor recreation in natural areas. While mountain bike single trails are addressed in the draft strategy, there are also other opportunities being considered. For example, locations have been identified for potential skills tracks, dirt jumps or pump tracks. These will be in non-vegetated areas in urban and natural settings and include facilities which cater for off-road cycling skill development for children and adults.
Another form of off-road cycling is cyclo-cross. Cyclo-cross is a competitive form of off-road cycling held in non-vegetated and grassy areas.
Mr Chair, more people are looking to their local parks and natural areas for recreation and we want to bring cycling groups, environmental groups and the wider community together to find the right balance. However, our position is very clear. The priorities for bushland reserves is first and foremost around nature conservation, followed by outdoor recreation opportunities.
We don’t want to see the hard work of our volunteer catchment and habitat groups being undone by the creation of illegal tracks. In fact, Council will not construct or even consider off-road cycling facilities in sections of natural areas and parks that are being cared for by Habitat Brisbane and Creek Catchment groups.
This strategy keeps the protection of the natural environment as the primary concern and has already included assessment of the environmental values in parks and natural areas to determine their suitability.
Essentially, the focus has been on identifying suitable, low-impact locations for off-road cycling facilities such as non-vegetated areas. Before any trails are condoned by Council and before any construction starts, Council will carry out an environmental assessment to ensure any new facilities are sustainable.
The protection of significant habitat and wildlife corridors is a very important component of this project. If Council provides the right facilities in the right locations to meet growing demand for the activity, I believe the desire for unauthorised facilities will be greatly reduced.
In turn, this reduces the associated negative impacts such as environmental damage and safety risks, but it is a fine balance and when you’re in Administration, it’s important to tackle difficult challenges for the overall betterment of our city.
We are currently engaging widely with stakeholder groups and the broader community about our off-road cycling opportunities. Following an initial community consultation phase, results were analysed and included into a draft map of off-road cycling opportunities for the north, east, south and west regions of our city.
I’m actively encouraging all Councillors and their communities to have a read of the strategy and have their say. So far—
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM, your time has expired.
That concludes Question Time.
Councillors, I draw your attention to item 5, Committee reports. The Establishment and Coordination Committee, please.
The LORD MAYOR.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), Chair of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Krista ADAMS), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 8 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, Mr Chair. The first thing I wanted to touch on today was to thank one of our very long-serving employees who is going into retirement. That person, Mr Chair, is Mark Rigby. Now, some of you would know Mark Rigby very well—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —because he is the Curator of the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium out at Mt Coot-tha.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Mark has served the Council for 36 years and one month, which is just an incredible thing. He’s worked at the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium. He started off as the Assistant Curator in 1985 and then became the Curator in 2002.
Mark, for anyone who has met him will attest, is very, very passionate about his role and he’s passionate about the galaxy and bringing people, I guess in Brisbane, a greater knowledge of the galaxy that we live in. Everyone from the very young and the many school children who go to the planetarium, up to people of all ages who want to come and learn about our galaxy and learn about the solar system. Mark has overseen the planning and upgrades of the facility and shares an average of 1,400 sessions per year.
Some of Mark’s highlights in his 36-year career, including—include in 1986, Halley’s Comet passed by. Does anyone remember that?
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, that’s one of those things where if you were born after that, then you won’t be having a—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: I guess you won’t remember that occasion but I remember very distinctly because I was about seven at the time and my best friend at school was a guy called John Halley and he was pretty stoked that there was a comet that was named after him but Halley’s Comet came past in 1986 and the planetarium had a special program to celebrate that.
There was a lot of excitement in the community because that was a comet that only comes by about every 75, 76 years.
So Mark also approached the International Astronomical Union to have a planet named after Brisbane and that was achieved in 2009, the International Year of Astronomy and also the 150th anniversary of Brisbane becoming a municipality. So there is a planet named Brisbane and we have Mark to thank for that.
In 2015, the planetarium achieved a live cross with the American Museum of Natural History for coverage of the passing by of the planet Pluto.
We recognise Mark has helped create the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium into a unique destination of science, education and entertainment and it is such a wonderful asset to our city.
Council has benefited from Mark’s passion over the last 36 years and also, our community has benefited massively as well. So on behalf of all of us, I want to say thank you to Mark Rigby for his incredible service to the City Council but also to the people of Brisbane and for all of the children and adults that he has educated and impacted on during his time with Council.
I also wanted to talk as I usually do about the lighting up of Council assets for the coming week. This Sunday will see the Victoria Bridge, Story Bridge, Reddacliff Place sculptures, Tropical Dome, all lit up green in support of Rare Diseases Day.
This day takes place in February each year with the objective to raise awareness about diseases that are not very well known but that seriously impact on people’s lives. There’re actually two million Australians that live with a rare disease and you’ll be aware of this because with many of these sufferers of diseases, the number one priority for them is to actually get people to know about their disease because these diseases are things that we may not have heard of but have a significant impact on so many lives.
This Friday is a very important but also a very sad day for the City of Brisbane and the people of Brisbane, because this Friday marks exactly one year since the death of Hannah Clarke and her three children.
It is a day that we will never forget. Is a day that changed Brisbane and our community forever and it is a day that we are rightly honouring to honour her memory, the memory of her children, but also every single victim of domestic violence. The ones whose names that we may not know on that day, on Friday, we acknowledge them and we all recommit ourselves to doing better when it comes to stopping domestic violence. To halting domestic violence.
So I can say that every asset that we have in the City of Brisbane will be lit pink on Friday for Hannah and her three children. That includes the Brisbane City Hall, the Tropical Dome, Reddacliff Place, the Story Bridge, Victoria Bridge and also the Roma Street and South Bank Parklands.
So when you see those colours, remember Hannah and her beautiful children and remember that we must stop domestic violence. That we must recommit ourselves to the work of people like Small Steps 4 Hannah, the foundation that was set up and led by her parents and so many other supporters in the community, to achieve things that will change our city for the better.
It’s great to already see that there’s been steps taken when it comes to legislation around coercive control and that is a positive thing. I know that is one of the main aims of Small Steps 4 Hannah and I know that all Councillors will continue to support Small Steps 4 Hannah and also the many domestic violence charities that are doing incredible work in our community.
I am actually also proud to announce on a slightly related matter that one of our very own, one of our Councillors in this room tonight, has been shortlisted as one of six emerging political leaders for strong impact in a year of crisis. This nomination has been made as part of the McKinnon Prize for Political Leadership.
A judging panel for this prize includes former Labor leader, Simon Crean, former Federal Minister, Amanda Vanstone and the McKinnon Prize is an award that recognises two outstanding Australian political leaders each year.
Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM has been nominated—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —for this award, which is just fantastic and I think the simple fact that she has been nominated—obviously we all want you to win, Fiona, but the simple fact that she has been nominated is such a fantastic thing.
We all know—and I referred to the devastating impacts of the killing of Hannah Clarke and her three children 12 months ago this week, and when it comes to leadership, you can see just how people respond to that and strong leaders step up when they’re needed.
This happened in Fiona’s community and Fiona stepped up. So following these horrific events, Fiona provided ongoing support to Hannah’s family and friends as well as the wider community, to raise awareness and advocate for change to coercive control laws and prevent domestic violence.
She also coordinated the community response and continues to work alongside the Clarke family and voluntarily serves on the board of Small Steps 4 Hannah.
On what would have been Hannah’s 32nd birthday, Fiona drove the establishment of Hannah’s Place at the Bill Hewitt Reserve in Camp Hill, which provides her local community a place to reflect, to gather courage and to have difficult conversations in order to support each other in family violence situations.
I can say personally as well and it was this time of year last year. Now we know—we all know what was happening on a certain date in March last year and this was shortly before that but I can tell you, despite the fact that Fiona CUNNINGHAM was in one of the most hotly contested seats in the election, she dropped everything to support her community.
It was through many events, through much planning, through hours and hours of commitment to support both the Clarkes and her community in a time of unprecedented challenge.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve won the award, but obviously others will make that decision and I just want to commend Councillor CUNNINGHAM for being shortlisted for that important award.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Item A before us is the Brisbane Metro depot rejection of claim for compensation at 81 School Road, Rochedale. I can confirm that Stores Board yesterday selected a preferred tenderer for the construction of the Brisbane Metro depot—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
485/2020-21
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.
LORD MAYOR: Last—yesterday, the Stores Board finalised the procurement process and selected a preferred tenderer for the construction of the Metro depot out at Rochedale. That preferred tenderer is a company called ADCO. ADCO will be employing up to 170 people on the construction of this depot and it’s obviously another critical part of the Brisbane Metro project which will gear up progressively throughout the year.
We will see a one-of-a-kind depot here that has state of the art charging facilities, which has not only the room for the vehicles to be housed but also to be charged, to be maintained, administration offices and room for staff.
This is really an important facility for the Brisbane Metro project and we’re getting on with it but obviously there are a number of properties that we have acquired in order to house that depot and this particular process sees us moving forward with the process.
There have been claims made on the compensation for this property, which I won’t go into the numbers, I understand they may be commercial in confidence, but we will pay fair value as we always do for the properties here and that process will continue on. But in the meantime, we can get on with building the depot.
This process regarding the compensation for the land does not stop the depot being built so we will continue to work with the property owners in terms of resolving their claim but we can progress with the project. So we have taken possession of the land and we can continue to operate—to build the project going forward.
Item B is the contracts and tendering report for December and once again includes a number of really important projects right across the city. Upgrades that we’re doing in things like parks, in infrastructure facilities, sports clubs. A whole range of improvements across the city and I suspect there will be a number of Councillors wanting to talk about the positive projects that are coming through as part of this contracting item. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair.
Seriatim - Clauses A and B
|Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, BRISBANE METRO PROJECT – REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION; and Clause B, CONTRACTS|
|AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR DECEMBER 2020, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Councillor CASSIDY: Just on Clause A, Chair, the Brisbane Metro rejection of claim for compensation. Again, another example of how poorly the LNP and this LORD MAYOR has handled this project. Not just overseeing it as LORD MAYOR but of course in his previous role as Deputy Mayor.
So, the dispute here is adding already to huge cost blow outs for this Metro project. We know the LORD MAYOR announced a $300 million cost blow out is the latest iteration of the Brisbane Metro.
About $20 million or $25 million of that was for the undergrounding of—oh, the tunnel boring rather than cut and cover at Adelaide Street. That’s the only aspect of that cost blow out that the LORD MAYOR or Councillor MURPHY was willing to talk about at any point when this has been aired publicly.
So we know that other delays and other issues that this project has faced along the way because it was so poorly planned and being poorly delivered are adding to that cost blowout. This is clearly another one of those.
So, for the last five years, since this was announced, all we’ve seen is land arguments, glossy brochures and so far, about 100 jobs created on the Brisbane Metro. Not very much in the time of need for our city.
By the time this bendy-bus project is done, Chair, residents I’m sure will be severely underwhelmed and severely out of pocket. They were promised, of course, an underground rail system. The glossy brochures all showed that, those red brick stations with a subway train running through them. That’s what people were promised.
But what they are going to get, of course, is a very short busway extension tunnel of a couple hundred metres and the Victoria Bridge, which is already been closed to traffic now. Of course, along the way, they’re getting a big bill for the advertising of this project and legal disputes.
Chair, I think if the LORD MAYOR put as much effort into actually getting the details of this project right, as he has done in promoting the project and promoting himself along the way, we’d probably have the Metro well and truly underway by now and those banana buses running up and down the existing busway because that is exactly what this project is.
On Clause B, contracts and tendering. I want to speak to a couple of these that caught my attention. Once again, of course, the first one is the Victoria Park design contract for $1.6 million.
The company that is looking after the design of this, Urbis—is Urbis and taking a look at some of their past and current projects, you see in there a lot of commercial and residential buildings in their portfolio, Chair. You know, I think here is more evidence of what this LORD MAYOR could be planning for Victoria Park—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —when he talks about commercial opportunities in Victoria Park, we know what this Administration means when they talk about commercial opportunities. We know what kind of activities that they undertake with ratepayer’s money. You only have to go to Augustus Street at Toowong to see one of those commercial opportunities that this Administration has undertaken with ratepayer’s money. A unit development, of course.
So we’re getting more and more concerned, Chair, when we see contracts like this coming through. This looks less about developing a park and public space for the people of Brisbane and more an opportunity to develop Victoria Park into a commercial space for private operators in whatever form that will take.
We of course only have a very vague idea of what is proposed in this current term because all we see is the glossy brochures and the couple of iterations of that glossy brochure.
All that is talked about is in the current term. The—what is proposed beyond the current term, if the LORD MAYOR runs again and if he is to be successful at the next election, we’d like to know what he’s proposing then because as we know, a lot of decisions were made soon after the last election that weren’t aired and talked about before the last election.
So a lot of questions remain unanswered—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —and he’s just asking us—well he’s just asking us to trust him on this and I think the people of Brisbane will be once bitten, twice shy.
The fifth contract on this list needs addressing as well, I think, Chair, and this goes to an issue that we’ve been talking about quite a bit in this Chamber. It’s for a basic ongoing Council work. This is maintenance—preventative maintenance on Council facilities.
Obviously, a program of works that’s funded down to the last dollar, that Council knows it needs to carry out on its own assets. On its own buildings and yet this is being contracted out to private contractors, which is leading to insecure work and an erosion of wages and erosion of the conditions for working people here in Brisbane. That is a decision, a political decision, by this Council Administration.
Of course, in the economic crisis we have before us, we should be providing as many good, secure jobs as we can to give Brisbane residents the peace of mind that they can feed their families.
Another example of work that should be done in-house and we’ve—this is the third time we are talking about this contract, is the 14th contract on the list, bus disinfecting and sanitation.
This is clearly and has been clearly ongoing work for this Council Administration. We know even with the rollout of the vaccine for COVID-19 at some point this year, potentially next year for the vast majority of people here in Brisbane and around Australia, even after that vaccine is rolled out, at times masks will be required and bus sanitisation and sanitisation of Council facilities will be required and may be required forever into the future.
So, this is quite clearly important ongoing Council work and what we see before us today is a continuation of the outsourcing of that work.
If that contracting out continues and work is continually being given to these people through an external contractor, surely the argument is there to make these jobs permanent and bring these people into Council?
They—this contractor in 2020, in April 2020, was awarded a $6 million, 24-week contract. In September, they were awarded a $4 million four-month contract and now, in this report today before us, they will be receiving $5 million for a three-month contract. Obviously, the scope of that contract or the work that’s being provided is changing but it is costing ratepayers a significant amount of money.
It is necessary work. It is ongoing, important work, that Council should be carrying out itself and having direct oversight of and providing those people with secure full-time work.
The social enterprise that is receiving this contract does amazing work for the Indigenous community and we recognise that but again, this is ongoing permanent work and the people that are delivering it for this external contractor, I’m sure would appreciate a full-time job with Council and that’s what we should be aiming to do, investing in people and long-term good secure jobs where it is ongoing work. I’ll leave it at that, thanks, Chair.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Chair. I rise to speak on item A, the rejection of claim for compensation at 81 School Road and this is, of course, land that we need to build the new Metro depot. A part of a number of sites that Council has now acquired to build the depot.
We know, Chair, that the Metro vehicles will be substantially longer than the existing bus fleet and will require specialist charging infrastructure. As a result, Metro vehicles are not able to be accommodated at any of the existing bus depots without significant modification and displacement of the existing fleet capacity.
Metro operations will also benefit from the location of School Road, Rochedale, due to the close proximity to the South East Busway.
This resumption is for a property at 81 School Road, Rochedale. It’s one of eight properties that we need and we resume this property on 29 March 2019. It’s an area of 1.287 hectares and at that time, it was improved with a dwelling that has since been removed as part of Council’s ongoing demolition works out there.
On 21 December 2020, the former owners of 81 School Road submitted a claim for compensation in an amount which is commercial in confidence, plus further costs to be advised. In accordance with the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, a former property owner is also entitled to seek an advance against their compensation prior to finalising the compensation.
The advance payment is an amount up to Council’s estimate of compensation payable and independent assessors and Council officers have assessed the compensation as slightly below what the property owner has come in at.
So while we’re on the topic of the Brisbane Metro, the LORD MAYOR mentioned the tender for the contract for the design and delivery of the Metro depot was chosen through Stores Board process yesterday, which is fantastic and the LORD MAYOR announced on radio that the winner is ADCO Constructions.
As you mentioned, Chair, we are very confident that ADCO, who have over 50 years in design and construction of Australian projects, have completed 3,500 of them, will be a fantastic partner with Council to deliver this very significant project.
We know that the 10-hectare Metro site will eventually house a fleet of 60 electric vehicles and will be complete by 2023. This will be a one-of-a-kind site as it will include a large photovoltaic system which will offset some of the operational demands for Brisbane Metro to charge that infrastructure.
We actually have 2.2 megawatts of installed capacity across 37 Council sites in terms of our solar power and the Metro depot solar system alone will account for 1.1 megawatts. So this will be the single biggest Council solar site once it is up and running, which means our green Metro rolling stock will be powered by clean, green, energy—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY: —straight from the depot into the vehicles and it’s just another way that the Schrinner Council is making the Brisbane of tomorrow even better than the Brisbane of today.
Now, I want to just address quickly, Councillor CASSIDY’s repeated comments around Multhana Property Services, the company that is doing the disinfection of our buses. I just pose the question to Councillor CASSIDY, because he’s been onto us recently about engagement with the Indigenous community, whether he asked anyone in that Indigenous social enterprise whether they wanted a full-time Council job?
Whether he had conducted any culturally appropriate consultation with Elders about that proposal that he has just unilaterally decided that all of them would probably like a Council job. They want a nice full-time job in Council.
Well, Councillor CASSIDY, the floor is yours either now or in General Business to get up and just let us all know what kind of consultation you undertook with that social enterprise company, a great and valued organisation, that’s doing great work for Council about your concept to—
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: —to collapse the business—
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: —and have them all in-house in Council.
Chair: Councillor MURPHY, please. Your attention. Please address your comments to and through me.
Councillor MURPHY: Of course, through you, Chair.
Chair: Not direct to the Councillor.
Councillor MURPHY: Through you, Chair and maybe one of Councillor CASSIDY’s colleagues wants to get up in this debate because they have that opportunity and just clarify what indeed consultation Councillor CASSIDY has done with that social enterprise business owner.
Indeed, with any of the representatives in the company as to whether that is a proposal that is supported by the leadership of the company, any of the employees. Any records, any emails, any conversations he may have had with them. It would be really good to just see that so we know just what the Leader of the Opposition is doing when he says look, this’d probably be a really good idea, I’m sure they’d all love it.
No doubt, I have no doubt, Chair, that he will have done consultation with them. That is of course something that he’s really big about and he’s spoken many times on in this place.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair. Listen, just a couple of contract items that I’d like to—I suppose there’s a question on one of them and just sort of background on the other.
I was—good to see that the C.J Greenfield Community Hall upgrade is happening. This hall is probably the last one in my ward that’s had any sort of attention—this particular hall has had not much attention over the years and it’s nice to see that Council has gotten around to doing a refit.
Up until about a year or so ago, it wasn’t even air conditioned and sadly, it just—it didn’t get used to its potential, simply because the lack of attention on—not so much on the maintenance but just bringing it up to a standard that people are happy to use it.
I mean, the kitchen was pretty awful. As I say, it wasn’t airconditioned. The floor was not good and I remember going to a couple of functions there a few years ago with the Vietnamese community but they—and probably if you go back 10 or 15 years ago, I suppose the standard wasn’t so bad but now it’s—I’m glad to see that it’s being refit to a standard that people can actually use and now it will be able to be used to its full potential, hopefully.
The second item was contract number nine. It’s the Drewvale Rehabilitation. I was quite interested in—I didn’t know, first of all there was a dam at Drewvale but—so I went looking to find out where it is, what’s the location, all the rest of it because it really doesn’t tell us all that much on the papers today—
Chair: Sorry, Councillor STRUNK, I’m sorry to do this to you.
Councillors, there’s been a lot of secondary chat all day. Can I please ask, if you have a private conversation, please take it outside.
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair.
Chair: No. No, please don’t make assertions and interjections. Just please, it’s—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: —been happening all around the room. Please allow, like—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Just please allow people to—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: To have private conversations in the Antechamber so that the speaker can carry on properly.
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair. I don’t want to go on too much about this but I—it would be nice if we could maybe, I don’t know, have a location or something when we’re spending $636,000 to restore a dam which doesn’t appear to be on Nearmaps or Google maps or any maps. We’ve even looked at the Brisbane City Council website and I know it can be not an easy thing to search at times but I couldn’t even find an iteration of that on the website. At least, I can’t find it, anyways. I’ll stand to be corrected.
But if the LORD MAYOR can just let us know what the address of the Drewvale dam is, that would be very helpful. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor LANDERS.
Councillor LANDERS: Chair, I rise to speak on item B, contracts accepted by delegates of Council for December 2020. Specifically the contract related to the Norris Road and Barbour Road intersection upgrade.
This Better Roads for Brisbane project will complement other congestion busting projects that have already been made in Bracken Ridge Ward, such as the Telegraph Road corridor upgrade.
The intersection of Norris Road and Barbour Road has increasingly come under pressure during peak hours with 19,000 vehicles per day on Norris Road alone. It connects residential areas, shopping precincts, a number of schools, day care centres and the Bracken Ridge TAFE campus.
It is also a key public transport corridor for buses servicing the northern suburbs and has become a connection road, linking Bracken Ridge Road and Telegraph Road as part of a larger travel network.
The current single lane roundabout does not cope with peak hour and school traffic and there have been a number of accidents over the last few years due to drivers attempting risky manoeuvres.
Following lobbying from the Federal Member, Luke Howarth, the Australian Government will help Brisbane City Council to replace the roundabout with traffic signals including signalised pedestrian crossing facilities. New footpaths and shared pathways connecting to the existing network will also be installed to improve accessibility and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists.
Work has already begun on this project, with Telstra currently relocating some of their infrastructure on Norris Road to make way for the signalised intersection.
Following activity on this site, many residents have been conveying their excitement that work is under way, particularly the residents of Oaks Estate, who welcome the additional lanes that will reduce queuing at the intersection which serves as the main entry and exit to the estate. This Administration certainly hasn’t wasted any time in getting on with this project.
I’m also happy to say that another Better Roads for Brisbane project being delivered by Brisbane City Council and the Australian Government, the Hoyland Street upgrade, is also well under way and also welcomed by my community. Both these congestion-busting projects will improve safety and get people home quicker and safer.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak in regard to item B, contracts and tendering and specifically the item in regard to Victoria Park master plan and implementation services. It’s great to see this item come before the Chamber because it clearly shows this side of the Chamber’s commitment to continue to deliver this important infrastructure for all of Brisbane in Victoria Park.
I listened with interest, the comments of the opposition, Councillor CASSIDY. The ALP just continues on this particular line, Mr Chair, that somehow there’s going to be high-rise and residential dwellings along there even though there’s actually nothing on the master plan. Even though the LORD MAYOR has repeatedly stated that nothing is occurring. Even though we’ve repeatedly spoken to all the local residents on this issue and made that commitment.
Mr Chairman, if that’s the line they want to push and that’s all they’ve got, well we’ll keep telling the truth and they keep telling the spin but importantly, Mr Chairman, this clearly shows that we’re going to get on and deliver this important project.
Councillor CASSIDY, in his comments, stated something about not understanding what the timeframes of the length and breadth of this is. I can only suggest that he should probably read the master plan for a change, instead of making general comments about it.
But importantly, this is about getting on with the job. This is about getting on with delivering what the local community has wanted and also this city wants to—the citywide community as well, Mr Chair. This is—this implementation strategy and this master planning process, clearly shows that we are getting on with it, delivering something that is a citywide project. A signature park for the city, making sure that we’re delivering for future growth. Making sure that we’re delivering on the LORD MAYOR’s priorities of open space, sustainability and a cleaner, greener Brisbane for everyone. I for one. am encouraged and looking forward to working with the staff and the residents on continuing to deliver this signature project for the local community and the city.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise on item B, also to talk about Bradbury Park. I want to give people a bit of a history about Bradbury Park and what is there at the moment, what traditionally was there.
On the Chermside side of Bradbury Park, of course we’ve got the wonderful Chermside Bowls Club and the netball club there. Right in the middle of the park is a home to our Chermside Guides.
On the other side of the park, the southern side, is our Kedron side. Now, recently, we’ve had some upgrades but before I get onto that, at this—at—as it was before any upgrades happened to this park, it was pretty shaly. It used to be a creek that went through this park and it was filled many, many, many years ago. Some old-timers say it was as big as the Kedron Brook, for those northsiders who would know the Kedron Brook.
We have cricket nets there, a dog off-leash area and that’s basically all we had and a small playground. That’s basically all we had in this park, which was pretty much underutilised. Now, stage one of the park was the Magic Forest designed and consultated with our lovely Kedron Heights Kindy kids, who told me the magic of what this area could be and it is amazing.
We also put in exercise equipment into this park and of course the ever-popular scooter park that is there down the southern end.
With my park enhancements funds, we are putting in a half basketball court and also putting in a small dog off-leash area to enhance the already massive dog off-leash areas that is already there.
But wait, we know that Labor are obsessed with high-rise and I can tell you very excitedly there is going to be a high-rise playground.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: It is coming to Bradbury Park. It—it is——
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Calm down, everyone. Calm down, Councillors.
Councillor HAMMOND, please continue.
Councillor HAMMOND: It is going to be nine metres high and we said—the community said in the consultation, they wanted a challenge and I can tell you, there is a challenge in this park.
As you look from the outside of this new structure that’s coming in, it’s going to look very natural with bark-like features so it doesn’t overpower the centre of this beautiful park but inside, is going to be colours. Clever use of lighting where kids could say, I’m going to meet you in the blue areas but it depends, an hour later, that blue area could be a red area because it’s going to be a vibrant colour inside this place.
Challenge. Did I say challenge? Nine metres high, right? Up into the treetops. I’m going to do this but I hope the LORD MAYOR will be there for the opening and see which one goes across the plank.
The plank is going to be eight metres high and as you walk across this plank, you look down to the trees and a very, very far down, the earth and other structures in this park. So I’m petrified of heights. LORD MAYOR, hopefully you’ll take me up on the challenge.
There is also aspects of this park where—because it’s for 10 plus because we want those kids to come out and enjoy our beautiful spaces and get off these devices that have become so important in their lives.
There’s going to be ledges, they’re going to be about six metres high that teenagers will struggle to get up but on that is a platform where they can chatter, catch up on what’s important in their lives and spend time with their friends.
There’s also going to be aspects of this park—and this is what I love so much, because we’re all-inclusive, Brisbane City Council. We’re going to have little cave-like areas in this structure so if you are on the spectrum or you’re a parent of someone on the spectrum, you’ll know exactly what these are for. These are quiet areas where kids can desensitise if they’ve been over-stimulated.
There has been nothing spared on the imagination of this new structure. What I love the most with the shelters, the picnic shelters, they’re also going to look like little teepees for people to go in. The site lines are going to be amazing through the park.
There’s also going to be footpaths, of course toilets because we need toilets and we’ll need the barbecues because people are going to come from all over. This is such a signature park in the northside of Brisbane.
The pathways, toilets, extra car parking, we’ve already put the traffic management in around the area, because we are a forward-thinking Council to make the best of our open spaces.
LORD MAYOR, and this Administration, I would like to thank you for your initiatives of seeing how important it is to make our open spaces even better. LORD MAYOR, this is certainly going to be the envy of every city council—sitting Councillor in this room. It is going to be by far the best park in Brisbane.
I can’t wait to open it. LORD MAYOR, I can’t wait to see you on the plank and—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: —can’t wait until my residents see when we have a small family fun day to actually show them what their thoughts in the consultation has actually amounted to. It is pure wow factor.
This certainly is the best Council to work for when it comes to delivering for our local suburbs and delivering beautiful parks and new play experiences across our city. Thank you.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on item B. I just note in the contracts and tendering report before us today, there’s an amount of $1.4 million for the corporate website hosting and content delivery network services.
Whilst I’m very familiar with what corporate website hosting is, content delivery network services is a little bit unclear to me. Does that mean the production of content? Does that mean posting it on the website? Is it technical backend stuff? Is it creative? It’s very unclear to me.
I know that this Council has a huge, absolutely huge communications team up at Brisbane Square and I question why another $1.4 million is going to be spent on this item.
I’d certainly like the LORD MAYOR to breakdown the amount of funding that’s going into the hosting component, which obviously is necessary and important versus the content deliver components and perhaps provide some more information about what this is for.
That is a very, very large amount of money and I’d certainly like to understand what it is this LORD MAYOR is planning to do with that money. He is addicted, addicted, to marketing and corporate expenditure and I don’t know that it offers the residents of Brisbane value for money so I certainly would like a little bit more information on that.
I too noted the extraordinary amount of expenditure, some $4.5 million for the Bradbury Park improvements and playscapes. Whilst I’m delighted for Councillor HAMMOND that she is getting a fantastic new facility on the northside, parks in my ward pretty much—well you know what we got? $72,000, we got two bubblers and two new seats—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —at Faulkner Park at the netball courts where 2,500 girls play netball every week.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: There is a massive divide when it comes to investing fairly in parks around Brisbane and certainly, it’s disappointing that Councillor HAMMOND does not support the projects that I call for and when I move amendments in this place.
I think it’s disappointing that there is such a partisan approach to this. All Brisbane facilities need investment and there are so many parks in my ward that are old, rundown. Every cent of that Trust fund gets spent on parks, footpaths and now road safety projects and it’s not enough.
Meanwhile, the LNP wards get all of this additional millions of dollars in capital expenditure and it’s not being fairly allocated around the city.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair. It gives me great pleasure to speak on item B, particularly Victoria Park and the tender for the master plan and implementation plan.
As we all know, the vision was released late last year and to quote Councillor GRIFFITHS from last week, ‘it’s an amazing proposal, very visionary in many ways’.
I agree with Councillor GRIFFITHS, Mr Chair, and I acknowledge the amazing vision of the LORD MAYOR in advancing this incredible project for Brisbane’s future.
With the vision complete, the next stage of the project is the master plan and the implementation plan. The tender opportunity generated strong interest from the market, with 10 submissions received. High levels of partnership within the industry were seen with over 150 specialist subcontractors featured within the 10 submissions received.
The Brisbane Green Consortium, led by Urbis here in Brisbane, was ultimately selected, demonstrating extensive company-level and personnel experience in the delivery of master plan projects of a complex nature for high-profile parks.
The master plan involves the coordination of various studies and investigations at the site. The implementation plan, meanwhile, considers matters such as staging, sequencing and constructability considerations. It’s an exciting project to be sure, but also an extremely complex project and I’m confident that we have the expertise and creativity to deliver the vision.
We recently learned that the Labor Party backflipped and no longer support the Victoria Park project. They have no vision or ambition for our city and instead, they’ve resorted to scaremongering and class warfare. In fact, the only people who were talking about residential development at Victoria Park, is the Labor Party.
This Administration has and will continue to invest in parks projects right across the city.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor LANDERS.
ADJOURNMENT:
|486/2020-21 |
|At that time, 4:01pm, 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 4:03pm. |
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chair: Councillors, we have quorum. We will return to item before us.
Are there any further speakers to the E&C report? Any further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just rise to speak briefly on a couple of items on item B. Firstly, contract number two, the Victoria Park master plan. I would note that while Councillor CASSIDY seemed to suggest that Urbis’ pedigree was all in commercial and residential and sort of insinuated that that was the way forward for Victoria Park, clearly that isn’t the case and the LORD MAYOR ‘s been at pains to point that out. But what I would say, is that Urbis are a multidisciplinary consultancy.
While certainly they do act in the space of commercial and residential property, they also do precinct designs, parks, tourism infrastructure and have done a lot of government-related work. As Councillor CUNNINGHAM indicated, they were chosen because of their multidisciplinary ability and their reputation. I would point out that they have an office just up the road here in George Street and are very active in the local design and construction sector.
Now, this is unlike the State Government when they commissioned a new park in their PDA (priority development area) at Hamilton Northshore, who decided to go overseas for park design. The first thing that happened with that, of course, was once the park was completed, there were complaints from users about getting burnt on swings and slippery slides and what have you. So, at this point in time I’m feeling pretty comfortable that we’ve chosen a local firm with the right pedigree to help us advance our ambitions at Victoria Park.
Now, turning to—I think it was—contract 16, the point was made by Councillor JOHNSTON around where these funds were to be spent. The contract is for a platform to host three main components of the corporate website. These include Drupal CMS (Content Management System), which presents Council web content to users. The content delivery network, which provides protection from large surges in traffic, for example during a weather event, and also a web application firewall, which provides protection from common attacks directed at web servers and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers. Any further speakers?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to those who spoke on these items. I would say that it appears that there’s actually two entirely different Councils here. There’s the one that you hear on this side of the Chamber, where we’re upgrading playgrounds across the city, we’re investing in visionary projects, we’re delivering projects like Victoria Park and suburban park upgrades—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —that people want and people are excited to see. Then there’s another view of Council, which is, I think, a fabricated view. A view that is negative about everything, that complains about everything, that carps on about everything and that wants people to believe that somehow every single decision that’s made here is a terrible one. This is the view that Labor would try and perpetuate and certain other Councillors, but the reality is, just not born out by evidence out there in the suburbs. We saw a classic example when it came to Victoria Park, where Labor has very—a lot of difficulty in choosing a position on any issue.
And the classic example was in Councillor GRIFFITHS’s speech on Victoria Park, where he started off saying it was a great and visionary project, yet then went on to say that only rich people will benefit from it and that Labor opposes it. So extraordinary approach to an important issue. But we do though—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order.
Chair: A point of order, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: He did mention my name.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: I believe—look, I’m going to accept it.
So, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Can you claim to be misrepresented from last week?
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: We’re going to accept it and we’re going to keep moving. All right?
LORD MAYOR.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Look, I would be a little bit shy about it, if I was you, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: The one thing that we know for sure is that people are incredibly excited about the park upgrades that we’ve got planned, not just Victoria Park, but all across the suburbs of Brisbane. It’s interesting, because Labor Councillors have said, $84 million. It’s an extraordinary amount to spend on one park. Well, we discovered in Committee last week that we’re spending in one year—$71 million on capital improvements in our parks across the city. One year? So Labor can complain all they like about the big visionary projects that we have, but the reality is, we invest out in the suburbs. Then you get Councillor GRIFFITHS, who is complaining about that people in his community don’t get access to anything or that’s what he claims, yet we’re delivering in his part of Brisbane, in the south-west, the biggest investment in parkland ever seen in the city’s history—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Once again, claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Okay. We’ll add it to the other one.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: —with the incredible Oxley Creek vision and the work that’s being done to transform Oxley Creek and a whole range of parkland and build a whole range of community facilities all the way along that creek corridor. I don’t seem to see Councillor GRIFFITHS complaining that we’re spending money in the south-west of—suburbs of Brisbane. In fact, he chooses to ignore that fact. We invest right across the city. We invest in projects both short term or yearly projects and long-term projects that take many years to deliver, like Victoria Park.
We are embarking on projects that have the same kind of vision that it took to deliver the Mt Coot-tha Botanic Gardens. If we took a Labor approach, that kind of investment would never happen, because it’s too much in one place. Yet, if you ask the Brisbane residents and the visitors that go to Mt Coot-tha every year in tens of thousands and even millions that visit, they would thank previous councils for having the foresight to invest in that amazing facility, a facility that was built from scratch and completed in six years. It took six years to build that. We’re taking a different approach with Victoria Park.
We’re allowing people to come in and use it from day one. So there’ll be sections of Victoria Park that people can use from day one, and then we’ll be progressively upgrading and transforming different sections of Victoria Park. So it’s an exciting project. It has community support. Labor needs to choose a position on this project, a consistent position, and if you’re against it, fine. Tell people you’re against it.
I dare you to tell people you’re against it, but let’s not sit on the fence and take the courageous decisions of abstaining on projects or not expressing a real opinion or expressing two opposing opinions on the same project. It is just confusing for the people of Brisbane and that kind of flip-flopping approach is not helping you win elections and it certainly is the reason why you’re in Opposition and have been for a very long time. You’ve actually got to choose a position on something.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: You know what? When you choose a position, there might be some people that disagree with that position. That’s life, yes, but you get on and you make those decisions.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: When you’ve got Councillors, like Councillor GRIFFITHS, that are trying to play class warfare on projects like this—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —it is just really—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —not worthy commentary in a place like this, which seeks to make decisions in the best interests of the people of Brisbane and not divide the people of Brisbane, like Councillor GRIFFITHS is trying to do, into different classes of people. We are one class of people and that is Brisbane residents.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: There is a place in our city for everyone and we don’t look at people through that lens. I think it is very sad that some Councillors do look at people through a class lens. That is classic socialist way of looking at things and I think not supported by the way the community looks at things.
When it comes to the issue of Brisbane Metro, we saw Councillor CASSIDY’s standard speech rolled out on Brisbane Metro, where he just can’t resist any opportunity to criticise the project, a project that is supported by the Federal Government, supported by Infrastructure Australia, supported by the State Government now, the State Labor Government, and they signed off on it and approved the project, a project which seeks to make up for a lack of State investment in our bus network and busway infrastructure, yet Labor Councillors continue to criticise it.
But the submission that we have today, to be clear, as usual, Councillor CASSIDY talks about how this process has somehow been mismanaged. What we’re doing today is protecting the ratepayers’ interest when it comes to a claim for compensation. Now, this is a process whereby a property owner will try and maximise the value they get for their land, as is their right to, but we have a tried and tested process whereby different valuations are obtained, the property owner gets their opportunity to submit a valuation on what they think the land is worth.
We get our own valuations and we try and reach an agreement, but we’re interested in protecting the interests of ratepayers in this process. So our interest is to pay the right market value for the land, but that is what we’re pursuing in this case. But paying too much means that there’s not money available for other things. So we will continue to protect the interests of ratepayers by rejecting what we believe are unreasonable claims for compensation above market value. So that’s what’s happening here. Finally, I just wanted to raise the issue of the bus sanitisation
First of all, there’s something fundamentally inaccurate about what Councillor CASSIDY said. This is not long-term ongoing work. This is over and above the normal cleaning of our bus fleet. There is a longstanding process in place for the normal and regular cleaning of our bus fleet, of the 1,200 plus buses in our fleet, and that is ongoing. This is over and above that level, because we have the pandemic at the moment. So this is not ongoing work.
This has been extended a number of times, but it is not ongoing work and as the vaccination rolls out across the community and we move on from the coronavirus and its challenges, this additional sanitation won’t be required. So that is one issue, but the second issue is the absolute lack of respect for what is an Indigenous social enterprise that is performing this service for us. We have a policy of deliberately supporting social enterprises and that is a good thing, because social enterprises put back into the community. This particular one really does a fantastic job in investing back into local Indigenous communities.
That is a good thing and I thought something that we would all support, yet Councillor CASSIDY’s approach is, no, get rid of them.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Get rid of them. Shut it down. Social enterprise—I don’t care if it’s a social enterprise, he says.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you.
Chair: There is a note—I have a note of misrepresentation on two matters for Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS, please address these—please address them directly and don’t use this as an opportunity for a second speech.
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: My first point is I think the LORD MAYOR said the ALP didn’t support Victoria Park. Well, the ALP do support the Victoria Park project. In fact, we all voted—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —we all voted for it in the Chamber last week, so it’s the—
Chair: Noted, thank you.
You had a second one?
Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’s the LORD—no, no. It’s the LORD MAYOR who’s actually being untruthful there—
Chair: Your second point?
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Well, actually I hadn’t quite finished the first point—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Well, I can’t hear Councillor GRIFFITHS, so please stop interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I hadn’t finished the first point—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order. Sorry.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’s all right.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Sorry. I can clearly hear Councillor ADAMS across the Chamber saying he’s lying and it’s just not—
Chair: Well, okay—
Councillor JOHNSTON: —appropriate that she do that.
Chair: We’re not going—I’m not going to get—okay. Everyone stop. Thank you,
Councillor JOHNSTON, I’m not going down this rabbit hole. All right?
Councillor interjecting
Chair: No, no. No, there’ll be no—no. I didn’t hear it. I have my attention on Councillor GRIFFITHS. He has the microphone on. He will complete his statements.
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, so the first—just to conclude my first objection, the second point in that was that the LORD MAYOR—that we never said we didn’t support spending on the park, we just didn’t agree to spending $84 million.
Now, the second point that I wanted to raise was in relation to what the LORD MAYOR was saying about the Oxley Creek vision and he was talking about all the money spent in my ward. To date, there has been no money spent in my ward. All the money has gone to an LNP Councillor’s ward.
Chair: All right. We will now put the resolutions on item A and B.
We will do them separately, as per discussed earlier. Councillors to the resolution on item A.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chair: To item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Steve GRIFFITHS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 21 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
ABSTENTIONS: 4 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.
The report read as follows(
A BRISBANE METRO PROJECT – REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
112/20/711/1081
487/2020-21
1. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.
2. Protected details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the words [Commercial-in-Confidence] or [Privacy-in-Confidence].
3. By a Taking of Land Notice published in the Queensland Government Gazette dated 29 March 2019, Council resumed the property situated at 81 School Road, Rochedale, described as Lot 5 on SP304544, and shown outlined in yellow at Attachment B (submitted on file), for depot purposes as part of the Brisbane Metro project.
4. On 21 December 2020, the former owners (claimants) submitted a claim for compensation in the amount of $[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus further costs to be advised. The amount claimed comprises the following:
Land $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Valuation costs $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Rent while finding a replacement property $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Total $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
5. A copy of the claim for compensation is shown at Attachment C (submitted on file).
6. Council engaged valuers to assess the value of the land. The valuers assessed the compensation on a preliminary basis at $[Commercial-in-Confidence] for the land component, exclusive of disturbance. A copy of the valuation advice is shown at Attachment D (submitted on file).
7. A claimant affected by a resumption is entitled to claim reasonable professional fees incurred in the negotiation of compensation, however, the valuation fees are from three separate valuation firms, and Council considers it reasonable to only pay for one valuation.
8. The claimant has advised that they will be claiming for costs associated with the purchase of another property, however, is yet to advise Council the quantum of the claim for these items.
9. The claim for compensation is therefore considered unreasonable.
10. By letter dated 22 December 2020, the claimants requested an advance against compensation. A copy of the letter is shown at Attachment E (submitted on file). Section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 provides that if the claimant requests an advance against compensation, Council is required to pay the amount of Council’s estimate of compensation, attributable to the resumption, as an advance, which in this case comprises:
Land $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Professional fees $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Purchase costs on a replacement property $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
Total $ [Commercial-in-Confidence]
11. The professional fees comprise the highest valuation fees claimed. The purchase costs on a replacement property represent the transfer duty and Title Office fees payable on the purchase of a property for Council’s valuation amount.
12. It is proposed that Council reject the claim for compensation and pay an advance against compensation in the amount of $[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus interest.
13. The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
14. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO REJECT A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION ARISING FROM THE RESUMPTION OF A PROPERTY AT 81 SCHOOL ROAD, ROCHEDALE, FOR THE BRISBANE METRO PROJECT AND APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF AN ADVANCE AGAINST COMPENSATION
As:
(i) Council, by a Taking of Land Notice published in Queensland Government Gazette on 29 March 2019, resumed the property situated at 81 School Road, Rochedale, described as Lot 5 on SP304544 (the property)
ii) the former owner of the property submitted a claim for compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967,
then Council:
i) resolves that the claim for compensation, as set out in Schedule 1, Part 2, of this resolution is rejected as excessive based on the preliminary assessment of market value, as set out in Attachment D (submitted on file)
ii) resolves to approve the payment of an advance against compensation in the amount of $[Commercial-in-Confidence] plus interest, as set out in Schedule 1, Part 3, of this resolution.
Schedule 1
Private Property Resumed for Depot Purposes
|Part 1 |Details of Resumption |
|Claimants |[Privacy-in-Confidence] |
|Property Resumed |Property located at 81 School Road, Rochedale, described as Lot 5 on SP304544 |
|Purpose of Resumption |Depot purposes for the Brisbane Metro project |
|Part 2 |Details of Claim |
|Details of Claim |Land |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Valuation costs |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Rent while finding a replacement property |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Total |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |(plus further undisclosed costs and interest) | |
|Part 3 |Details of Advance |
|Amount of Advance |Land |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Professional fees |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Purchase costs on a replacement property |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |Total |$[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
| |(plus interest) | |
B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR DECEMBER 2020
109/695/586/2-005
488/2020-21
15. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
16. Sections 238 and 239 of City of Brisbane Act 2010 (the Act) provide that Council may delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the Act.
17. Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.
18. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the Act. Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; and (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant details of a contract, Council must allow the person to inspect the relevant details at Council’s public office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 as including: (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).
19. The contracts detailed in Attachment A, hereunder, represent contractual arrangements that Council has already entered into. The purpose of this report is not to consider making decisions about the contracts, rather for transparency of the decisions made on contracts entered into with a value of greater than the threshold.
20. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
21. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTES THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR DECEMBER 2020, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
|Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for December 2020 |
|Contract number/contract |Nature of |Unsuccessful tenderers/VFM achieved |Comparative |Delegate/ |
|purpose/successful tenderer/comparative |arrangement/ | |tender price/s |approval |
|tender/price value for money (VFM) index|estimate maximum | | |date/start |
|achieved |expenditure | | |date/term |
|BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE |
|1. Contract No. 511409 |Lump sum |Stage 2 – RFP shortlisted offers not | |Delegate |
| | |recommended | |CEO |
|BRADBURY PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND PLAY |$4,499,970 | | |Approved |
|SCAPE | |Eureka Landscapes Pty Ltd |$4,498,238 |14.12.2020 |
| | |Achieved VFM of 16.0 | |Start |
|Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd – $4,499,970| | | |16.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 20.0 | |Bland 2 Brilliant Landscapes Pty Ltd |$4,499,260 |Term |
| | |as trustee for Bland 2 Discretionary | |One year |
| | |Trust | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 15.4 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Interface Landscapes Pty Ltd |$4,500,000 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 14.7 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Stage 1 – Expression of Interest (EOI)| | |
| | |offers not shortlisted to Stage 2 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Landscape Solutions (QLD) Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Naturform Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |The Landscape Construction Company Pty| | |
| | |Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |H&G Contractors Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |JMac Constructions Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Agency of Sculpture Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd#| | |
| | | | | |
| | |Boyds Bay Landscaping Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Box & Co Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Scapex Landscapes Pty Ltd# | | |
| | | | | |
| | |#Comparative tender price and VFM not | | |
| | |applicable as the EOI process for | | |
| | |Stage 1 did not require a price to be | | |
| | |submitted. | | |
|2. Contract No. 511421 |Lump sum and |Tract Consultants Pty Ltd as trustee |$1,717,900^ |Delegate |
| |schedule of rates |for Tract Consultants Unit Trust | |CPO |
|VICTORIA PARK MASTER PLAN AND | |trading as Tract Consultants | |Approved |
|IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SERVICES |$1,645,135 |Achieved VFM of 4.07 | |14.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Urbis Pty Ltd – $1,645,135 | |Wolter Consulting Group Pty Ltd | |14.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 4.98 | |Achieved VFM of 3.93 |$1,898,000^ |Term |
| | | | |22 months |
| | |Group GSA Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 3.92 | | |
| | | |$1,490,645^ | |
| | |Joint offer: Archipelago Architects | | |
| | |Pty Ltd trading as Archipelago; Grant | | |
| | |Associates; Grimshaw Architects Pty |$1,993,710 | |
| | |Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 3.38 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Turf Design Studio Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 3.08 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Joint offer: The Victoria Park |$1,735,710 | |
| | |Collective consisting of Hassell Ltd; | | |
| | |Taylor & Cullity Pty Ltd trading as | | |
| | |Taylor Cullity Lethlean; |$3,168,865^ | |
| | |Arup Australia Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 2.68 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Lat Studios Pty Ltd trading as Lat27 | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 2.65 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |RPS Australia East Pty | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 2.54 |$2,961,603 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Aspect Studios Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 2.15 | | |
| | | |$3,447,704 | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |$2,771,968^ | |
| | | | | |
| | | |^Normalised to | |
| | | |reflect the cost | |
| | | |of a hybrid | |
| | | |survey option. | |
|3. Contract No. 532112 |Lump sum |Not applicable (N/A) |N/A |Delegate |
| | | | |CPO |
|RAUBERS ROAD STAGE 1 – CONCEPT DESIGN |$498,973 |One offer received. | |Approved |
|CONSULTANCY SERVICES | | | |02.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Golder Associates Pty Ltd – $498,973 | | | |04.12.2020 |
|Achieved VFM of 142.29 | | | |Term |
| | | | |14 months |
|4. Contract No. 532594 |Lump sum |Dart Holdings Pty Ltd trading as |$302,652 |Delegate |
| | |A Dart & Co | |CPO |
|SUNNYBANK SYNTHETIC FIELDS AMENITIES |$310,609 |Achieved VFM of 29.16 | |Approved |
| | | | |02.12.2020 |
|Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd – | |Premis Solutions Pty Ltd |$320,300 |Start |
|$310,609 | |Achieved VFM of 28.49 | |09.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 29.25 | | | |Term |
| | |Blackwood Projects Pty Ltd |$304,200 |22 weeks |
| | |Achieved VFM of 27.61 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Box & Co Pty Ltd |$421,293 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 21.36 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Building Solutions Brisbane Pty Ltd |$273,906 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 20.44 | | |
|5. Contract No. 532601 |Lump sum |Dart Holdings Pty Ltd trading as |$550,000 |Delegate |
| | |A Dart & Co | |CPO |
|COMMUNITY FACILITIES PREVENTATIVE |$483,930 |Achieved VFM of 16.09 | |Approved |
|MAINTENANCE – PACKAGE 2 | | | |16.12.2020 |
| | |Box & Co Pty Ltd |$719,786 |Start |
|Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd – | |Achieved VFM of 12.30 | |17.12.2020 |
|$483,930 | | | |Term |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 18.29 | | | |16 weeks |
|6. Contract No. 532611 |Lump sum |The trustee for the Wilson Family |$845,440 |Delegate |
| | |Trust trading as Trailworx | |CPO |
|EILDON HILL RESERVE LOOKOUT STAGE 2 |$672,614 |Achieved VFM of 10.80 | |Approved |
|GRANT WORKS | | | |09.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Naturform Pty Ltd – $672,614 | | | |14.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 15.28 | | | |Term |
| | | | |20 weeks |
|7. Contract No. 532613 |Lump sum |N/A |N/A |Delegate |
| | | | |EM |
|SUPPLY OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE PIPES FOR |$226,618 |One offer received. | |Approved |
|MILSOM STREET, NORMAN PARK – STAGE 3 | | | |15.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Enviro Pipes Pty Ltd – $226,618 | | | |15.03.2021 |
|Achieved VFM of 31.55 | | | |Term |
| | | | |15 weeks |
|8. Contract No. 532616 |Lump sum | | |Delegate |
| | | | |CPO |
|BUSHLAND AND PARKLANDS DEMOLITION |$303,440 | | |Approved |
|PACKAGES 9 AND 10 | | | |02.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
| | | | |15.12.2020 |
|Demolition Package 9 | | | |Term |
| | | | |10 weeks |
|WJ & M Allendorf Trading as WMA | |Demolition Package 9 | | |
|Demolition – $182,990 | | | | |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 37.16 | |Paterson Demolition & Recycling Pty |$189,525 | |
| | |Ltd as trustee for Paterson | | |
| | |Demolition & Recycling Trust trading | | |
| | |as Paterson Demolition & Recycling | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 33.77 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Roelandts Group Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 27.35 | | |
|Demolition Package 10 | | |$223,042 | |
| | | | | |
|WJ & M Allendorf Trading as WMA | |Demolition Package 10 | | |
|Demolition – $120,450 | | | | |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 55.21 | |Paterson Demolition & Recycling Pty | | |
| | |Ltd as trustee for Paterson Demolition| | |
| | |& Recycling Trust trading as Paterson |$139,270 | |
| | |Demolition & Recycling | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 47.45 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Roelandts Group Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 38.05 | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |$164,893 | |
|9. Contract No. 532622 |Lump sum |Shortlisted offer not recommended | |Delegate |
| | | | |CPO |
|DREWVALE DAM REHABILITATION |$636,362 |Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd | |Approved |
| | |Achieved VFM of 11.36 |$717,478 |09.12.2020 |
|Naturform Pty Ltd – $636,362 | | | |Start |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 11.94 | | | |18.12.2020 |
| | | | |Term |
| | | | |35 weeks |
| | | | | |
| | |Offer not recommended | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Glascott Landscape and Civil Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 5.22 |$737,949 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd | | |
| | |trading as PBI Australia | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 5.12 |$1,298,350 | |
|10. Contract No. 532643 |Lump sum |Signature Projects Pty Ltd |$393,321 |Delegate |
| | |Achieved VFM of 20 | |CPO |
|C. J. GREENFIELD COMMUNITY HALL UPGRADE |$424,550 | | |Approved |
| | |Dart Holdings Pty Ltd trading as |$475,000 |02.12.2020 |
|Premis Solutions Pty Ltd – $424,550 | |A Dart & Co | |Start |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 21.30 | |Achieved VFM of 18.9 | |09.12.2020 |
| | | | |Term |
| | |Building Solutions Brisbane Pty Ltd |$450,325 |22 weeks |
| | |Achieved VFM of 18 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Box & Co Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 16.6 |$527,500 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Hawley Constructions Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 16 |$524,593 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 14.6 |$617,150 | |
|11. Contract No. QW269225-2 |Lump sum |Contract is exempt from tendering and |N/A |Delegate |
| | |quoting under Exemption 3 of | |CPO |
|NORRIS ROAD AND BARBOUR ROAD TELSTRA |$952,667 |Schedule B of Council’s SP103 | |Approved |
|RELOCATION WORKS | |Procurement Policy and Plan 2020-21, | |09.12.2020 |
| | |which allows for exemption from | |Start |
|Telstra Corporation Limited – $952,667 | |tendering when the goods, services or | |11.12.2020 |
| | |works can only be supplied by a single| |Term |
| | |supplier or a restricted group due to | |14 weeks |
| | |third-party ownership of a public | | |
| | |utility plant asset. | | |
|LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES |
|12. Contract No. 511440 |Lump sum |Creative Nations Collective Pty Ltd |$120,000* |Delegate |
| | |trading as Cre8tive Nations | |CPO |
|PRODUCTION AND EVENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES|$360,000 |Achieved non-price score of 73 | |Approved |
|FOR THE INDIGENOUS ART PROGRAM 2021-23 | | | |09.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|Blaklash Creative Pty Ltd – $120,000* | | | |17.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest non-price score of | | | |Term |
|77 | | | |Initial term of |
| | | | |two years with a |
|*Offers based on Council’s advised lump | | | |maximum term of |
|sum funding of $120,000 per annum. | | | |three years. |
|13. Contract No. 520260 |Schedule of rates |Contract is exempt from tendering and |N/A |Delegate |
| | |quoting under Exemption 6 of | |CPO |
|PROVISION OF TICKETING SERVICES FOR |$1,958,000 |Schedule B of Council’s SP103 | |Approved |
|EVENTS AT BRISBANE RIVERSTAGE | |Procurement Policy and Plan 2020-21, | |09.12.2020 |
| | |which allows for extension of | |Start |
|Ticketmaster Australasia Pty Ltd – | |contracts without tender processes | |01.07.2021 |
|$1,958,000 | |where the value obtained from a | |Term |
| | |significant number of frequently | |Initial term of |
| | |sourced, low-value procurements is | |one year with a |
| | |limited. | |maximum term of |
| | | | |three years. |
|TRANSPORT FOR BRISBANE |
|14. Contract No. 511391 |Schedule of rates |Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| | | | |CEO |
|BUS DISINFECTING AND SANITISING SERVICES|$5,400,000 |Advanced National Services Pty Ltd | |Approved |
| | |Achieved VFM of 131.3 |$5,889,690 |07.12.2020 |
|Multhana Property Services Pty Ltd – | | | |Start |
|$5,455,658 | |Trident Services Australia Pty Ltd | |21.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 146.64 | |Achieved VFM of 74.05 | |Term |
| | | |$10,533,335 |Initial term of |
| | |Offers not recommended | |three months with|
| | | | |a maximum term of|
| | |145 Aviation Services Pty Limited* | |12 months. |
| | | | | |
| | |Pickwick Group Pty Ltd as trustee for | | |
| | |the Pickwick Cleaning Services Unit |N/A* | |
| | |Trust* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Wash It Australia Pty Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Clean City Property Pty Ltd as trustee| | |
| | |for MECS Family Trust* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |MMS Group Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Rentokil Initial Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Lotus Commercial Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Solo Services Group Australia Pty Ltd*| | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Crown Property Services Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Challenger Services Group Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Harvent Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Storm International Pty Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Diverciti Enterprises Pty Ltd as | | |
| | |trustee for the Diverciti Enterprises |N/A* | |
| | |Trust* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Majestic Commercial Pty Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Quality Commercial Cleaning Pty Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Handwash Cafe Pty Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Springmount Services Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Achieve Corporate Services Pty Ltd as |N/A* | |
| | |trustee for Achieve Cleaning Services | | |
| | |Trust* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |ARA Indigenous Services Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Gargan Holdings Pty Ltd trading as | | |
| | |Executive Property Management (Qld)* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Grid Group Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Newserv Pty Ltd trading as AGA | | |
| | |Newserv* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Higgins Coatings Proprietary Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Ocean View Industries Pty Ltd trading | | |
| | |as Ducted Air Solution* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |A.G Brown & F.B Brown trading as | | |
| | |Limestone Infection Control* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Northern Territory Contagion Control |N/A* | |
| | |Pty Ltd as trustee for Northern | | |
| | |Territory Contagion Control Trust* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Active Refugee and Migrant Integration| | |
| | |in Australia Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Sachin Lashand & Lovedeep Singh as the| | |
| | |trustee for 5 Rivers Property | | |
| | |Maintenance* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Image Cleaning Corp Pty Ltd* |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Non-conforming offers | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Ecolab Pty Ltd |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |Orion Multi Services Pty Ltd | | |
| | | | | |
| | |*Comparative tender price and VFM not | | |
| | |applicable as tenderer did not meet |N/A* | |
| | |minimum non-price requirements. | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
|CITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY |
|15. Contract No. 511441 |Lump sum |Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| | | | |CPO |
|BUSHFIRE RISK ASSESSMENT |$259,626 |GHD Pty Ltd | |Approved |
| | |Achieved VFM of 28.32 |$281,824 |16.12.2020 |
|Litoria Consulting Pty Ltd as trustee | | | |Start |
|for the Litoria Trust – $259,626 | |Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd | |21.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 34.62 | |Achieved VFM of 26.31 |$274,895 |Term |
| | | | |Six months |
| | |Bushfire Planning Australia Pty | | |
| | |Limited Achieved VFM of 24.29 | | |
| | | |$298,475 | |
| | |Offers not recommended | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Rob Friend & Associates Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |$182,000 | |
| | |Risk Frontiers Holdings Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |$177,830 | |
| | |*VFM not applicable as tenderer did | | |
| | |not meet minimum non-price | | |
| | |requirements. |$294,490 | |
|CITY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE |
|16. Contract No. 511251 |Lump sum and |Shortlisted offer not recommended | |Delegate |
| |schedule of rates | | |CPO |
|CORPORATE WEBSITE HOSTING AND CONTENT | |Micron21 Datacentre Pty Ltd | |Approved |
|DELIVERY NETWORK SERVICES |$1,400,000 |Achieved VFM of 23.55 |$391,356 |02.12.2020 |
| | | | |Start |
|ATech Services Pty Ltd – $307,896 | |Offers not recommended | |17.12.2020 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 27.9 | | | |Term |
| | |Platform.sh Pty Ltd | |Initial term of |
| | |Achieved VFM of 20.23 |$404,770 |three years with |
| | | | |a maximum term of|
| | |Acquia Australia Pty Ltd | |seven years. |
| | |Achieved VFM of 9.97 |$885,000 | |
| | | | | |
| | |PreviousNext Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |Veeps Pty Ltd* | | |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | |*Comparative tender price and VFM not | | |
| | |applicable as tenderer did not meet | | |
| | |minimum non-price requirements. | | |
|ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES |
|17. Contract No. 511127 |Revenue arrangement|Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| |– lease and | | |CEO |
|DAVIES PARK WEST END MARKET MANAGEMENT |operation |Blue Sky Events Pty Ltd | |Approved |
| | |Achieved VFM of 79.92 |$1,131,238 |14.12.2020 |
|Goodwill Projects Pty Ltd – $1,289,396 |$1,289,396 | | |Start |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 86.17 | |Latino Investments Pty Ltd as trustee | |20.03.2021 |
| | |for the Peter Hackworth Family Trust |$1,130,000 |(subject to |
| | |Achieved VFM of 76.92 | |Queensland |
| | | | |Government |
| | |Offers not recommended | |approval) |
| | | | |Term |
| | |Market and Event Management Australia | |Five years |
| | |Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 64.2 |$603,750 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Choulartons Australia Pty Ltd trading | | |
| | |as Organic Food Markets | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 31.3 | | |
| | | |$600,000 | |
| | |TCN Trading Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 17.2 | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |$240,000 | |
|18. Contract No. 511272 |Corporate |Valeo Thermal Commercial Vehicles |N/A* |Delegate |
| |Procurement |Australia Pty Ltd* | |CEO |
|MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR BUS AIR |Arrangement (CPA) | | |Approved |
|CONDITIONING SYSTEMS |(Panel Arrangement)|*Comparative tender price and VFM not | |07.12.2020 |
| | |applicable as tenderer did not meet | |Start |
|QTK Group Pty Ltd – $8,626,349 |Schedule of rates |minimum non-price requirements. | |01.01.2021 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 74.03 | | | |Term |
| |$12,000,000 | | |Initial term of |
|Coachair Pty Ltd – $10,420,639 | | | |three years with |
|Achieved VFM of 66.31 | | | |a maximum term of|
| | | | |five years. |
|Cannon and Chapman Pty Ltd trading as | | | | |
|Mobile Air Conditioning Services – | | | | |
|$10,121,944 | | | | |
|Achieved VFM of 63.19 | | | | |
|19. Contract No. 511341 |CPA (Preferred |Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| |Supplier | | |CPO |
|HEAVY VEHICLE HOISTS AND STANDS |Arrangement) |Levanta Pty Ltd as trustee for The | |Approved |
|MAINTENANCE | |Sharples Family Trust trading as |$198,960 |16.12.2020 |
| |Schedule of rates |Levanta | |Start |
|Endurequip Services Pty Ltd – $176,390 | |Achieved VFM of 35 | |21.01.2021 |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 43 |$1,300,000 | | |Term |
| | |Genesis Equipment Pty Ltd | |Initial term of |
| | |Achieved VFM of 22 |$332,866 |three years with |
| | | | |a maximum term of|
| | |Offers not recommended | |five years. |
| | | | | |
| | |MAHA Australia Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 39 |$177,727 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Ellbeck Cranes* | | |
| | | |$192,020 | |
| | |*VFM not applicable as tenderer did | | |
| | |not meet minimum non-price | | |
| | |requirements. | | |
|20. Contract No. 511347 |CPA (Preferred |Shortlisted offers not recommended | |Delegate |
| |Supplier | | |CPO |
|ELECTRONIC MEETING PAPER SOLUTION |Arrangement) |Optus Networks Pty Ltd | |Approved |
| | |Achieved VFM of 22.1 |$288,847 |09.12.2020 |
|Task Exchange Pty Ltd – $149,633 |Lump sum and | | |Start |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 43.0 |schedule of rates |Offers not recommended | |13.01.2021 |
| | | | |Term |
| |$260,193 |Objective Corporation Ltd | |Initial term of |
| | |Achieved VFM of 15.1 |$456,045 |three years with |
| | | | |a maximum term of|
| | |Convene Pty Ltd* | |five years. |
| | | |N/A* | |
| | | | | |
| | |*Comparative tender price and VFM not | | |
| | |applicable as tenderer did not meet | | |
| | |minimum non-price requirements. | | |
|21. Contract No. 520650 |CPA (Preferred | | |Delegate |
| |Supplier and Panel | | |CEO |
|STATIC SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES|Arrangements) | | |Approved |
| | | | |14.12.2020 |
|Category 1 – Static Signs (Panel |Schedule of rates | | |Start |
|Arrangement) | | | |01.01.2021 |
| |$10,800,000 |Category 1 – Static Signs (Panel | |Term |
|Artcraft Pty Ltd – $444,881 | |Arrangement) | |Initial term of |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 18.0 | | | |three years with |
| | |De Neefe Pty Ltd |$490,043 |a maximum term of|
|Outsource1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the | |Achieved VFM of 15.3 | |nine years. |
|Alpin Business Trust – $515,180 | | | | |
|Achieved VFM of 15.1 | |Reflective Signs & Decals Pty Ltd |$537,996 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 14.6 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Traffic Control Supplies Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 14.5 |$528,539 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Enviropost Pty Ltd as trustee for the | | |
| | |Enviropost Unit Trust | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 14.1 |$548,020 | |
| | | | | |
| | |J. Blackwood and Son Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 12.0 | | |
| | | |$628,939 | |
| | |JMP Signage Pty Ltd | | |
|Category 2 – Sign Posts and Fixtures – | |Achieved VFM of 11.6 | | |
|Subcategory 1 – Posts (Panel | | |$520,592 | |
|Arrangement) | |Category 2 – Sign Posts and Fixtures –| | |
| | |Subcategory 1 – Posts (Panel | | |
|Artcraft Pty Ltd – $131,745 | |Arrangement) | | |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 60.9 | | | | |
| | |Traffic Control Supplies Pty Ltd | | |
|Enviropost Pty Ltd as trustee for the | |Achieved VFM of 55.6 | | |
|Enviropost Unit Trust – $129,440 | | | | |
|Achieved VFM of 59.5 | |Reflective Signs & Decals Pty Ltd |$138,020 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 55.3 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Outsource1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the |$142,181 | |
| | |Alpin Business Trust | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 49.9 | | |
| | | |$155,740 | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Category 2 – Sign Posts and Fixtures – | | | | |
|Subcategory 2 – Fixtures (Panel | | | | |
|Arrangement) | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Reflective Signs & Decals Pty Ltd – | |Category 2 – Sign Posts and Fixtures –| | |
|$53,684 | |Subcategory 2 – Fixtures (Panel | | |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 14.6 | |Arrangement) | | |
| | | | | |
|Artcraft Pty Ltd – $61,390 | |De Neefe Pty Ltd | | |
|Achieved VFM of 13.1 | |Achieved VFM of 13.1 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Traffic Control Supplies Pty Ltd |$57,399 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 12.3 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Enviropost Pty Ltd as trustee for the |$62,460 | |
| | |Enviropost Unit Trust | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 10.9 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Outsource1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the |$70,674 | |
| | |Alpin Business Trust | | |
|Category 3 – Custom Signs (Panel | |Achieved VFM of 6.2 | | |
|Arrangement) | | | | |
| | | |$126,007 | |
|Artcraft Pty Ltd | |Category 3 – Custom Signs (Panel | | |
|Achieved the highest non-price score of | |Arrangement) | | |
|80.2* | | | | |
| | |Non-conforming offers | | |
|Outsource1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the | | | | |
|Alpin Business Trust | |J. Blackwood and Son Pty Ltd | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 78.6* | | | | |
| | |JMP Signage Pty Ltd | | |
|Reflective Signs & Decals Pty Ltd | | | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 78.6* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Traffic Control Supplies Pty Ltd | | | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 76.7* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Blueprint Concepts Pty Ltd | | | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 75.6* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|De Neefe Pty Ltd | | | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 75* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Helt Pty Ltd ATF the Holzberger Family | | | | |
|Trust trading as | | | | |
|Harlequin Signs and Plastics | | | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 62.8* | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Dot Dash Pty Ltd | | | | |
|Achieved non-price score of 57.6* | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Category 4 – Traffic Control Devices | | | | |
|(Preferred Supplier Arrangement) | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Artcraft Pty Ltd – $139,155 | | | | |
|Achieved the highest VFM of 57.6 | | | | |
| | | | | |
|*Comparative tender price and VFM not | | | | |
|applicable – quotes will be sought from | | | | |
|panel members on a per project basis. | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Category 4 – Traffic Control Devices | | |
| | |(Preferred Supplier Arrangement) | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Offers not recommended | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Outsource1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the | | |
| | |Alpin Business Trust | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 45.4 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Enviropost Pty Ltd as trustee for the | | |
| | |Enviropost Unit Trust |$170,656 | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 44.4 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |KWN Trading Co Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 42.1 |$173,605 | |
| | | | | |
| | |De Neefe Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 41 | | |
| | | |$158,169 | |
| | |L&H Group | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 33.8 | | |
| | | |$182,909 | |
| | |J. Blackwood and Son Pty Ltd | | |
| | |Achieved VFM of 30.2 | | |
| | | |$157,167 | |
| | |Part offers not recommended | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Reflective Signs & Decals Pty Ltd** |$251,098 | |
| | | | | |
| | |Delnorth Pty Ltd** | | |
| | | | | |
| | |**Comparative tender price and VFM not| | |
| | |applicable as tenders only priced for |N/A | |
| | |the supply of one item. | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |N/A | |
ADOPTED
Chair: That concludes the E&C report. Councillors, the City Planning, Economic Development—
Councillor CUMMING: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CUMMING.
489/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Peter CUMMING moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That the Brisbane City Council take steps to allow the Coorparoo Cricket Club to resume their occupancy of the cricket facilities at Bottomley Park, Norman Park.
Chair: Councillor CUMMING, you have three minutes to urgency on this matter, please. Councillor(please begin.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Mr Chair. This matter is urgent. The Coorparoo Cricket Club have been given funds from the Gambling Community Benefit Fund, Queensland Cricket and the Commonwealth Government to improve their facilities. The money needs to be spent now, so the club will be able to resume their use of Bottomley Park for cricket for the 2021-22 cricket season. If it is not, the funds will be lost. The treatment of this club is not unique. It’s part of a broader pattern of behaviour where the LNP do not value our local community clubs and treat them like tenants in a bad landlord-tenant relationship.
Council should be supporting grassroots sporting clubs, not destroying them and refusing to help at the first sign of dispute. Council should have a genuine community partnership with Council—clubs, sorry, should have a genuine community partnership with Council where value is placed on their critical role in the social fabric of our local areas. There’s no better example than the appalling treatment of our local—
Chair: Councillor CUMMING, I—the comments you’re making are substantive, rather than procedural.
Can I ask you to please return to why the matter is urgent.
Councillor CUMMING: Yes. The other reason that it’s extremely urgent is that one of the reasons why this club has been treated like it has by the Council and by—indeed by Easts Rugby Union is the allegation they haven’t been paying their water bills. I have now evidence that they have paid their water bills. I have invoices for three cricket seasons: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, and I’ve also got bank statements from the Coorparoo Cricket Club showing that all accounts have been paid in full.
So, they have paid their bill and yet we have got, two weeks ago, in this—in the Chamber, we had Councillor ADAMS saying the club weren’t paying their water bills. This is defamatory to the club—
Chair: No, no. Councillor CUMMING, again, all these points would be relevant in a substantive debate, but not a procedural one.
Can I ask you just to return to urgency, please.
Councillor CUMMING: I will be—I table the invoices and the bank statements.
Council needs to urgently provide the Coorparoo Cricket Club with the security of a sublease, so it can go ahead with the projects which they were undertaking. The club needs to start playing again next season, which starts in September of 2021. Council needs to stop the Easts Rugby Union Club ripping up any more of the turf wickets on Bottomley Park. Councillor ADAMS needs to stop making false allegations against the club, including that they didn’t look after their grounds. Of course, it’s their club volunteers who’ve—
Chair: Again—
Councillor CUMMING: —maintained the pitches and look after grounds—
Chair: Councillor CUMMING—
Councillor CUMMING: —for decades.
Chair: No. Councillor CUMMING, please.
I’ve allowed—I’ve been pretty generous in the statements you’ve been able to make, but I must ask you—I must insist that you return to the matter of urgency, please.
Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, to save any lasting respect with the community, this LNP Council needs to back down and do the right thing by Coorparoo Cricket Club today.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: All right. On the matter of urgency.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
Chair: We will proceed with the agenda.
The City Planning and Economic Development Committee, please.
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona HAMMOND, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just before I go to the substantive report, I’d just like to put onto the record that I did not call Councillor GRIFFITHS a liar. What I was saying was that obviously he was pulled into line after last week’s debacle of a speech on Victoria Park. Very, very different—
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: I would first like to respond to Councillor JOHNSTON’s question to the LORD MAYOR earlier today regarding 9 Francis Street in Corinda as well. Apparently late on Sunday night, the LORD MAYOR was CC’d in on an email from the Francis Lookout action group, Councillor GRIFFITHS, Councillor SRI, Councillor JOHNSTON, State Member for Mount Ommaney, Jess Pugh, as well as a local journalist were also CC’d on this email.
But prior to addressing this issue here now, I ask the Council officers whether we had received any letters, emails, notifications, even a smoke signal from the State Government regarding this site and their conditions. As of right now, we have not received anything. So, if Councillor JOHNSTON has a copy of the letter form the Deputy Premier, I would ask her to table it. Until such time, it does just remain an allegation from the Francis Lookout action group and we cannot take any action on that whatsoever.
But I do want to quote from the email, because, as the LORD MAYOR says, nine times out of 10, Councillor JOHNSTON asks a question to this Chamber and you know there’s always more to it. So, the quote from the email says, ‘finally, the error in the measurement of the DBH (diameter at breast height) of the forest red gum by a tree science arborist is confirmed. This, of course, means that the tree protection zone is grossly inadequate, but unfortunately SARA (State Assessment and Referral Agency) deems that its original conditions for construction remain sufficient.’
I repeat, what was in that email, ‘unfortunately SARA deems that its original conditions for construction remain sufficient.’ The email goes on to say, ‘unfortunately in Dr Marl’s response, there is no mention of SARA investigating the errors in the visual impact study. Why SARA did not check the reports initially is beyond my understanding.’ This is quoting from the email, ‘I guess the incorrect DBH is subjective, and thus this discrepancy could not be forever ignored. The errors in the visual impact study remain unchecked.’
I repeat, again, we have received no letter from the Deputy Premier or from anyone else regarding any of this to the Development Services officers or to my office. If Councillor JOHNSTON believes the report to be faulty and inaccurate, my question is how is she going to prosecute this issue with SARA? SARA is the one who has made the mistake here, if there is a mistake. As many in this Chamber would be aware, the State Government has responsibility for all State heritage listed buildings and parks in the city. We rely on this advice and actually, in most cases—
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —have to comply with the advice when making decisions on—
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —decisions on major projects or applications or infrastructure projects—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No. No, no. Please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
Councillor ADAMS:
DEPUTY MAYOR: The State Government has the say on the decisions around State heritage parks, like this one, and, again, as I’ve said before in this place, I appreciate Councillor JOHNSTON’s interest in the City Planning portfolio. She had the opportunity to be on the Committee, but obviously my recollection is she declined that opportunity—
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: As I mentioned in the last—
Chair: No. No, no. No, Councillor JOHNSTON, please cease interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: As I mentioned last week, I am going to have the pleasure of mentioning what are some of the workshops and the mentoring programs that are coming up in the business hub in the following week. If you’d like to get your community, your business community, engaged, tomorrow morning, it’s a sell-out. It was sell-out very, very early. It’ll be On the Couch with: Phil Di Bella in The Coffee Commune. So, he’ll be talking about his successes and how he got to where he is today. At eight o’clock on Thursday morning, we have the Future Food Boot Camp.
This is something we have each year to hear industry experts’ predictions and advice, hear from success stories in the food industry, like Merlo and Gnocchi Gnocchi Brothers to the food industry and how we can support them coming out of COVID-19. On the 23rd at 9am, there’s the Funding Readiness Series. It’s around invoice, finance and cash flow management. So that is being provided by ScotPac. Also, on the 23rd at three o’clock to five o’clock, Property Trends in 2021.
So CBRE (Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis), Gadens, Marquette Properties and Urbis are going to be talking about retail and commercial property leasing on the future of the sector in 2021. So, some fantastic programs and mentoring opportunities in the next week in the business hub. Please, if you’re speaking to your business communities, get them involved, get them online to have a look and see if any of them suit them as well. Talking about fantastic online initiatives and support for local businesses, last week the Committee presentation was about local business partnerships, initiatives and, in particular, the launch of the retail toolkit.
So, the toolkit is a new activation strategy toolkit, which is developed to help businesses in the suburb get together. We know a lot of our retail shopping strips aren’t actually in chambers—well, the specific chambers, but the property owners and the businesses know each other in the strips as well. So, the initiative is a toolkit that these businesses can get together to use to increase the visibility of their area, drive customer growth and, more than anything, encourage collaboration. Get them talking to each other about how they can work together as local business owners.
It’s a fully PDF-enabled document, which has the use of data and marking analytics. There’s place management and place making ideas. It’s all about creating distinct precincts and really is a set of modules for the business to collaborate with, work through and come up with their own identity of what their retail precinct will be. It basically takes some of the great successes we know across Brisbane and puts them into how they can be applied to retail strips in their own tenancy mix as well. So, it’s available for all local business groups to use. It can be used in bits and pieces.
Some parts they may need, other parts they may not, but it’s going to be available by contacting the Business Liaison team in Council and, as you know, they’re coming out to see you in your wards over the next couple of weeks. Talk to them about how they can engage with your local business groups to support them with this toolkit, so they can all collaborate and make the best out of that collaboration moving forward. We also spoke about the partnership initiatives themselves.
Some of the ones we’ve done in the past, the two coming up in the next 12 months, and some of the partnership initiatives like that we will initiate this year as well, so we can spread the love right across Brisbane as well. I recommend the report to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS?
I’ll 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 – LOCAL BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES FOR 2021 AND RETAIL TOOLKIT
490/2020-21
1. The Economic Development Manager, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Local Business Partnership Initiatives (LBPI) for 2021 and the Retail Toolkit. He provided the information below.
2. The local retail and activation strategy toolkit (the toolkit) was developed to help businesses in suburban retail strips come together to increase visibility of their area and drive customer growth. It encourages collaboration between local business owners.
3. The toolkit has been developed based on extensive best-practice research, combined with interviews and case studies of successful local business partnerships. The toolkit is a PDF-enabled document which details:
- the use of data and market analytics to inform business owners, and assist them to understand customers and competitive positioning
- the importance of creating distinct precincts with the right mix of tenants
- effective marketing
- place management and placemaking to deliver clean, safe and vibrant environments, maximising ease of access for customers.
4. The toolkit provides information and tips on how to enhance the customer appeal of precincts through a process of:
- building knowledge about the market in which they operate
- understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a precinct, and its competitive positioning
- working collaboratively to achieve a shared vision
- maximising investments by developing place and activation.
5. A key role of the toolkit is to borrow the techniques of successful shopping centres and to show how these can be applied to retail strips, including the use of data, importance of tenancy mix, effective marketing and place management principles.
6. The toolkit is available for local business groups to use and can be used entirely or in part, depending on the maturity of area and the business group.
7. Benefits of the toolkit include:
- the encouragement of local retail precincts to collaborate and work together to achieve a shared vision
- a precinct health check which allows business areas to measure the performance of their precinct and to chart a course to improvement
- easy to understand self-help guides and techniques regarding placemaking, marketing and social media.
8. The toolkit will be available from Council by contacting the Business Liaison team. The Business Liaison team will work with local business groups to determine which parts of the toolkit are most applicable for their needs. Council will also use the toolkit when delivering future LBPIs.
9. The LBPI is part of Council’s ongoing commitment to supporting businesses in Brisbane. The LBPI aligns with outcomes identified in the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan. This action plan sets out key economic priorities to support long-term economic growth, including developing and enhancing Brisbane’s unique business precincts. The LBPI seeks to influence and bring about the revitalisation and activation of suburban commercial business precincts and enables business owners and operators to collaborate with Council to identify opportunities that will improve investment and create sustainable local economies.
10. LBPI Lite has been introduced this year and is designed to be delivered in partnership with the Design Brisbane Village Precinct Projects. LBTI Lite will use the toolkit, although with less direct engagement with Council. LBTI Lite will involve an initial year of funding to support a smaller initiative or action, and ongoing engagement and support through the Business Hotline.
11. To date, LBPIs have been completed in Stones Corner, Sandgate, Wynnum, Nundah and Moorooka, where Council’s City Planning and Economic Development has actively engaged with businesses located within these business precincts to develop and release Local Business Destination Plans.
12. The Committee was advised that the 2021 LBPI locations include Logan Road, Mt Gravatt, and Oxford Street, Bulimba. ‘The Terraces’, Paddington; Ashgrove West precinct, Ashgrove; Wilston Village, Wilston; and Park Road, Milton, are scheduled for the 2021 LBPI Lite program.
13. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Economic Development Manager for his informative presentation.
14. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Public and Active Transport Committee, please.
Councillor MURPHY.
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Chair. Last week the Committee received a presentation on the Safer Paths to School program. This is a really terrific program. It’s now in its second year, which—it’s a project that completes missing footpath links near schools, so it’s all about getting our—ensuring our students, carers, parents and teachers can all travel actively to school, be it by foot, by bike or by scooter. Now, the Safer Paths to School program first commenced in 2019, not to be confused with the Safe School Travel program, which I know sounds confusingly similar. In its first year, 23 paths were constructed at 21 schools.
Following the program’s success, the Schrinner Council has expanded the program for another four years to continue improving walkability and to promote active travel from an early age. This financial year $1.6 million has been allocated to the program. Recommendations for new locations are provided by schools and their P&C (Parents and Citizens) committees through the school traffic management plans. I know all Councillors in this place will be familiar with those. Also, Active School Travel surveys, as well as general request that come in from the wider community through things like the Contact Centre.
Twenty-three footpaths around 21 schools have been identified for construction in this financial year. Consultation has been now completed for 22 of those footpaths. Nine have already been constructed, which makes up more than a kilometre of new pathway. By June 2031, we expect almost—sorry—I’ll say by June 2021, we expect almost 4.6 kilometres new footpath be completed through the program alone. The program is part of Council’s wider investment in school safety initiatives.
These include SAMs (speed awareness monitors) for Schools, the Enhanced School Zone Signage, Traffic Management Plan Improvements, Active School Travel, school traffic management plans and Safe School Travel Infrastructure. It also supports Council’s wider Transport Plan for Brisbane and its key directions, which include reducing car travel by improving the attractiveness of sustainable transport options, delivering a network of accessible walking and cycling pathways to encourage more active lifestyle choices and providing safe paths and footpaths to connect to local services, shopping schools and public transport.
Council is committed to providing schools with the tools that they need to keep their students safe, as they travel to and from school, particularly those who are travelling actively. I thank the team for all their hard work. Just on some other matters, Chair, while we’re on the important topic of active transport, I’m very pleased to share and I shared in Committee this morning that CityLink Cycleway’s Edward Street stage will be open this Friday at 5am and this will mark the start of 12 months of trial inner city protected bike lanes.
The Victoria Bridge alignment is also now being put in place and will connect with Elizabeth Street shortly, marking a big step towards a more active and sustainable transport options in our city. I will leave any further—just actually before I wrap up, Councillor CASSIDY had a question that I took on notice in the Committee today, which was about land resumptions for Viola Place and, as he knows, some projects are more complicated than they appear. I’ve advised previously that construction of this short link is not possible within Council-owned or controlled land.
TradeCoast Central is the owner of a large portion of the land through which this proposed bikeway runs. TradeCoast Central has been issued a notice of intention to resume and we’re currently in negotiations to finalise this process. There has been a lot of back and forth in this resumption. As part of the construction of the bikeway, there needs to be some soil tests and detailed investigation undertaken to inform safe design. This has involved us gaining permission to the site, which has not always been easy.
But these delays are outside our control and I can assure Councillor CASSIDY that we’re working as hard as we can to progress Viola Place to get this open sooner, rather than later. We are aware just how long many in our community have waited for this bikeway and I will leave further debate for the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor OWEN.
Councillor OWEN: Thank you. I rise to speak on the very important project of safer routes to school and this is something that I know that schools in my local area have benefited from over past years and, in particular, I’d like to recognise that Stretton State College will be receiving a missing link footpath commencing on 6 April.
So construction will start on 6 April, during the Easter school holidays, so that when those students return in term 2, they will have a safer route to school and it will assist in reducing congestion around both the Stretton State Senior College and Junior College. Now, this is a school that has nearly 3,500 children from Prep to 12. When you get a significant number of people in a very close proximity over a short period of time, it does make it a very difficult situation. The priority here though is student safety.
I would like to thank the Council officers concerned, particularly one of my local Asset Service officers out in South Region, who I won’t name in this Chamber, but he knows who he is, he has worked diligently to find an outcome that is beneficial not only from a safety perspective, but also from a financial perspective. I think that when we have officers like this within Council, we do need to recognise their skills and abilities to see an appropriate outcome, an appropriate solution to what is needed is so very important.
I have advised the Stretton College P&C President, Ria Wong, that these works will be commencing on 6 April. I do commend Ria on the effort that she has put in on behalf of the P&C in her role as President. She has worked extremely hard to ensure that any conversations that Council officers needed to have, with her in her role as the President of the P&C, that they would be facilitated and certainly the feedback that I’ve had from her in working with the parent body has been substantial and very professional.
So, I think it’s really important that we are delivering on these types of projects, because they make a difference day in, day out, on making sure students can get to school safely. That is exactly what this project is all about, safer routes to school. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? 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 – SAFER PATHS TO SCHOOL
491/2020-21
1. The Transport Network Operations Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Safer Paths to School program. She provided the information below.
2. Council’s Safer Paths to School program (the program) commenced in 2019-20. The aim of the program is to complete missing footpath links near schools to ensure students, parents, carers and teachers can travel to and from school on safe and connected footpaths. The program was established to ensure there is dedicated funding for footpath construction and maintenance around schools.
3. In 2019-20, 23 paths were constructed at 21 schools to improve access and safety. Following the program’s success, it has been expanded to continue for a further four years from 2020-21 to 2023-24.
4. In 2020-21, $1.624 million has been allocated to continue the program. Twenty-three footpaths around 21 schools have been identified for construction. Consultation has been completed for 22 footpaths, with seven already constructed and four programmed for construction in February 2021.
5. Next steps for the program include the construction of the remaining footpaths. Council will also continue to review locations for future inclusion in the program through Active School Travel surveys, customer requests, desktop reviews and site observations.
6. The Committee was shown images of footpaths completed under the program at:
- Beenleigh Road, Kuraby
- Henson Road, Salisbury
- Real Street, Annerley
- Emblem Street, Jamboree
- Pallert Street, Middle Park.
7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Transport Network Operations Manager for her informative presentation.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Infrastructure Committee, please.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Item A before us today is a report of the Committee presentation that we had last week on the major city projects construction impact coordination, which is an important undertaking of Council officers to ensure that with all the construction work happening in and around the CBD at the moment that those works can be coordinated.
Currently underway is the Queen’s Wharf Brisbane project, construction of the Albert Street and Roma Street Cross River Rail stations, new inner city schools, the new performing arts venue in South Bank, the new Neville Bonner Bridge and, of course, the Brisbane Metro, the CityLink cycle trial, the upgrade of the South Bank ferry terminal and the closing of Victoria Bridge. So, in addition to these, there’s a number of other utility service works and private developments that are under construction.
Quite a number of these projects are due to finish by the end of 2021, but later this year works on the Kangaroo Point Green Bridge and Waterfront Brisbane will commence. So, we’re expecting that during the third quarter of 2021, this is when most of the construction work will be happening concurrently. This activity is good for the city, both in terms of the economy and job generation, but also the longer-term transport and lifestyle outcomes for Brisbane. But, of course, with every construction project, there are impacts that need to be managed to minimise the disruption to residents and businesses.
That’s why, Mr Chair, this financial year Council undertook, or took, the lead on establishing the coordination of major inner city construction projects, which involves three cross-project coordination groups that includes representatives from authorities such as TMR (Department of Transport and Main Roads), the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, the Queensland Police Service, the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority and the Cities Transformation Taskforce. They meet regularly and communicate regularly to make sure that we’re managing the multiple impacts to traffic, public transport, the environment and amenities as best we can.
Now, Mr Chair, I did see Councillor GRIFFITHS, who wasn’t at the meeting last week tweeted, with apparent glee, a newspaper report on this Committee presentation that said it was—these meetings were a crisis meeting. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are regular meetings, project control group meetings, that are structured in order to make sure that the various authorities understand what each other is doing. So, they’re not, Councillor GRIFFITHS, through you, Mr Chair, crisis meetings. I know you adopted that headline and retweeted it.
That’s certainly not the case and I don’t know in what context that headline appeared. I think it was only there briefly, because the ongoing story there attached to that article is that Perfect Storm of Construction Projects to Trigger CBD Delays. Well, that’s a valid point. That’s why these groups meet regularly, to make sure that whatever delays can be anticipated are dealt with. Mr Chair, it’s all about keeping the city running as safely and efficiently as possible.
We do look forward to the residents of Brisbane enjoying the many benefits of these projects we’ll provide for our city, but we also need to make sure that the amount of disruption that will be caused during construction is minimised. Naturally, a big part of managing the numerous construction sites is monitoring traffic in the inner city.
Preliminary traffic modelling indicates that travel times through the CBD could increase as these projects move through the delivery phase, so it’s something that we are always looking at and why, of course, we’re encouraging people to return to public transport, which is very important for people to recognise and accept that public transport is the best way to move around our city.
Most people, while they’re opting to drive their car and public transport usage is lower than pre-COVID-19 levels, we’re certainly encouraging everyone to get back on the bus, get back on the train and to go about their businesses through use of public and active transport. Mr Chair, there were four other items on the agenda, petitions, I’ll leave those to any debate in the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on item A. I note that the Infrastructure report last week appears to try and downplay the impact of Council’s projects on traffic in the inner city area. This is something—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: This is something that they’ve been doing for such a long time, when it comes to particularly the Metro. I have been very critical of the Metro to date and will continue to be. It is a botched project by this Administration. It has had so many different versions and the latest version doesn’t even deal with the significant bus safety bottlenecks on the southside of the river. However, I’m rising today to speak particularly because of paragraph 5 in the Infrastructure report, item A.
That states ‘traffic modelling has been undertaken to assess the cumulative impact of traffic impacts on multiple construction activities in the city. Travel times through the CBD are going to increase, extended queues on Riverside Expressway, including the Captain Cook Bridge to Coronation Drive, potential delays to bus services within the CBD and where buses run on-road.’
Now, it’s only a couple of years ago that Adrian SCHRINNER stood up publicly, stating that all of the cars, pretty much—I think it was about 8,000 of the 9,000 vehicles a day would be going by the William Jolly Bridge and there would be very little, if no impact on the expressway. Now, we’ve seen the RACQ (Royal Automobile Club of Queensland) come out with concerns about the increased traffic diversions from the Metro decisions that this LNP Administration has taken and now we see them formalising it. So, let me be clear.
Two years ago, the LORD MAYOR publicly stated that the—I think he called it the majority, but there’s about nine-and-a-bit thousand vehicle movements a day on the Victoria Bridge—he stated publicly that 8,000 of those would divert to the William Jolly Bridge. He assured people there’d be no problems with traffic impacts from the closure of the Victoria Bridge. Clearly, he was delusional then.
He misled the people of Brisbane and now our community is dealing with these changes, which are having a massive impact, up to 25 minutes in some cases according to the peak travel groups, and we can see in here Council now acknowledging, and I quote, that there are extended queues on the Riverside Expressway, including on the Captain Cook Bridge and as far back as Coronation Drive. Southsiders are getting dudded by this Metro project, which changes on an almost weekly basis, and it is causing chaos. Chaos. Now, Councillor SRI, I’m sure, will have a completely different view to me on this.
But my concern here is the LORD MAYOR reassured the people of Brisbane publicly just two years ago that what Council is acknowledging today would not happen. Would not happen. Let me quote. Councillor SCHRINNER said that ‘Council would spend $5 million to improve intersections on the four-lane William Jolly Bridge to cater for the 8,000 vehicles which would be forced off the Victoria Bridge when the work was finalised in 2023.’ Quote from Councillor SCHRINNER, ‘we will see most of the traffic on the Victoria Bridge divert to the William Jolly Bridge.’
Well, guess what?
That was an uninformed and delusional statement about a project that he has botched personally for the past five years. We are now seeing the adverse impacts of that on people trying to get around our city and it is appalling that Councillor McLACHLAN hops up and thinks this is a good news story. The only reason this is happening is because you were not upfront with people about the impacts of the Metro, in the same way that you are not being upfront with the people about the impacts to bus services in this city and these consequential impacts of your decision are having adverse impacts on Brisbane residents and you have tried to hide them, you’ve misled people—
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, could you please direct all comment to and through me?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Well, I haven’t referred to anybody.
Chair: I was of the opinion that you were saying those comments to Councillor McLACHLAN directly—
Councillor JOHNSTON: No, I haven’t.
Chair: So, could you please just—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, clearly the record will show that’s not the case.
Chair: Well, I don’t know. I think there’ll be conjecture at the very least. Please proceed.
Councillor JOHNSTON: You, as in the LNP, and you are part of that, Mr Chairman, have misled people about the impacts of the Metro and it is appalling that today we can see that you knew full well and good, either not having done traffic modelling in the first place and then just going out and saying whatever came into your head. I mean, did the LORD MAYOR just make that up when he went public two years ago and said all those cars will then go over the William Jolly Bridge? Did he just get his crystal ball out and go yes, I reckon they’ll go that way?
I remember speaking about it in this Chamber at the time. It did not take people into the city. It takes people to the north and all of this traffic is clearly coming back across the Riverside Expressway and now Council has to come clean with residents. Meanwhile, southsiders are having impacts, not only on their public transport services, but also on vehicle services and that is just appalling behaviour by the LNP.
The LORD MAYOR deliberately misled residents with the incorrect or deliberately false information two years ago and they’re just sneaking it out in a report today that yes, yes, yes, there’s going to be some adverse impacts where people using the main way that people from the southside get into Brisbane City CBD, really, really, poor behaviour.
Look, Councillor MURPHY has got to hop up and brief Councillor McLACHLAN and no doubt the attack will come and, you know, but if anybody is interested, they can go back and read the LORD MAYOR’s public comments. They’re on the record, I’m reading out of news articles. This is what he said and the shame of all of this is this Metro project has been botched. Whilst we’ve used better bus services in this city, they could be fabulous. The way in which this project has been undertaken by the LNP is appalling.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair.
I rise to speak briefly on item A and it probably would’ve been more politically astute of me to just sit this one out and let others argue about it but I did want to place on the record my gratitude and support for the closure of Victoria Bridge to cars and also the great work that the Administration is doing with the CityLink cycleway trial. I think those are really positive and commendable projects.
I do think it’s fair to say that there have been traffic impacts and that there will continue to be traffic impacts as a result of changes to inner city transport networks, but I think we have to recognise that continuing with the status quo where we continue to build wider roads and continue to rely on private vehicle transport as the main mode in and out of the city is simply naïve and unsustainable.
I’ve argued strongly that we actually need to be going even further in terms of prioritising public transport routes and cycling routes at the expense of private vehicle traffic. It’s obviously a politically contentious issue but I do think these projects are a step in the right direct. I’m obviously very critical of the Queen’s Wharf casino project. I think that’s a dud and I would suggest that a lot of the construction-related impacts have actually arisen around that North Quay precinct, partly as a result of that project.
I’d also suggest that traffic impacts are often exacerbated when there hasn’t been good communication about the changes and I would suggest, respectfully, that that perhaps has been a bigger part of the problem. It’s not so much that you close the road or that you divert the traffic but it’s that you do it without enough notice for people, and while I think I’ve certainly played my part and some Councillors have played their part in trying to notify the public, even the day before the Victoria Bridge closed to cars, there were still residents in West End who had no idea that was happening.
I think part of the responsibility lies with residents to stay connected and informed about changes to their local area, but I do think it also highlights that Council could perhaps be doing a better job of promoting some of these changes well in advance. I’m mindful that sometimes the updates in the LORD MAYOR’s newsletter perhaps leave out some of these important changes and perhaps focus on some other stuff that’s less of an urgent priority in terms of communication and I would suggest that the Council Administration could perhaps do a little bit better in terms of notification.
But I think I do differ from Councillor JOHNSTON a little bit in that I think there are a range of factors contributing to increase in traffic congestion. I think expensive public transport is certainly part of it. I think the fact that more people are driving due to concerns about COVID-19 safety on public transport is part of it. I think more and more private school parents are driving their kids to schools in the inner city and that that’s a big contributing factor and I would suggest that the Administration needs to look more closely at the volumes of traffic associated with major attractors such as St Laurence’s, Sommerville House, et cetera, because we really saw a massive jump in traffic the week that school went back and that’s something that can be adjusted and adapted if we can change students’ and parents’ travel behaviours.
So I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to say that all of these traffic issues are due to closure of the Victoria Bridge or the CityLink cycleway and I think probably the truth lies somewhere in between; that the Administration could have done a better job of letting people know what was happening and being upfront about the impacts. But, by the same token, I think over time traffic will adapt and people will learn to find new ways in and out of the city.
Ultimately, the idea that someone should be driving into the CBD on a regular basis as their primary mode of transport is nonsensical and needs to be re-evaluated and I think over time the city will adapt in that direction.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Seriatim en bloc - Clauses B and D
|Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause B, Petition – Requesting Council investigate measures to disincentivise non-local |
|motorists from using Northgate Road, Nundah, between Sandgate and Toombul Roads; and Clause D, Petition – Requesting Council reinstate |
|the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street, Brisbane City, and that a crossing be provided at the intersection with Ivory |
|Street, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes. |
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I just was in terms of speaking to these items, and I do want to speak to items B and D, I just would like to respond to some of the comments that Councillor McLACHLAN made and I think it was interesting that he noted that I wasn’t at the meeting last week. That was actually because I had a relative who was going through major surgery. So I think it was just a little bit unprofessional to be raising that as a point in speaking in the Chamber and I’m a bit disappointed with his behaviour. I expected better of him.
But my second point was I was also bemused that he accused me of putting a tweet out there that claimed I said that there was an emergency response. I’m not aware of any tweet that I’ve put out there in regards to this presentation so I look forward to seeing what Councillor McLACHLAN is talking about.
But I am sort of—one of the things that has struck me today with the whole Administration, and we had the LORD MAYOR talking about his huge majority and how he keeps winning Council all the time, is how much they keep talking about the five or seven of us. A lot of energy goes into talking about the Opposition rather than talking about the Administration.
Now, in relation to items B and D, we didn’t support these two petitions which were both—one was for a road request for traffic at Northgate and we think something more can be done for those residents there. The other one was for a better footpath connecting up in the inner city. Now, both those are reasonable requests put forward by the residents. They just want better traffic management and safer footpaths.
Now, what we’d say on this side of the Chamber is we’d be listening to those residents, we’d be supporting those residents because what those residents are saying is reasonable and we think we should deliver better results for those residents. Unfortunately I think what we’ve seen today, be it the Norman Park ferry or a number of things, is this Administration’s arrogance in knowing best, tricking people and, in a way, deceiving the public around what it is actually that they’re really interested in—providing outcomes for residents.
So we won’t be supporting those two responses—B and D—and look forward to representing the residents of Brisbane rather than a tired Administration that really isn’t interested in the residents of Brisbane.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair.
Mr Chair, I’d like to refer briefly to item C. It’s a petition relating to my ward. Mr Chair, the Wynnum Central business area has a shortage of car parking spaces. That’s the perception from the general public and it’s difficult to find a park. So as with politics where perception is reality, the public believes this, which means they shop elsewhere rather than Wynnum Central.
The original proposal for this project would have meant the loss of six car parking spaces out of about 20 spaces available in the immediate vicinity and, in my view, this would’ve been bad for the small businesses in the immediate vicinity. The amended proposal overcomes this problem and is a far more satisfactory response. I thank Council officer Andrew McIntosh for his flexibility in being able to come up with an alternative solution. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair.
I rise to speak to some of those issues that arose during debate. Thank you, Councillor SRI, for your thoughtful contribution to this debate. That is appreciated.
Of course, nothing that Councillor JOHNSTON says in this place comes as any surprise to me when she chooses to make everything, everything about Council projects, completely ignoring what this was about, what the presentation was about, which was the coordination of significant construction projects across the city from different authorities and private entities.
Of course, Councillor JOHNSTON choses to make it only about one project, the metro project, bagging a great public transport initiative, bagging a great active transport initiative to put a cycleway down Elizabeth Street, completely ignoring the impacts—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Completely, completely ignoring—not one word to say about the impacts of Cross River Rail projects. And one can only speculate about why those projects were chosen to be ignored by Councillor JOHNSTON. But they are the significant issues that are involved in why the city needs to be a coordinating authority for the works that are underway and I repeat what they are.
The Queen’s Wharf Brisbane project, Cross River Rail, the new inner city schools, utility service upgrades, a significant number of major project developments, the new performing arts venue, the Neville Bonner Bridge, Waterfront Brisbane. So yes—and Brisbane Metro—but they are all needing to be coordinated as these works are undertaken and I thank the Council officers who are leading the way in making sure that there is coordination across all the authorities that are involved and the private developers that are involved in delivering of these projects.
Yes, there will be impacts on our road network. That’s what the presentation said, and it is true in the inner city area, the CBD area, but Council will continue to work with authorities like the Cross River Rail, for example, opposing their proposal to close down, perhaps, Sunday haulage routes through the city. One wonders why they need to do that, why their works aren’t sufficient to house the materials that they’re extracting from the tunnels, that it can’t wait until Monday, we’ll continue to oppose those sorts of requests that they’re making and the numerous requests that they’re making also in other locations for the construction of their tunnels, with an eye to making sure that people are safe as possible while those works by the Cross River Rail authority are being undertaken and to make sure the people are well aware of what they’re options are to return to public transport, which remains the best way for people to get through and into the CBD.
On that point, Mr Chair, I might leave it at that. There were a couple of comments about some of those petitions. I note that petition D wasn’t actually put in by a local resident and there were good and cogent reasons why the response is as per what the officers have said. Again with item B, again responses from our Council officers to the proposal that came forward from those residents.
As always, officers look at the issues that are arising as a consequence of residents’ concerns but have to make, in the end, a judgment based on their engineering expertise. That’s what’s happened in both of those cases.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, you had a misrepresentation. Please address your matter succinctly.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON Yes, thank you.
Councillor McLACHLAN made the completely false and delusional statement that I had criticised the Elizabeth Street bikeway project. All of my comments on this item were related to traffic impacts of the closure of the Victoria Bridge and the metro. I made no such remarks.
Chair: Thank you.
We’ll now have a resolution. We’ll vote on the resolutions for A, C, E and F.
Clauses A, C, E and F put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, C, E and F of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chair: On items B and D, items B and D.
Clauses B and D put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B and D of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 17 - Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Jonathan SRI.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MAJOR INNER CITY PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION IMPACT COORDINATION UPDATE
492/2020-21
1. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Major Inner City Projects Construction Impact Coordination. She provided the information below.
2. The Committee was shown a construction timeline for the major inner city projects.
3. Current Central Business District (CBD) projects include:
- Queen’s Wharf Brisbane – integrated resort development and the Neville Bonner Bridge
- Cross River Rail – Roma Street and Albert Street Station
- Brisbane Metro – early works in South Brisbane
- CityLink Cycleway trial – Elizabeth Street, Edward Street and Victoria Bridge
- utility service upgrades
- major private developments.
4. The Elizabeth Street bikeway opened on 29 January 2021 and the Victoria Bridge closed to general traffic on 24 January 2021. Construction of the Edward Street bikeway commenced on 1 February 2021, with construction of the William Street to Grey Street bikeway commenced in early February 2021. The CityLink Cycleway project completion is scheduled for early March 2021. Bike counters were installed to enable monitoring of cycleway usage during the trial period.
5. Traffic modelling has been undertaken for the inner city area to assess the potential cumulative traffic impacts of multiple construction activities in the inner city. The preliminary modelling indicates that, compared to peak traffic flows in 2018 (pre-COVID-19 base model), the following impacts may occur:
- travel times through the CBD could increase
- extended queues on the Riverside Expressway, including on the Captain Cook Bridge and to Coronation Drive
- potential delays to bus services into and within the CBD, where buses run on-road.
The modelling indicates that a substantial redistribution of traffic will occur within the CBD as motorists change their travel patterns/routes to avoid key congestion points. An integrated and coordinated strategy is being used to reduce the need for private vehicle travel within the inner city and to support alternative travel options for the community.
6. Council uses intelligent transport systems to monitor traffic volumes, average speeds and real time corridor performance, including:
- Bluetooth data
- SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System) traffic data
- manual and automatic pedestrian and cycle counts.
7. Traffic volumes and travel times are monitored at selected locations in the CBD on a daily basis. A weekly summary report is prepared outlining the changes in traffic volumes and travel times in relation to a base week. Weekly averages are more critical for monitoring as daily values may be impacted by specific incidents, e.g. traffic accidents. The weekly monitoring reports are used:
- to monitor impacts of changes in the city road network
- to monitor impacts of construction projects on the CBD road network
- as background data to assist in considering future changes to the road network.
8. The Committee was shown graphs detailing the weekly intersection traffic volumes for 25-29 January 2021 in comparison to the base week of 16-19 November 2020 for:
- Ann Street to George Street
- George Street
- Elizabeth Street to William Street
- Edward Street to George Street
- Alice Street to William Street
- Margaret Street to William Street.
9. The Committee was shown a graph detailing the changes in CBD traffic volumes and travel times for Elizabeth Street and Roma Street. The graphs use 4-8 May 2020 as the base level for reporting as the peak COVID-19 period. The traffic volumes show a significant impact from COVID-19 with a decrease of approximately 40-50% below 2019 volumes. Travel times have remained relatively consistent in 2020. The lower than base level traffic volumes in August 2020 assisted in the management of the impacts of the Inner Northern Busway closure for the Cross River Rail project. The travel times for Elizabeth Street and Roma Street increased in December 2020 as a result of the lane closure in Elizabeth Street for the CityLink Cycleway. Following the closure of the Victoria Bridge in January 2021, Elizabeth Street travel times have improved, however Roma Street travel times have increased.
10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager for her informative presentation.
11. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INVESTIGATE MEASURES TO DISINCENTIVISE NON-LOCAL MOTORISTS FROM USING NORTHGATE ROAD, NUNDAH, BETWEEN SANDGATE AND TOOMBUL ROADS
CA20/991914
493/2020-21
12. A petition from residents, requesting Council investigate measures to disincentivise non-local motorists from using Northgate Road, Nundah, between Sandgate and Toombul Roads, to improve safety, was received during the Spring Recess 2020.
13. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
14. The petition contains 58 signatures. Of the petitioners, 47 live in Northgate Ward with the remaining 11 petitioners living in other wards of the City of Brisbane.
15. Northgate Road has a speed limit of 60 km/h and is classified as a district road in Council’s road hierarchy, facilitating the movement of people and goods to and through the suburb, including bus and heavy vehicle usage. There is one Council bus route operating on Northgate Road, between Flower and Ridge Streets. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
16. Northgate Road is the main road connection between Toombul Road and Sandgate Road, and serves properties and businesses located between the railway line and Northgate Road.
17. Traffic calming involves the installation of traffic calming devices, such as speed platforms and chicanes, to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. Traffic calming devices are generally applied to local and neighbourhood access roads, which primarily provide access to dwellings, residential buildings and other local streets, with limited traffic movements.
18. Traffic surveys have been undertaken in July 2020 to assess the current traffic speeds and volumes. Average weekday traffic volumes were recorded at 6,167 vehicles with 85% of all vehicles travelling at or below 54 km/h. Noting the surrounding land uses and the function of Northgate Road in Council’s road network, these volumes are considered to be acceptable.
19. Council’s investigation confirmed that Northgate Road’s function is consistent with the definition of a district road as outlined in Brisbane City Plan 2014 and there are no plans to consider changing this designation. Furthermore, because of this function, the installation of traffic calming devices would likely lead to vehicles being redirected into other local streets which is undesirable.
20. The petitioners’ request to close Northgate Road to non-local traffic has been noted. Considering Northgate Road’s function as a district road and the connection it provides in the road network, it is expected to accommodate non-local traffic use. Similarly, the installation of traffic calming devices, and restricting access to the road to particular users would likely impact on other surrounding streets. Additionally, there is no effective method to identify and restrict non-local traffic. For these reasons, there are no plans to implement traffic calming devices or restrict non-local traffic from using Northgate Road.
21. In response to a recent petition regarding large vehicles on Northgate Road, Council has reassessed the current 60 km/h speed limit. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to ensure they are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland. While the speed compliance of the latest survey in July is very good, Council commissioned a formal speed limit review of Northgate Road by an independent consultant, in accordance with the MUTCD, to determine if any change in the speed limit is warranted. The independent review recommended that the speed limit be lowered from 60 km/h to 50 km/h and this recommendation has been endorsed by the Speed Management Committee. It is anticipated that the speed limit will be lowered in early February 2021.
22. ‘Unsuitable for Large Vehicles’ advisory signage has been previously installed on Northgate Road and Council is investigating the modified signage recently installed by the Queensland Government on Sandgate Road, with a view to utilise similar signs at both ends of Northgate Road. While these signs are unable to be enforced, it is considered that they will help to reduce the number of large vehicles travelling on Northgate Road.
23. A review of the most recent traffic data from the Queensland Government’s crash database for Northgate Road identifies that there have been 10 recorded crashes between January 2015 and April 2020. The crash data indicates that they were the result of poor driver behaviour and not a result of the road configuration. Council’s review of the crash data did not identify any significant safety risks, particularly given the volume of traffic through the road corridor during the four-year period.
Consultation
24. Councillor Adam Allan, Councillor for Northgate Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
25. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
26. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Charles Strunk dissenting.
27. 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: CA20/991914
Thank you for your petition requesting Council investigate measures to disincentivise non-local motorists from using Northgate Road, Nundah, between Sandgate and Toombul Roads.
Northgate Road is the main road connection between Toombul Road and Sandgate Road, and serves properties and businesses located between the railway line and Northgate Road.
Traffic calming involves the installation of traffic calming devices, such as speed platforms and chicanes, to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. Traffic calming devices are generally applied to local and neighbourhood access roads, which primarily provide access to dwellings, residential buildings and other local streets, with limited traffic movements.
Traffic surveys have been undertaken in July 2020 to assess the current traffic speeds and volumes. Average weekday traffic volumes were recorded at 6,167 vehicles with 85% of all vehicles travelling at or below 54 km/h. Noting the surrounding land uses and the function of Northgate Road in Council’s road network, these volumes are considered to be acceptable.
Council’s investigation confirmed that Northgate Road’s function is consistent with the definition of a district road as outlined in Brisbane City Plan 2014 and there are no plans to consider changing this designation. Furthermore, because of this function, the installation of traffic calming devices would likely lead to vehicles being redirected into other local streets which is undesirable.
Your request to close Northgate Road to non-local traffic has been noted. Considering Northgate Road’s function as a district road and the connection it provides in the road network, it is expected to accommodate non-local traffic use. Similarly, the installation of traffic calming devices, and restricting access to the road to particular users would likely impact on other surrounding streets. Additionally, there is no effective method to identify and restrict non-local traffic. For these reasons, there are no plans to implement traffic calming devices or restrict non-local traffic from using Northgate Road.
In response to a recent petition regarding large vehicles on Northgate Road, Council has reassessed the current 60 km/h speed limit. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to ensure they are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland. While the speed compliance of the latest survey in July is very good, Council commissioned a formal speed limit review of Northgate Road by an independent consultant, in accordance with the MUTCD, to determine if any change in the speed limit is warranted. The independent review recommended that the speed limit be lowered from 60 km/h to 50 km/h and this recommendation has been endorsed by the Speed Management Committee. It is anticipated that the speed limit will be lowered in early February 2021.
‘Unsuitable for Large Vehicles’ advisory signage has been previously installed on Northgate Road and Council is investigating the modified signage recently installed by the Queensland Government on Sandgate Road, with a view to utilise similar signs at both ends of Northgate Road. While these signs are unable to be enforced, it is considered that they will help to reduce the number of large vehicles travelling on Northgate Road.
A review of the most recent traffic data from the Queensland Government’s crash database for Northgate Road identifies that there have been 10 recorded crashes between January 2015 and April 2020. The crash data indicates that they were the result of poor driver behaviour and not a result of the road configuration. Council’s review of the crash data did not identify any significant safety risks, particularly given the volume of traffic through the road corridor during the four-year period.
The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Michael Denman, Senior Transport Network Officer, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 0985.
ADOPTED
C PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CAR PARKING SPACES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BAY TERRACE AND CHESTNUT STREET, WYNNUM
CA20/1124938 and CA20/1155156
494/2020-21
28. Council received two petitions from residents requesting Council not reduce the amount of car parking spaces near the intersection of Bay Terrace and Chestnut Street, Wynnum, to support local businesses. Petition CA20/1124938 was received during the Spring Recess 2020. Petition CA20/1155156 was presented to the meeting of Council held on 27 October 2020, by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received.
29. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
30. The first petition (CA20/1124938) contains 73 signatures. Of the petitioners, 39 live in Wynnum, 31 live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane, and three live outside the City of Brisbane. The second petition (CA20/1155156) contains 125 signatures. Of the petitioners, 75 live in Wynnum, 42 live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane, and eight live outside the City of Brisbane.
31. The petitioners are opposed to any reduction of on-street parking associated with a Safe School Travel Infrastructure program proposal (the proposal) for Guardian Angels’ Catholic Primary School. The Safe School Travel Infrastructure program has worked with more than 160 schools since its introduction in 1991, providing transport-related infrastructure to improve the safety of students travelling to and from school. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
32. The proposed intersection improvements involve the installation of splitter islands on Chestnut Street on both approaches to Bay Terrace. The splitter islands would improve pedestrian safety and accessibility at the intersection by providing formal refuge island crossing points and also assist in controlling vehicle speeds and turning movements. However, if installed they would result in the removal of six on-street car parking spaces.
33. Council is mindful of the need to provide access to on-street parking to assist people doing business. However, on-street parking is a community asset and limited resource, so appropriate management of these facilities is required. Council works with local businesses when implementing on-street parking allocations. Consultation forms a key part of this process and feedback received is always considered.
34. As such, Council has considered feedback from businesses directly adjacent to the proposal, in addition to that of the petitioners’ regarding the amount of on-street parking spaces. In response to the feedback received, Council does not intend to proceed with constructing the splitter islands and associated works that were proposed on Chestnut Street and Bay Terrace.
35. Alternatively, Council will undertake the following line marking treatments at the intersection:
- installing new entry threshold treatments on Chestnut Street at the intersection with Bay Terrace and on Pine Street at the intersection with Bay Terrace
- installing new School Zone threshold treatments on Bay Terrace, Akonna Street and Pine Street.
36. These line marking improvements are expected to enhance safety in the area by highlighting the low speed environment around the school and local area.
Consultation
37. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
38. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
39. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
40. 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: CA20/1124938 and CA20/1155156
Thank you for your petitions requesting Council not reduce the amount of car parking spaces near the intersection of Bay Terrace and Chestnut Street, Wynnum.
The proposed intersection improvements are a part of a Safe School Travel Infrastructure program proposal (the proposal) and involve the installation of splitter islands on Chestnut Street on both approaches to Bay Terrace. The splitter islands would improve pedestrian safety and accessibility at the intersection by providing formal refuge island crossing points and also assist in controlling vehicle speeds and turning movements. However, if installed they would result in the removal of six on-street car parking spaces.
Council is mindful of the need to provide access to on-street parking to assist people doing business. However, on-street parking is a community asset and limited resource, so appropriate management of these facilities is required. Council works with local businesses when implementing on-street parking allocations. Consultation forms a key part of this process and feedback received is always considered.
As such, Council has considered feedback from businesses directly adjacent to the proposal, in addition to your petitions, regarding the amount of on-street parking spaces. In response to the feedback received, Council does not intend to proceed with constructing the splitter islands and associated works that were proposed on Chestnut Street and Bay Terrace.
Alternatively, Council will undertake the following line marking treatments at the intersection:
- installing new entry threshold treatments on Chestnut Street at the intersection with Bay Terrace and on Pine Street at the intersection with Bay Terrace
- installing new School Zone threshold treatments on Bay Terrace, Akonna Street and Pine Street.
These line marking improvements are expected to enhance safety in the area by highlighting the low speed environment around the school and local area.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Andrew McIntosh, Project Officer, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 4321.
ADOPTED
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REINSTATE THE FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BOUNDARY STREET, BRISBANE CITY, AND THAT A CROSSING BE PROVIDED AT THE INTERSECTION WITH IVORY STREET
CA20/1125129
495/2020-21
41. A petition from residents, requesting Council reinstate the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street, Brisbane City, and that a crossing be provided at the intersection with Ivory Street, to increase safety and improve accessibility, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 20 October 2020, by Councillor Kim Marx on behalf of Councillor Vicki Howard, and received.
42. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
43. The petition contains 12 signatures. All of the petitioners live within the City of Brisbane.
44. The petitioners refer to Council removing a section of footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street, between Ivory Street and Ivory Lane, in 2017. In June 2017, Council completed works to facilitate improved access through the Ivory Street and Boundary Street intersection to assist in addressing access, safety and congestion issues. As part of the works, a new pedestrian crossing point was provided on Boundary Street with new kerb ramps and connection to the existing footpath.
45. Council received a petition in 2018 requesting the reinstatement of the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street. In response to that petition, Council committed to undertaking a traffic and pedestrian study to review the overall performance of the intersection, including pedestrian movements.
46. The pedestrian counts referenced in the study highlighted significant pedestrian volumes crossing east to west over Boundary Street. However, the volumes conflicted with previous pedestrian counts on record and, as such, new counts were requested in November 2020. The survey indicated 154 pedestrians crossed Boundary Street, at its intersection with Ivory Street, in the 13-hour survey period.
47. The use of this location to cross the road is noted. However, only a signalised crossing could be considered at this location and analysis shows that the signal phasing required for a signalised pedestrian crossing could lead to queuing back onto the Story Bridge. An unsignalised crossing at the intersection is unable to be supported, as it would create safety risks due to limited sight lines and multiple conflicting vehicle movements.
48. The petitioners’ feedback about disruption to active transport has been noted. Council takes every care to ensure disruptions to existing travel paths are minimised. In this instance, the modified crossing point requires a diversion of less than 70 m, which allows pedestrians to cross Boundary Street away from the intersection and improves sight lines for all road users. As such, Council considers that the localised changes are justified and have improved safety.
49. For these reasons, there are no plans to install a new pedestrian crossing at the intersection or extend the existing footpath on Boundary Street. However, to further guide pedestrians to use the crossing point on the northern side of Boundary Street, south of the Ivory Street intersection, Council will investigate the installation of infrastructure, such as low-level vegetation or pedestrian fencing.
Consultation
50. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
51. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
52. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Charles Strunk dissenting.
53. 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: CA20/1125129
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reinstate the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street, Brisbane City, and that a crossing be provided at the intersection with Ivory Street.
In June 2017, Council completed works to facilitate improved access through the Ivory Street and Boundary Street intersection to assist in addressing access, safety and congestion issues. As part of the works, a new crossing point was provided on Boundary Street with new kerb ramps and connection to the existing footpath.
Council received a petition in 2018 requesting the reinstatement of the footpath along the northern side of Boundary Street. In response to that petition, Council committed to undertaking a traffic and pedestrian study to review the overall performance of the intersection, including pedestrian movements.
The pedestrian counts referenced in the study highlighted significant pedestrian volumes crossing east to west over Boundary Street. However, the volumes conflicted with previous pedestrian counts on record and, as such, new counts were requested in November 2020. The survey indicated 154 pedestrians crossed Boundary Street, at its intersection with Ivory Street, in the 13-hour survey period.
The use of this location to cross the road is noted. However, only a signalised crossing could be considered at this location and analysis shows that the signal phasing required for a signalised pedestrian crossing could lead to queuing back onto the Story Bridge. An unsignalised crossing at the intersection is unable to be supported, as it would create safety risks due to limited sight lines and multiple conflicting vehicle movements.
Your feedback about disruption to active transport has been noted. Council takes every care to ensure disruptions to existing travel paths are minimised. In this instance, the modified crossing point requires a diversion of less than 70 m, which allows pedestrians to cross Boundary Street away from the intersection and improves sight lines for all road users. As such, Council considers that the localised changes are justified and have improved safety.
For these reasons, there are no plans to install a new pedestrian crossing at the intersection or extend the existing footpath on Boundary Street. However, to further guide pedestrians to use the crossing point on the northern side of Boundary Street, south of the Ivory Street intersection, Council will investigate the installation of infrastructure, such as low-level vegetation or pedestrian fencing.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Damian Burke, Senior Strategic Transport Planner, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 7676.
ADOPTED
E PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL REMOVE THE PARTIALLY INSTALLED SPLITTER ISLAND ON ST CLAIR STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF BATTEN STREET, KEDRON
CA20/1228745
496/2020-21
54. A petition from residents, requesting Council remove the partially installed splitter island on St Clair Street at the intersection of Batten Street, Kedron, and discontinue any further works as part of the Local Area Traffic Management improvement works on St Clair Street, Kedron, to ensure safe access to the street is maintained, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 10 November 2020, by Councillor Kim Marx on behalf of the Lord Mayor, and received.
55. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
56. The petition contains 20 signatures. The petition contains a total of 20 signatures from 18 households on St Clair Street.
57. The Batten Street precinct traffic improvement project is part of the Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) program that aims to address residents’ concerns about pedestrian and motorist safety within the local area. The precinct includes 435 residential and commercial properties between Rode Road in the north, Parkdale Street and Batten Street in the east, Kitchener Road in the south, and Millway Street in the west.
58. Consultation was undertaken in two stages, the first being a survey sent in March 2019 to the entire precinct, including absentee owners, seeking feedback on the concept design. Council received feedback from 83 properties, of which 61% were in favour of traffic improvements, 1% were partially for/against traffic improvements, 34% were not in favour of traffic improvements and 4% had no opinion. In August 2019, Council sent a letter to residents in the vicinity of the project advising that support was received for a number of traffic improvements to proceed to the next stage of design and consultation.
59. The next stage of consultation was undertaken in August and September 2019 with residents and property owners directly adjacent to each of the traffic calming devices proposed. The feedback from residents on the proposed devices allowed Council to make an informed decision about which treatments would proceed to construction.
60. Following evaluation of the feedback received, Council provided a LATM project update to the broader community in February 2020, advising works would be delivered in a two-staged approach, starting along Parkdale Street and Batten Street and including the adjoining side streets. The remaining works within the precinct are pending future funding allocation and would be considered against citywide priorities.
61. Concerns have been raised with the project team that the splitter island would impact safe access for residents entering and exiting St Clair Street at Batten Street due to cars parking on both sides of Batten Street impacting sight lines.
62. The purpose of the splitter island is to formalise driving paths and create a slower speed environment, while providing a safer crossing facility for pedestrians. Yellow ‘No Stopping’ lines will be installed as part of the splitter island on both St Clair Street and Batten Street to maintain safe sight lines for motorists and pedestrians. This will also improve sight distance for motorists turning from St Clair Street into Batten Street. The project team provided the head petitioner with a copy of the consultation plan which showed the location of the ‘No Stopping’ lines (yellow lines).
63. The project team received a request that the yellow lines be extended on Batten Street and include additional yellow lines on the eastern side of Batten Street, opposite St Clair Street. The project team advised that the length of the yellow lines are in accordance to Australian road safety guidelines, which takes into consideration the local road environment and vehicle speeds. Any extensions or additional yellow lines would require further investigation. The project team offered to meet the petitioners on site to talk through their concerns and show them a recently installed splitter island on a neighbouring street. This offer has been declined on multiple occasions.
64. It is recommended that works remain on hold while Council undertakes additional consultation with the residents of St Clair Street in early 2021 to seek feedback on two potential traffic improvement treatments.
A. Splitter island – complete the project as per the current design by installing the concrete islands to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety for all road users who use the intersection.
B. ‘Give Way’ control – remove the ‘painted’ island and associated chevron line marking and install an eight-metre centre line and ‘Give Way’ sign.
65. Treatment A provides pedestrian connectivity and safety improvements within the intersection by reducing the crossing distance, while treatment B provides no improvement to pedestrian safety or connectivity. The yellow lines that have been installed as part of the project would remain for both options to maintain minimum safety requirements.
66. Following evaluation of the consultation feedback, Council will provide an update to the residents of St Clair Street and advise timeframes for the delivery of construction works.
Funding
67. Funding has been allocated to the project in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 Budgets under 2.1.2.2 – Improve Local Transport Networks (Project: Local Area Traffic Management – Traffic Calming).
Consultation
68. Councillor Fiona Hammond, Councillor for Marchant Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
69. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
70. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
71. 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: CA20/1228745
Thank you for your petition requesting Council remove the partially installed splitter island on St Clair Street, at the intersection with Batten Street, Kedron, and discontinue any further works as part of the Local Area Traffic Management improvement works.
The Batten Street precinct was identified as a priority location for traffic calming treatments in response to concerns raised by the local community about pedestrian and motorist safety. The objective of the project is to improve safety for all road users, while reducing non-localised traffic movements through the area. The traffic calming treatments installed on Batten Street and the adjoining side streets have been determined to effectively reduce vehicle speed and rat-running while providing improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians.
The design of the splitter island on St Clair Street ensures access will be maintained for larger types of vehicles, such as waste collection trucks, and will not impede access for local residents of St Clair Street. The splitter island was proposed to improve the safety and connectivity for pedestrians within the intersection by reducing the crossing distance. For this reason, the splitter island was included in the initial proposal due to close proximity to Bradbury Park.
To ensure all residents have their concerns heard, Council will leave the works on hold and undertake additional consultation with the residents of St Clair Street to seek feedback on two potential traffic improvement treatments.
A. Splitter island – complete the project as per the current design by installing the concrete islands to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety for all road users who use the intersection.
B. ‘Give Way’ control – remove the ‘painted’ island and associated chevron line marking and install an eight-metre centre line and ‘Give Way’ sign.
Consultation will be undertaken in early-2021 and following evaluation of the consultation feedback, Council will provide an update to the residents of St Clair Street and advise timeframes for the delivery of construction works.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Graham Nell, Program Director, Civil and Transport, Project Management, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 1962.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
F PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL IMPLEMENT A 40 KM/H SPEED LIMIT AND INSTALL SIGNAGE ON RAGNOR ROAD, HEMMANT, IN THE AREA OF PAUL CONTI PARK, AND A 20 KM/H SPEED LIMIT ON MAJESTIC CRESCENT, HEMMANT
CA20/1229833
497/2020-21
72. A petition from residents, requesting Council implement a 40 km/h speed limit and signage on Ragnor Road, Hemmant, in the area of Paul Conti Park, and a 20 km/h speed limit on Majestic Crescent, Hemmant, to increase safety, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 10 November 2020, by Councillor Lisa Atwood, and received.
73. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
74. The petition contains 40 signatures. Of the petitioners, nine live on Ragnor Road, 22 live on Majestic Crescent or Doulton Close, two live on Hemmant-Tingalpa Road, Hemmant, and seven live in other suburbs in the City of Brisbane.
75. Ragnor Road and Majestic Crescent are classified as neighbourhood roads in Council’s Brisbane City Plan 2014 road network hierarchy. Ragnor Road and Majestic Crescent are designated with the default 50 km/h speed limit for all residential streets throughout Queensland. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
76. The petitioners’ request to decrease the speed limit has been noted. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This ensures that speed limits are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland. The 50 km/h speed limit is considered the most appropriate for residential street environments.
77. Council evaluates requests for 40 km/h zones based on the guidelines outlined in the MUTCD. Roads identified as potentially suitable for a speed limit reduction are then subjected to a formalised speed limit review process. All speed limit reviews consider the road’s intended function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, a risk assessment of the road environment and analysis of recorded crash data from the Queensland Government's crash database.
78. Under the MUTCD, 40 km/h zones can only be implemented in specific circumstances. These are limited to areas with highly concentrated pedestrian activity adjacent to the road or where traffic calming devices, such as speed bumps, are installed to deter non-local traffic from using local streets, more commonly known as ‘rat-running’.
79. A review of the road environment shows Ragnor Road to be a straight, flat road providing no through connectivity to other streets or suburbs. It varies between approximately 7.5 m wide at its intersection with Hemmant-Tingalpa Road, to approximately 4 m wide near its eastern end. Similarly, Majestic Crescent is relatively short with a narrow 5.5 m width, which helps to encourage low traffic speeds. There is also no through connectivity to other roads in the vicinity. Therefore, any traffic generated is accessing quite specific local destinations. When vehicles park on Majestic Crescent, this creates a road environment that does not accommodate two-way traffic flow, which can further encourage low traffic speeds.
80. Given that the road configuration of Ragnor Road does not meet the requirements for consideration of a 40 km/h speed limit under the MUTCD, the request to decrease the speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h cannot be supported. Further, given the road configuration of Majestic Crescent already promotes a low speed environment and it does not meet the requirements for consideration of a 20 km/h speed limit under the MUTCD, the request to decrease the speed limit from 50 km/h to 20 km/h cannot be supported.
81. The petitioners’ request for neighbourhood signs warning that there are children crossing Ragnor Road has been noted. In accordance with MUTCD guidelines, it is not current practice to install warning signage stating ‘Slow Down’ or ‘Children Crossing’ on a local residential street. Not only would this create an undesirable precedent throughout the city, it may cause adverse safety issues in other streets which remain unsigned, and where there are pedestrians or children present. Warning signage is generally only used in advance to indicate a crossing facility or in areas where the presence of pedestrians or children is unexpected. Therefore, the request for warning signage on Ragnor Road is not supported.
82. The petitioner’s concern regarding speeding has been noted. The petitioners are encouraged to raise any concerns with speeding motorists directly with the Queensland Police Service via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).
Consultation
83. Councillor Lisa Atwood, Councillor for Doboy Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
84. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
85. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Charles Strunk dissenting.
86. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1229833
Thank you for your petition requesting Council implement a 40 km/h speed limit and install signage on Ragnor Road, Hemmant, in the area of Paul Conti Park, and a 20 km/h speed limit on Majestic Crescent, Hemmant.
Your request to decrease the speed limit has been noted. Speed limits on all roads in Queensland are set in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This ensures that speed limits are set in a consistent and credible manner across Queensland. The 50 km/h speed limit is considered the most appropriate for residential street environments.
Council evaluates requests for 40 km/h zones based on the guidelines outlined in the MUTCD. Roads identified as potentially suitable for a speed limit reduction are then subjected to a formalised speed limit review process. All speed limit reviews consider the road’s intended function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, a risk assessment of the road environment and analysis of recorded crash data from the Queensland Government's crash database.
Under the MUTCD, 40 km/h zones can only be implemented in specific circumstances. These are limited to areas with highly concentrated pedestrian activity adjacent to the road or where traffic calming devices, such as speed bumps, are installed to deter non-local traffic from using local streets, more commonly known as ‘rat-running’.
A review of the road environment shows Ragnor Road to be a straight, flat road providing no through connectivity to other streets or suburbs. It varies between approximately 7.5 m wide at its intersection with Hemmant-Tingalpa Road, to approximately 4 m wide near its eastern end. Similarly, Majestic Crescent is relatively short with a narrow 5.5 m width, which helps to encourage low traffic speeds. There is also no through connectivity to other roads in the vicinity. Therefore, any traffic generated is accessing quite specific local destinations. When vehicles park on Majestic Crescent, this creates a road environment that does not accommodate two-way traffic flow, which can further encourage low traffic speeds.
Given that the road configuration of Ragnor Road does not meet the requirements for consideration of a 40 km/h speed limit under the MUTCD, the request to decrease the speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h cannot be supported. Further, given the road configuration of Majestic Crescent already promotes a low speed environment and it does not meet the requirements for consideration of a 20 km/h speed limit under the MUTCD, the request to decrease the speed limit from 50 km/h to 20 km/h cannot be supported.
Your request for neighbourhood signs warning that there are children crossing Ragnor Road has been noted. In accordance with MUTCD guidelines, it is not current practice to install warning signage stating ‘Slow Down’ or ‘Children Crossing’ on a local residential street. Not only would this create an undesirable precedent throughout the city, it may cause adverse safety issues in other streets which remain unsigned, and where there are pedestrians or children present. Warning signage is generally only used in advance to indicate a crossing facility or in areas where the presence of pedestrians or children is unexpected. Therefore, the request for warning signage on Ragnor Road is not supported.
Your concerns regarding speeding has been noted. You are encouraged to raise any concerns with speeding motorists directly with the Queensland Police Service via the Hoon Hotline on 13 HOON (13 46 66).
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: We’ll now continue to the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, please.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Tracy DAVIS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order.
Chair: Excuse me?
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you.
Seriatim en bloc - Clauses C and D
|Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause C, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL A SKATE PARK DESIGNED BY SKATEBOARDERS IN THE|
|KENMORE AREA; and Clause D, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL LIGHTING AT THE SKATE PARK FACILITY IN AMAZONS PLACE PARK, JINDALEE, |
|be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes. |
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM, please proceed.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair.
In Committee last week, we heard how this LORD MAYOR is investing around $70 million this financial year on upgraded parks, playgrounds and recreational reserves right across our suburbs. At Keralgerie Park in Morningside, a concept plan is being finalised for works to be completed this year. It includes new fitness equipment, a new toilet block, new pathway, accessible car parking and additional shade tree planting.
At Castamore Way Park in Richlands we see a new junior playground, picnic tables with shelter, planting and landscaping and a new footpath connection. At Blackwood Street Park, Rochedale, works will include a playground, seating, shade trees, a walking circuit and a basketball shooting box. At Gus Davies Park, Bald Hills, work will be underway in coming months on new play equipment, shade sails, bench seats, a shelter and picnic table and a new riding track around the play area. At Thrush Street Park in Inala, there’s funding of $1 million for a signature playground featuring many elements, including a flying fox.
So, in summary, there are many great projects happening across our suburbs, Mr Chair, which will make our community parks even better. We had a number of petitions and I’ll leave that debate to the Chamber but finally, during Committee, Councillor CASSIDY asked today about the amount of feedback received to date on this stage of the Draft Brisbane Off-Road Cycling Strategy. So far, I’m pleased to report we’ve had 2,284 survey responses and 4,793 views of the project webpage. I’ll leave the rest to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair.
Just briefly, there are a couple of parks in my ward. One of course is the Thrush Street Park which is quite a sizeable reinvestment in that park and it’s very much appreciated. It’s probably—well, one of the two closest parks to the shopping centre and right next to the PCYC (Police Citizens Youth Club) as well as the TAFE. So it’s obviously a park that will continue to get used and increasingly so.
That sort of funding, of course that $1 million, is very much appreciated and of course parks right around Brisbane should be getting this sort of investment. We shouldn’t be really putting it all in one park, the whole year’s worth of budget into one park. But thank you for that.
Of course, the Castamore Street one which was an interesting one and we have a lot of development between Progress Road and Government Road at Richlands and there really wasn’t any facilities for those people that are living in the units and some of those units, of course, are sizeable in nature and they have three bedrooms. So there’s kids involved and, of course, you know, these being complexes, as we all know, because there wouldn’t be probably one Councillor here that probably hasn’t been impacted on some of those big builds, which have very little greenspace in them.
So, consequently, Council have to do that work that in some cases the developers should be within their own precinct. But anyways, Castamore Street was one that was—I didn’t even know it was actually Brisbane City Council land until I was out with my Ward Advisor and we were looking around at parks and what we were going to do for that particular year and I said to Pam, I said, I wonder who owns that space up there, I wonder if it’s something that Council could buy, because it was right in the middle of—or very close to where all that high-density builds was going on and still is.
So we went back to the office, we checked it out and yes, Council owned it so I said great, let’s put a park there. So we contacted the officers and said well, let’s have a look at what we can do at Castamore Way, just inside the park in Castamore Way. They said now we’re going to look at a much larger project and we thought great and so the consultation went very well, went very well. Our officers were over the moon with the amount of people that actually came down to the consultation with some really good ideas and that’s what’s really important.
So, again, we should be investing more and more like the Thrush Street Park and Castamore Way right around Brisbane and not concentrating—it’s too close to the CBD, especially putting a lot of money into one park. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair.
I rise to speak on items C and D, which are both related to the skateboarders. In item C, there were a number of young people from—I’m assuming they’re young people—from Kenmore who are interested in having skate facilities out their way. Unfortunately the LNP Administration has said no, you can’t have that and you won’t have that and you’re actually not a priority for Kenmore, which was disappointing and once again this is an example of the LNP not listening to local residents.
But then we have the next petition that came on for lighting of the skate park facility in Amazons Place Park at Jindalee. That was once again signed by 550 residents. Five hundred and fifty people went out of their way to say that yes, we’d use this facility more if it was lit. In the feedback that Council gives, it says yes, the facility is really good, yes, we would look at lighting it, yes, actually it’s suitable for lighting, dependent on consultation with locals.
We actually think we should go ahead and light this facility. Let’s do the consultation, let’s light this facility. We’ve got 550 people who are really keen to use it and let’s get them using it because they’ll be using a Council facility, making the most of it and having a bit of fun as well. So, unfortunately, we won’t be supporting the Administration on the way they’re treating the skaters in the western suburbs. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor HUTTON.
Councillor HUTTON: Thank you Chair.
I rise to speak on item D which is a request to install lighting at the skate park facility at Amazons Park at Jindalee. Look, I know the ALP love waste but I’m not so keen on it. The Centenary Bridge is due to be upgraded by the government in this term. The park immediately adjoins the Centenary Highway and bridge and the impacts of these works are not yet known on the skate park.
So sure, we could put it all in and then request that the State Government move the conduits, move the cables, move the lighting, not our problem. But you know what? The same people end up paying for this. The people of Brisbane. So Labor might not care about doing things twice and making the taxpayer pay twice but I do. The Schrinner Administration certainly does and our residents do.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman.
I rise to speak on items C and D and I have a different perspective on these items, and I note that there is some sort of protection being run for the western suburbs’ Councillors. Both of these items before us today simply talk about these matters being capital works issues. Neither of them, neither of them, acknowledges in any way, shape or form that both of these Councillors could support these projects using their funds, using their Councillor funds.
Now that is inappropriate, in my view, and I will be taking it up with the CEO of Council. Whenever park improvements come to Committee for south region and other regions of this city, there is always a statement in there saying that the Councillors have the option to fund them from their own funds. Each Councillor gets five hundred and something thousand dollars a year to fund projects of this nature. In fact, some Councillors have funded lights in their dog parks and other facilities, other Councillors have funded major skate park upgrade in their areas.
Yet in the western suburbs, Asset Services West clearly are running a different type of process and are not, are not, referring to the availability of funds for these Councillors to undertake the projects. Now, the outcome of that is in the petition response there is no mention that the Councillors could fund these projects, which they can. They can choose to do so.
Now, I accept Councillor HUTTON’s view, let’s wait and see, we want to make sure we don’t waste money. I accept that completely. That does not abrogate the issue here that she could be telling her residents it is within her own discretionary power to fund a lighting upgrade in a park facility. It is exactly the same for Councillor ADERMANN out in Kenmore.
Now, the problem I have with all of this is there is one rule for the western suburbs Liberals, and the Liberal Party generally, and another rule for the rest of us who don’t get the choice of getting capital works for these projects, that are told you fund it out of your trust funds. Why is that not the same here? So you can be sure that these examples will be sent to the CEO, to the Manager of Asset Services and there will be questions asked about why these Councillors are being protected in this way and why they are not being told, their residents are not being told it is within their own discretionary power, within their own budget funding for parks projects that they could choose to do these projects.
Council is ignoring a statutory process that is available to these Councillors and that is fundamentally wrong. The decision to do these projects is not just one that is made about capital listing, it is one that each of these Councillors can make a decision to do and they are choosing to hide behind a partial answer to the residents of Brisbane, denying to those residents that they have the power, the ability and the funding to choose to fund these projects if they decide to do so.
So the double standard that’s going on here is completely unacceptable. I thought we’d dealt with this when I was on the Committee a few years ago that these projects, it would be included in there—and Councillor CUNNINGHAM I’m sure is sitting back there thinking well that’s something I’ll take up to make sure there’s fairness and equity in the way in which these Council officers around each of the regions go about their work because it’s not happening here.
It is not reasonable that a discretionary fund that is available to these Councillors that could be used to fund these projects is not mentioned at all. It’s clearly a protection racket and it is wrong.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair.
Just on these two petitions that we’re talking a bit about here, the interesting thing for me in picking up where Councillor GRIFFITHS spoke just previously about these and the reasons that the Administration has given for not agreeing to what these petitioners are seeking and not funding these projects, whether it’s through Capital or through the Suburban Enhancement Fund, the reason given for the Kenmore skate park not proceeding is because there’s a skate park nearby which is talked about at Amazons Place Park, Jindalee.
So are they saying to the people in Kenmore you do not deserve a skate park, you can go down the road to use that one and then in the response to the petition at Amazons Place Park, Jindalee, they say we’re not going to—we are not going to invest in lighting that skate park because it’s probably going to go.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: So those people, those people—I missed that interjection. What was that?
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no interjections.
Councillor CASSIDY: It’s got to go under the State, it’s got to go under Queensland.
Chair: No interjections.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, that’s right. Yes, great. Yes. Pretty sure the LNP committed to that project as well. So what we have here now is the Councillor for—what’s that ward called—Jamboree saying she doesn’t want to duplicate that bridge any more, that the Centenary Bridge should not be duplicated. There we go. That’s what I’ll take from that interjection, Chair.
But the response to those people in Kenmore is go down the road to Jindalee and the response to the people at Jindalee is well your skate park is going, so you’re not going to be able to use the skate park in Kenmore, you’re not going to be able to use the skate park down in Jindalee as well. Now, Councillor ADERMANN can say to his people go to Darra. That’s what he just said—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Okay. Alright. That’s enough. Councillors, no more interjections, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Or Bellbowrie, right, yes, okay.
Chair: No more interjections. Please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, yes, I know, I certainly hope—I certainly hope we’re going—instead of just interjections from completely the other side of the Chamber, I’m struggling to hear Councillor ADERMANN and through you, Chair, I’m sure he will get up and talk on this issue.
But, you know, Councillor HUTTON said that it’s far too expensive to put lighting in and as Councillor—and have it moved at some point, Councillor JOHNSTON points out Councillors in wards right across Brisbane will have lighting—whether it’s dog parks or long paths and at skate parks and we’ve just had some solar lighting installed at places as well. So there’s lots of different innovative ways that you can make this skate park more useable for your residents for those hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of residents that are calling for it.
But again, the 550 residents calling for it—but again the LNP are more interested in themselves than they are their local residents.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillors CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair.
Through you, Mr Chair, to Councillor JOHNSTON, I can provide you plenty of examples where LNP councillors have been told to use their SEF (Suburban Enhancement Fund) and my office would be pleased to provide that with you and that’s it. I’ll leave that. Thanks, Mr Chair.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no more—Councillor JOHNSTON, please cease interjecting.
Councillors, please, please calm down. This is the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee. Please.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM, please resume. Have you concluded? Alright.
On items A, B and E.
Clauses A, B and E put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B and E of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chair: On items C and D.
Clauses C and D put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses C and D of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability 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: 17 - Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PARK UPGRADES IN PLANNING – 2020-21
498/2020-21
1. The Major Project and Asset Coordination Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on park upgrades in planning for 2020-21. He provided the information below.
2. The Committee was shown a series of concept plans for upgrades of the following parks across Brisbane:
- Keralgerie Park, Morningside
- Castamore Way Park, Runcorn
- Blackwood Street Park, Rochedale
- Gus Davies Park, Bald Hills
- Thrush Street Park, Inala
- Colmslie Beach Reserve, Murrarie.
3. A variety of site-specific upgrades are planned for each location, including landscaping, amenity buildings, recreation space, playgrounds, seating, picnic nodes and shade plantings. Council has a strong, community-focused approach in relation to consultation, planning and design.
4. The Committee was also shown concept plans of Grinstead Park, Shand Street Park and Corbett Street Park upgrades which link along the boundaries of Enoggera, Alderley and Stafford.
5. The Chair thanked the Major Project and Asset Coordination Manager for his informative update.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL DEFER DOG OFF-LEASH AREA TRIALS ON BEACHES AND FORESHORES UNTIL SIGNIFICANT DOG ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED
CA20/12786
499/2020-21
7. A petition from residents, requesting Council defer dog off-leash area trials on beaches and foreshores until significant dog issues have been addressed, was received during the Summer Recess 2019-20.
8. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
9. The petition contains 30 signatures.
10. The Foreshore Dog Off-leash Area Project (the project) is a joint project between Council, the Queensland Government’s Department of Environment and Science (DES) and The University of Queensland (UQ). The trial dog off-leash areas (trial areas) involved in the project were selected using comprehensive UQ research data and in accordance with the draft DES Marine Management Guideline (the draft guideline) for local government dog off-leash areas in Queensland marine parks. The 12-month trial period for the project commenced in October 2019 and was implemented as the Queensland pilot project for the draft guideline.
11. A key objective of the project was improving shorebird protection within Brisbane and Moreton Bay. UQ research showed that the trial areas feature low shorebird habitat values, but a high demand for dog off-leash use.
12. The regulatory framework within Brisbane’s foreshore areas is complex and Queensland Government support is required for any significant changes in use and activities on foreshore areas. Opportunities to establish foreshore dog off-leash areas in Brisbane have been investigated in the past, including as part of Council’s Sharing Shorelines project. While previous foreshore off leash area proposals did not proceed, they have contributed to the current project by demonstrating ongoing community interest and demand.
13. Council installed updated signage at each of the trial areas. The signs designated the boundaries of the trial areas and were considerably larger and brighter than existing signage. The updated signage contains a clear map of the trial areas and messaging about appropriate behaviour when visiting these spaces.
14. As with all dog off-leash areas, Council aims to encourage effective dog management and safety through community education and compliance. Council officers respond to safety issues and speak with people about effective dog management. As part of the trial, Council engaged a dog behaviouralist to provide dog behaviour advice. A video about appropriate use of the trial areas was published on Council’s website.
15. Council officers regularly patrolled the trial areas. People that allowed their dogs off-leash outside of designated areas or did not comply with Council’s Animals Local Law 2017 could be issued Penalty Infringement Notices.
16. Council implemented a variety of mechanisms to manage and address dog behaviour within trial areas, including community education. Council responds to reports of dog attacks and aggressive dogs at all times. Reports of dog attacks occurring anywhere in the Brisbane Local Government Area are taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated.
17. The foreshore dog off-leash area trial recently came to an end. Council reviewed community feedback and shorebird monitoring data collected throughout the project. In addition, consideration was given to the Nudgee Beach Environmental Education Centre which engages learners from Prep to Year 12, along with the availability of the existing alternative dog off-leash facilities. As a result of the project, the foreshore dog off-leash areas at Sandgate and Manly will become permanent. Nudgee Beach will return to being a dog on-leash area.
18. Regarding the issue of dogs being allowed to travel on CityCats, Council operates CityCat and ferry services under an arrangement with TransLink, which is a division of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads. TransLink is responsible for setting all conditions of travel, including policies regarding travelling with animals.
19. Designated companion and support animals, such as guide dogs, are permitted and have travelled for many years on public transport services in Queensland, including Council’s CityCat and ferry services. In late 2019, TransLink conducted a public survey on whether to allow pet dogs to travel on some public transport services and reported that more than 85% of respondents were supportive of the idea. Given this demonstration of public support, TransLink asked Council and Council’s contracted ferry operator, Transdev Brisbane Ferries Pty Ltd, to participate in a three month ‘pet dogs on ferries trial’, which commenced on 9 December 2019 and concluded on 31 May 2020.
20. Following the success of the trial, since 1 June 2020, pet dogs are permanently allowed on ferries under certain conditions, including wearing a muzzle or travelling in an enclosed carrier. In addition, dogs that have been identified as dangerous dogs in accordance with the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 are not permitted on CityCat or ferry services at any time.
Consultation
21. Councillor Adam Allan, Councillor for Northgate Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
22. Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for Deagon Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
23. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
24. Council will continue to respond to complaints about inappropriate dog behaviour and undertake regular compliance activities as part of the project.
25. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
26. 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: CA20/12786
Thank you for your petition requesting Council defer dog off-leash area trials on beaches and foreshores until significant dog issues have been addressed.
The Foreshore Dog Off-leash Area Project (the project) is a joint project between Council, the Queensland Government’s Department of Environment and Science (DES) and The University of Queensland (UQ). The trial dog off-leash areas (trial areas) involved in the project were selected using comprehensive UQ research data and in accordance with the draft DES Marine Management Guideline (the draft guideline) for local government dog off-leash areas in Queensland marine parks. The 12-month trial period for the project commenced in October 2019 and was implemented as the Queensland pilot project for the draft guideline.
A key objective of the project was improving shorebird protection within Brisbane and Moreton Bay. UQ research showed that the trial areas feature low shorebird habitat values, but a high demand for dog off-leash use.
The regulatory framework within Brisbane’s foreshore areas is complex and Queensland Government support is required for any significant changes in use and activities on foreshore areas. Opportunities to establish foreshore dog off-leash areas in Brisbane have been investigated in the past, including as part of Council’s Sharing Shorelines project. While previous foreshore off leash area proposals did not proceed, they have contributed to the current project by demonstrating ongoing community interest and demand.
Council installed updated signage at each of the trial areas. The signs designated the boundaries of the trial areas and were considerably larger and brighter than existing signage. The updated signage contains a clear map of the trial areas and messaging about appropriate behaviour when visiting these spaces.
As with all dog off-leash areas, Council aims to encourage effective dog management and safety through community education and compliance. Council officers respond to safety issues and speak with people about effective dog management. As part of the trial, Council engaged a dog behaviouralist to provide dog behaviour advice. A video about appropriate use of the trial areas was published on Council’s website.
Council officers regularly patrolled the trial areas. People that allowed their dogs off-leash outside of designated areas or did not comply with Council’s Animals Local Law 2017 could be issued Penalty Infringement Notices.
Council implemented a variety of mechanisms to manage and address dog behaviour within the trial areas, including community education. Council responded to reports of dog attacks and aggressive dogs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Reports of dog attacks occurring anywhere in the Brisbane Local Government Area are taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated.
The foreshore dog off-leash area trial recently came to an end. Council reviewed community feedback and shorebird monitoring data collected throughout the project. In addition, consideration was given to the Nudgee Beach Environmental Education Centre which engages learners from Prep to Year 12, along with the availability of the existing alternative dog off-leash facilities. As a result of the project, the foreshore dog off-leash areas at Sandgate and Manly will become permanent. Nudgee Beach will return to being a dog on-leash area.
Council notes your comments regarding the issue of dogs being allowed to travel on CityCats. You may be aware that Council operates CityCat and ferry services under an arrangement with TransLink, which is a division of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads. TransLink is responsible for setting all conditions of travel, including policies regarding travelling with animals.
Designated companion and support animals, such as guide dogs, are permitted and have travelled for many years on public transport services in Queensland, including Council’s CityCat and ferry services. In late 2019, TransLink conducted a public survey on whether to allow pet dogs to travel on some public transport services and reported that more than 85% of respondents were supportive of the idea. Given this demonstration of public support, TransLink asked Council and Council’s contracted ferry operator, Transdev Brisbane Ferries Pty Ltd, to participate in a three month ‘pet dogs on ferries trial’, which commenced on 9 December 2019 and concluded on 31 May 2020.
Following the success of the trial, since 1 June 2020, pet dogs are permanently allowed on ferries under certain conditions, including wearing a muzzle or travelling in an enclosed carrier. In addition, dogs that have been identified as dangerous dogs in accordance with the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 are not permitted on CityCat or ferry services at any time.
The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.
Should you wish to discuss the project further, please contact Ms Susan Dymock, Senior Program Officer Bushland Acquisition, Biodiversity and Conservation Planning, Biodiversity Management, Parks and Natural Resources Team, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 9149.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL A SKATE PARK DESIGNED BY SKATEBOARDERS IN THE KENMORE AREA
CA20/886617
500/2020-21
27. A petition from residents, requesting the installation of a skate park designed by skateboarders in the Kenmore area, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 25 August 2020, by Councillor Greg Adermann, Councillor for Pullenvale Ward, and received.
28. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
29. The petition contains 15 signatures.
30. Council is committed to establishing and maintaining a diverse network of quality facilities that meet the needs of the broader skate, scooter and BMX community. Council currently has a network of more than 35 skate facilities within Council parks and is aware there is an active and vibrant skating community in Brisbane. New skate facilities are planned according to citywide priorities, based on a hierarchy of facility scales and types, ranging from single skateable elements along existing pathways through to larger skate parks catering to a diverse range of users. Council’s existing skate facilities are intended as active recreation facilities and are for the use and enjoyment of the broader community.
31. Within Brisbane City Plan 2014, the Infrastructure design planning scheme policy states Council’s desire to provide district skateboarding and BMX facilities within three to five kilometres of most residences. The petitioners are correct in stating that the closest Council-provided skate park is located in Amazons Place Park, Jindalee. Despite being on the southern side of the Brisbane River, this facility is still within three kilometres of most of the Kenmore suburb.
32. The development of a skate facility in the Kenmore area is not a strategic priority for Council currently. However, there may be an opportunity in the future for the establishment of a skate facility in the general area, depending on funding allocation and ability to locate an appropriate site, among other planning considerations. This request has been passed on to Council’s Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability and Community Facilities and Venues, Lifestyle and Community Services, and will be considered as part of any future plans to expand the network of skate facilities in Brisbane.
Consultation
33. Councillor Greg Adermann, Councillor for Pullenvale Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
34. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Jared Cassidy and Steve Griffiths dissenting.
35. 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: CA20/886617
Thank you for your petition requesting Council install a skate park designed by skateboarders in the Kenmore area. Council appreciates that many young people in the area may have difficulty travelling to existing skate facilities, such as Jindalee Skate Park in Amazons Place Park, Jindalee.
Council is committed to establishing a diverse network of quality facilities that meet the needs of the broader skate, scooter and BMX community. Council currently has a network of more than 35 skate facilities within Council parks and is aware there is an active and vibrant skating community in Brisbane. New skate facilities are planned according to citywide priorities, based on a hierarchy of facility scales and types, ranging from single skateable elements along existing pathways through to larger skate parks catering to a diverse range of users. Council’s existing skate facilities are intended as active recreation facilities and are for the use and enjoyment of the broader community. You can view the locations of all Brisbane skate facilities on Council’s website at brisbane..au by searching on ‘skate parks’.
Within Brisbane City Plan 2014, the Infrastructure design planning scheme policy states Council’s desire to provide district skateboarding and BMX facilities within three to five kilometres of most residences. The petitioners are correct in stating that the closest Council-provided skate park is located in Amazons Place Park, Jindalee. Despite being on the southern side of the Brisbane River, this facility is still within three kilometres of most of the Kenmore suburb.
Council appreciates your interest in the development of a skate facility in the Kenmore area, but this is not a priority for Council at this time. However, there may be an opportunity in the future for the establishment of a skate facility in the general area, depending on funding allocation and the ability to locate an appropriate site, among other planning considerations. This request has been passed on to Council’s Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability and Community Facilities and Venues, Lifestyle and Community Services, and will be considered as part of any future plans to expand the network of skate facilities in Brisbane.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Sue Baker, Program Officer Community Initiatives, Parks Network Planning, Parks Policy and Planning, Parks and Natural Resources, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 9523.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL LIGHTING AT THE SKATE PARK FACILITY IN AMAZONS PLACE PARK, JINDALEE
CA20/1068935
501/2020-21
36. A petition from residents, requesting requesting Council install lighting at the skate park facility in Amazons Place Park, Jindalee, was received during the Spring Recess 2020.
37. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
38. The petition contains 553 signatures.
39. Amazons Place Park is situated along the Brisbane River and forms part of a greenspace network that stretches from Centenary Bridge through to Rocks Riverside Park, Seventeen Mile Rocks. The park is bordered by the river to the north, Centenary Highway to the west and a large unit complex to the east which is situated 15 metres from the skate park in Amazons Place Park. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows images of Amazons Place Park.
40. The skate park was designed for use during daylight hours and is in good condition with upgrades being undertaken in the past five years.
41. It should be noted the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is currently investigating the duplication of Centenary Bridge, and related works may affect the current facilities in the park.
42. As the investigations and designs for this major project are ongoing, Council does not support the installation of lighting at this time. Depending on the outcome of the TMR investigation and future works, Council will consider listing the installation of lighting at the skate park facility in Amazons Place Park, as part of Council’s future capital works funding. Consultation with neighbouring residents would also be required prior to lighting being installed.
Funding
43. Should this project be supported to proceed in future, funding can be obtained from Council’s capital works program.
Consultation
44. Councillor Sarah Hutton, Councillor for Jamboree Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
45. Consultation with local residents will be conducted to ensure residents support the installation of lighting at the skate park facility at Amazons Place Park.
46. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Jared Cassidy and Steve Griffiths dissenting.
47. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1068935
Thank you for your petition requesting Council install lighting at the skate park facility in Amazons Place Park, Jindalee.
Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.
The Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is currently investigating the duplication of the Centenary Bridge and related works may affect the current facilities in the park.
Depending on the outcome of the TMR investigation and future works, Council will consider listing the installation of lighting at the skate park facility in Amazons Place Park, as part of Council’s future capital works program. Consultation with neighbouring residents would also be required prior to lighting being installed.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Shane Klepper, Regional Coordinator Parks, West Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0013.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
E PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL URGENTLY INSTALL A DUCK RAMP AT VECTIS STREET PARK, NORMAN PARK, AND URGENTLY REPAIR THE VECTIS STREET STORMWATER HARVESTING DEVICE TO BE USED BY LOCAL SPORTING CLUBS
CA20/1155100 and CA20/1155201
502/2020-21
48. Two petitions from residents, requesting Council urgently install a duck ramp at Vectis Street Park, Norman Park, and urgently repair the Vectis Street stormwater harvesting device to be used by local sporting clubs, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 27 October 2020, by Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, and received.
49. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.
50. The two petitions contain a total of 969 signatures. The first petition (CA20/1155100) contains 11 signatures and the second petition (CA20/1155201) contains 958 signatures.
51. The Vectis Street Park stormwater harvesting device previously included a duck ramp, but it became displaced during storm events in the catchment. A new duck ramp was installed on 13 November 2020.
52. The stormwater harvesting device has remained out of use while water quality issues are resolved. The tide barrier gate was re-engineered and refitted in September 2020, as part of restoring the functionality of the device. In addition, to help improve the quality of the stormwater, Council has also undertaken desilting of upstream drainage infrastructure, relined the stormwater pipe under C.P. Bottomley Park, Norman Park, and inspected and repaired the pumps and water tanks.
53. Further works are still required by Council and Urban Utilities before the stormwater harvesting device will be recommissioned. It is anticipated that it will take a further 12 months until the works are completed at which time the sporting clubs will be able to use the captured stormwater.
Consultation
54. Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
55. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
56. 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: CA20/1155100 and CA20/1155201
Thank you for your petitions requesting Council urgently install a duck ramp at Vectis Street Park, Norman Park, and urgently repair the stormwater harvesting device to be used by local sporting clubs.
The Vectis Street Park stormwater harvesting device previously included a duck ramp, but it became displaced during storm events in the catchment. A new duck ramp was installed on 13 November 2020.
The stormwater harvesting device has remained out of use while water quality issues are resolved. The tide barrier gate was re-engineered and refitted in September 2020, as part of restoring the functionality of the device. In addition, to help improve the quality of the stormwater, Council has also undertaken desilting of upstream drainage infrastructure, re-lined the stormwater pipe under C.P. Bottomley Park, Norman Park, and inspected and repaired the pumps and water tanks.
Further works are still required by Council and Urban Utilities before the stormwater harvesting device will be recommissioned. It is anticipated that it will take a further 12 months until the works are completed at which time the sporting clubs will be able to use the captured stormwater.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Siva Sivaananthan, Senior Engineering Officer, Major Projects and Asset Coordination, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability on (07) 3403 4789.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
Chair: We will continue to the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee report, please.
Councillor MARX.
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Councillor Kim MARX, Chair of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steve TOOMEY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, we had an awesome presentation on the Brisbane City Council’s Environment Centres. As I mentioned at the time of the presentation, it’s a program that’s wrapped between two portfolios, Councillor CUNNINGHAM, with Environment, Parks and Sustainability and myself in City Standards with my workers doing some of the work there in that space so we all chop and change as to who gets to do the delivering of the good news about the good work that’s going on in the Environment Centres and I’m happy to leave any further debate to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor MARX?
I’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT CENTRES
503/2020-21
1. The Business Delivery Manager Greenspace, Asset Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s environment centres. He provided the information below.
2. The Committee were shown pictures of the Downfall Creek Bushland Centre, Karawatha Forest Discovery Centre and Boondall Wetlands Environment Centre.
3. Environment centres have three ‘streams’ of services which include visitor services, schools and volunteers.
4. The visitor services program delivered 500 activities to 11,340 residents, with 99% participant satisfaction. There were 95,476 visitors across all environment centres in 2019-20.
5. Community engagement activities include:
- wildlife presentations
- night adventures
- canoe discovery tours
- sustainable living seminars
- the Brisbane biodiversity seminar series
- active and healthy events.
6. Daily environmental experiences include:
- bush kindy
- sustainable living workshops
- guided and themed walks.
7. The school program delivered 323 lessons to 6,778 school students in 2019-20, seeing an increase of 14% despite the three-month closure due to COVID-19. The school program is on track to deliver 500 lessons to 10,000 students in 2020-21.
8. The Bush Neighbours program is a free program that builds school, Council and local community partnerships to raise the profile of the local environment. There are four sessions (a bush neighbour lesson in-school, a wildlife show, a reserve visit and an in-school project) aimed at Years 4 and 5. There were 20 schools that participated in 2019-20.
9. The volunteer program involved approximately 70 volunteers in 2019-20. Volunteers increase visitor engagement and deliver passion and ideas. Volunteers led 359 activities engaging with approximately 7,911 community participants. Volunteer roles include interpretive guided walks; greeter and centre support; and citizen science.
10. Internal partnerships include:
- a free native plant nursery located within the Downfall Creek Bushland Centre and Karawatha Forest Discovery Centre, with more than 3,600 free native plants given to residents of Brisbane
- a community composting hub located within Downfall Creek Bushland Centre and Karawatha Forest Discovery Centre, with more than 620 households utilising these composting hubs
- the Creek Neighbours Kindy program which started in 2019 and was delivered to five kindergartens in 2020 and 10 kindergartens in 2021. An online version is being developed for introduction early 2021.
11. During COVID-19, the environment centres closed for 10 weeks and during various stages of restrictions, the environment centres adapted to Queensland Health’s requirements by adopting various social distancing requirements, implementing cleaning measures and restricting visitor numbers.
12. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Business Delivery Manager Greenspace for his informative presentation.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, please.
Councillor HOWARD.
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE
Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Well, thank you, Mr Chair. Before moving to the Committee report, I know that through you, Mr Chair, everyone in this Chamber is keen to know what DZ Deathrays are doing. However, tonight is not the night for that because we have had some amazing Community, Arts and Nighttime activities happening right across Brisbane in this past week and I would like to talk to just briefly about some of those.
One of the most exciting was a contemporary dance troupe called the Australasian Dance Collective performing at the contemporary arts venue, the Powerhouse. The work is called Aftermath and it was absolutely amazing. It was sold out. It was a presentation that was supported by Brisbane City Council and I just want to put on record, my thanks for Amy Hollingsworth and her team at the Australasian Dance Collective for having the vision to make sure that our contemporary dancers are using our wonderful contemporary venues, such as the Powerhouse.
So, as well as that, of course we had BrisAsia Festival happening right across Brisbane. I’ve been to so many events that I can’t even begin to think which ones were the greatest. I know that you, Mr Chair, were at some on Saturday night and I had to run away from that one at Newmarket and go down to the Valley where we hosted the Governor and Mrs de Jersey and lots of people that came along to the Valley and its surrounds to have a look at all of the fantastic events that are happening across BrisAsia and it truly is a festival that just grows and grows every year.
I’ve been to Sunnybank Food Bazaars. As I said the Valley Mall and we’ve just been having such a great time with the BrisAsia. So please encourage all of your residents to get on board and go to a BrisAsia event in your ward.
We’re also—one of the other really wonderful things that happened this weekend was the ninth birthday of Brisbane Greeters and we had a presentation today about Brisbane Greeters so I’ll talk some more about that next week. But I do want to put on record our huge thanks to the more than 100 Greeters who came along to celebrate that ninth birthday. I have a whole list of ideas that they’ve given me and I’m really looking forward to making sure that we can implement some of those ideas.
So, Mr Chair, moving to last week’s presentation, again another wonderful event that has happened across Brisbane and that was a presentation from Louise Bezzina, the Artistic Director of Brisbane Festival and Charlie Cush, the CEO of the Brisbane Festival. Council is just so proud to be a major partner of that festival and it was great to hear about the incredible impact that the Brisbane Festival made last year.
To our knowledge, it is the first festival that has happened right across the world after COVID-19. It employed more than 1,000 local artists and art workers. It produced approximately $14 million in economic growth and attracted more than 30,000 visitors to Brisbane.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HOWARD: It delivered 573 performances delivered across 244 locations in 190 suburbs and more than 80% of the program was free. So, Mr Chair, through you—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: So through you, Mr Chair, I just think it’s a huge shame that we cannot celebrate something that is so important to this city. Brisbane Festival puts this city on the map internationally and it’s supported by this Council and for those in the Chamber to scoff is an absolute disgrace.
So can I say through you, Mr Chair, that Brisbane Festival delivered a boldly Brisbane program that delivered the largest music program ever delivered in the history of Brisbane at a time when cities across the globe were cancelling swathes of festivals and events. Brisbane Festival is a testament to the spirit of our city and we look forward to this year’s Brisbane Festival program and on that note, Mr Chair, I’ll leave debate to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Mr Chair. Listen, one—I suppose there’s not too many things that have—good things that have come out of COVID-19 but I think the Brisbane Festival and pushing those performances out right across Brisbane was a fantastic idea and I believe that that’s going to be followed up again for the next Brisbane Festival.
Really, the Brisbane Festival, for me, over the last number of years, except for last year, it was really all about the inner city suburbs. Everything sort of happened in the city itself, which was fine because that’s where a lot of the venues are which is fair enough. But really the Brisbane Festival should probably have been—thought about broadening their horizon to moving right out to the suburbs so the people don’t have to travel into the CBD to enjoy it.
I think that was a really good outcome. I know the—I had four performances in my ward and the people were really just sort of quite amazed that the quality of the musicians and the singers that came out and the groups and all that was something that they could actually see just in their backyards, so to speak, you know. It was all done COVID-19 safely and all that. So obviously, the crowd, the numbers can be controlled in the future, whether we have COVID-19 restrictions or not but I just want to commend the organisers for broadening their horizons and wanting to continue to do that.
Thank, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. I just rise to speak very briefly on item A.
Firstly, I want to put on the record that I absolutely support the Brisbane Festival and, you know, it is a brilliant event and having gone to a number of performances and activities over many years, I know that there is a huge amount of hard work, artistic endeavour and creativity that goes into delivering the Brisbane Festival. I am, however, concerned by some of Councillor HOWARD’s comments and the rubbery figures that she quoted.
The really unusual part of last year’s festival is we were told that the festival would be on but we were told not to tell anyone specifically in writing, numerous times, and when I rang and spoke to the festival people, they told me do not say anything about it. Meanwhile, they were posting on Facebook about it and then towards the end of the festival we were told when it was all too late, these events had happened in certain areas in my ward, we were told well, now you can tell people.
So the biggest problem with all of this was we were specifically told not to say anything, we were specifically told not to go and when I queried it, we were told no, it would be for the people who immediately live in that block of units in one case or a cul-de-sac or whatever it might be and that’s it and there would be no publicity. Meanwhile, meanwhile, the festival was posting on their own Facebook pages telling people that these events were on.
So there is a real problem with what happened with communications. I think there should be an explanation about why Councillors were told we weren’t allowed to tell people about it but the festival was. I’d really love to know where the—I don’t know, 40,000 or whatever the number was—people from interstate came, where they went because no one was allowed to go to these events and we were specifically told as Councillors we could not go, in writing, repeatedly, which I repeatedly queried with the festival organisers.
So in my view, the Brisbane Festival is a great event but the way in which this was handled last year and what Councillor HOWARD has just said is completely different to what I was advised as one of the Councillors where several events were held. It’s just not acceptable but apparently all these people came from interstate—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —parachuted in. Yes, thanks. All these people came from interstate to attend the festival but the local Councillors of the organisation that is a major sponsor of the event weren’t even allowed to go to an event in their area and were specifically told in writing not to tell anybody about it. That was astonishing to me and I hope that never, ever happens again.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: I liked the Brisbane Festival last year. I thought it was cool. We had a—ran a little gig down along the river in Orleigh Park and there’s about 50 metres from the nearest apartments and the cops were called and then residents were in the park drinking but the cops didn’t do anything, presumably because the residents looked rich and respectable. But anyway, it was a lovely event and I think it’d be great to see more of that sort of stuff.
I do think it was a difficult time to be promoting and organising events and I understand why the project team had some concerns about mass promoting some of the gigs. I personally—would have done things a little bit differently in terms of promotion and also in terms of some of the location choices and if I did have one piece of feedback for the project team looking ahead, I would suggest that it might be wise to work more closely with city Councillors because some of the spaces where gigs were held, didn’t have public toilets.
Some of the spaces where gigs were held, were very close to residential apartments and generated noise complaints. Perhaps avoidably it would’ve been simple enough to, for example, push a gig slightly further into a park or into a slightly different location and thus mitigate against those noise impacts. But overall I thought it was a really positive event and I’m just glad it still happened, despite the difficulties of COVID-19 and the shutdown and all the rest of it.
I just really want to implore the Council Administration once again to increase funding for projects and events like this. I think it’s quite a big shame that this Council as a proportion of its total budget, spends so little on the arts and live music and live entertainment. We know that dollar for dollar the investment in the arts in these sectors creates more employment, generates more economic activity and has more positive flow on impacts than many of the areas that Council invests in. Often, we invest a lot of money in things like road building and we’re very excited about that because that, quote-unquote, ‘creates jobs’ but if you invest a similar amount of money in arts projects and events, you’ll actually create more employment.
So if that is one of the key goals that the Council Administration is to generate economic activity through some of its public projects, then I would suggest that much more money should be put towards the arts and I think it’s a shame that Councillor HOWARD’s portfolio is so grossly underfunded and I would challenge and encourage the Administration and the LORD MAYOR in the coming Council budget to put a bit more money towards the arts and these events.
As Councillor STRUNK pointed out, it’s wonderful to see more of this stuff out in the suburbs. I think it brings people together, it helps establish a stronger sense of positive identity for the city but a lot of these organisers and performing artists are doing this stuff on a shoestring budget. I did hear examples, even from Brisbane Festival, of artists who are paid well below a fair rate for their work and that’s no specific criticism of any one person. It’s simply a function of the lack of funding.
If you want artists to be paid fairly for their work for free performances, then you need to fund it properly and unfortunately that doesn’t always happen here in Brisbane. So I would strongly encourage the Council Administration to reflect deeply on whether it values the arts and why other cities like Melbourne, Sydney, even Adelaide, are spending a much bigger proportion of their council budgets on the arts and community events than we are.
When you compare—even though small local councils or some of the central metropolitan councils, almost every other council is spending a larger proportion of its budget on the arts and performing events. The comparison with Brisbane isn’t perfect obviously because BCC also runs the bus network, et cetera, et cetera, but the point stands that we invest less money in the arts than most other Australian councils in capital cities and that’s something that needs to change.
I don’t think the LORD MAYOR or the DEPUTY MAYOR or Councillor ALLAN as Finance Chair has really grappled seriously with this glaring omission in the way our city budgets and plans for events. The arts is a very cost effective and efficient industry. Events organisers do a lot, with very little funding and a simple budget increase of a few per cent can represent dozens of additional gigs and performances and events.
So if you’re looking for places to invest money wisely, putting that money back into supporting community events, gigs, visual art projects, performing arts projects, would be a really good use of Council funds and certainly a much better use of Council funds than just widening roads, which is what this Administration seems to burn most of its money on.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank those who contributed to the debate, albeit some without the correct information.
I actually didn’t say it was 38,000 interstate visitors. I said we had 38,000 visitors to Brisbane. So what I also wish to point out and put on the record is that the Brisbane Festival worked extremely closely with the Chief Health Officer and the other thing that we need to be reminded of is that that festival occurred immediately after some of the very sad pandemic impacts that was having not only on our residents of Brisbane but also of course on our entertainment industry.
So the work that the Brisbane Festival did is nothing short of amazing and I think that the Street Serenades, which is what was being referred to by a number of the Councillors, was a great success. It was something that Councillors were asked not to promote because of the fear that we would have too many people there. So it was on the advice of the Chief Health Officer that that was done and I am very pleased to announce, and it was announced during the presentation, that Brisbane Festival is very much looking forward to reaching out to all Councillors and is very happy to receive any ideas on what they—where they think the Street Serenades can be held and any improvements on what happened last year.
This is an evolving area. We understand that it went across 190 suburbs, which in itself is amazing and each and every suburb of Brisbane was put on the map for the Brisbane Festival. So can I just encourage all of the Councillors in the Chamber to reach out—they can reach out via my office to let me know any ideas that they might have and we’ll certainly pass it on to Brisbane Festival but it is their intent to make sure that we’re talking to each and every Councillor to make sure that what’s happening, particularly with the Street Serenades, is happening within the area.
Could I also say through you, Mr Chair, that this LNP Council has delivered a budget that provides a record investment in Brisbane’s culture and creative sector with almost $11 million allocated to our outcome 5.1 Thriving Arts and Culture. We’ve got a long and proud history of supporting community festivals and events and that continues. We deliver more to see and do for all of our Brisbane residents and through you, Mr Chair, that will continue. We do our very best with the dollars that we have.
We work constantly with the producers and with people such as Brisbane Festival. I also mentioned the Australasian Dance Collective. We had the Wynnum Fringe festival, we’ve had so many people that we helped to put on events that people thought would not be possible and that was done with the help of this Schrinner Council Administration. I’m very proud of the work we do and I commend the report to the Chamber.
Chair: I’ll now put the resolution for item A.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE FESTIVAL 2020 HIGHLIGHTS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2021
504/2020-21
1. The Artistic Director and Chief Executive Officer, Brisbane Festival, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane Festival 2020 highlights and looking forward to 2021. They provided the information below.
2. There were approximately 1.9 million people in attendance at the Brisbane Festival 2020 (the Festival). The Festival produced approximately $14 million in economic growth and attracted 38,000 visitors to Brisbane.
3. The Festival involved 1,002 local artists and arts workers delivering 573 performances across 244 locations in 190 individual suburbs, with 84% of the program being free. The Committee was shown various testimonials about the success of the Festival.
4. One of the highlights of the Festival was The Messengers of Brisbane, an art installation by international artist, Florentijn Hofman. The installation consisted of six giant Gouldian Finches being installed across the city. The finches watched over Brisbane and gave the community something to look up and smile at.
5. The Gouldian Finches reached over 60 million people globally through the use of online platforms. The Committee was shown examples of social media mentions of the Messengers of Brisbane around the world.
6. The Committee discussed Brisbane Festival 2021, which will deliver a boldly Brisbane program that aims to make Brisbane not just the most liveable city in Australia but the most lovable.
7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Artistic Director and Chief Executive Officer for their informative presentation.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, please.
Councillor ALLAN.
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE
Councillor Adam ALLAN, Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair.
As most people in the Chamber would be aware, we recently passed the 10-year mark of the 2011 floods and last week’s Committee presentation was on Council-wide improvement since the 2011 flood. In particular, the early part of the presentation outlined some of the key facts around the flood and I will touch upon them because they are fairly interesting.
Three hundred and twenty-two millimetres of rain over five days. The peak day was Thursday 13 January 2011 with a height of 4.46 metres; 94 suburbs were inundated; 200,000 people and 24,696 properties were impacted. The recovery costs were circa $440 million, so a massive event for this city. Some of the response stats included 375,000 sandbags produced, approximately 12,000 housed in evacuation centres, an estimated 60,000 people joined the Mud Army and many of us in this room will reflect on those times.
Council coordinated 23,000 registered volunteers. Council removed over 400,000 tonnes of waste. We received 81,000 calls from the public during the period 9 January 2011 to 22 January 2011. Since that time, we’ve obviously looked to enhance our disaster management capabilities. To this end, we’ve moved—the SES (State Emergency Service) has moved into the main Disaster Management branch. We’ve enhanced our disaster management governance and responses. We’ve refined some of our processes. We’ve also enhanced our engagement with stakeholders—that’s the State Government, the Emergency Services and surrounding councils to ensure that our disaster responses are as refined as they can be.
In the context of the State Emergency Service, we’ve had very significant increases there. In 2011, we had 330 members. Now, we’ve got 780. We’ve increased our resources in terms of boats, vehicles and plant. So certainly, our SES capability has been significantly enhanced in the last decade. The Council and through the Disaster Management team have sought to enhance our community education. So we’ve launched Be Prepared campaigns, My Resilient Schools programs. We’ve provided flood tools for residents. We have a Flood Hub and we’ve got internal training for our Disaster Response teams.
Now, there was a significant asset repair and replacement project that took place after the floods. I won’t touch upon everything but we had something like 12,000 potholes repaired. Fifty-six bridges, culverts and boardwalks needed some sort of repair. Twenty-one public toilets were repaired, 28.8 kilometres of footpath, the list goes on. So it was a very, very significant infrastructure repair bill. Clearly that would have impacted Council resources at the time. We’ve made a number of infrastructure improvements since that time.
We’ve got 17 flood resilient ferry terminals now. We have a Riverwalk that’s been rebuilt and many of you will recall the imagery on TV as that Riverwalk floated down the river. But it has now been rebuilt to an extremely high standard to withstand a one in 2000-year flood event. We’ve enhanced our drainage and flood infrastructure and telemetry gauges in particular to better help us monitor water levels in these instances. We also have enhanced all of our strategies and plans around this, in particular the Brisbane City Council Flood Action Plan, FloodSmart Future Strategy and the Brisbane River Strategic Floodplain Management Plan. So a lot of work has happened in the last 10 years. I’ll leave further debate to the Chamber. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise to speak on item A, Council-wide improvements since the 2011 floods. This was the defining event of my time in Brisbane City Council. I wrote a fairly extensive newsletter to my residents a few weeks ago outlining my reflections and thanks to all those involved in the activities in my ward. I was heartened by the feedback that I received from residents, from former members and from a lot of different people on those reflections. It’s on my website if anybody is interested in reading it. It is—I wrote it in the spirit of being thankful and uplifting because I know this is a very traumatising anniversary for a lot of residents in my ward.
But I cannot let the presentation before us today which is essentially giving Council a pat on the back, pass without some remarks. Councillor ALLAN, I’m sure did this in good faith. He was only a month late. But he was not here when it happened. My ward, Councillor GRIFFITHS’ ward, Councillor SRI’s ward, Councillor MACKAY’s ward, Councillor ADERMANN’s ward, were all devastated by this, along with others in other places. A third of all the houses and businesses in Tennyson Ward were impacted by the floods. It was catastrophic. Most of the photos that people see on the news that played out around the world were of Fairfield. They were absolutely devastating.
My office was flooded to hip-deep. We lost everything in that, apart from the computers. We were out of the office for several months afterwards as well. But our community has been resilient. It has recovered. That’s largely thanks to the support of community groups within the ward. They know who they are and as I said I’ve outlined all this in my newsletter which is available on my website. However I just want to put on the record a few things that Council has not done since the floods. I’m going to start with the pontoon at the Taylor Bridge Reserve in Chelmer.
The pontoon—only one of two at that point—public pontoons in my ward—washed down the river. It was a public pontoon for canoeing and kayaking. Council has refused to replace it. Eleven years on, petitions, requests, Council keeps saying no. It is disgraceful and disgusting that Council refuses to replace Council assets lost in the flood that are vitally important for river suburbs to improve access to the river. So that is the pontoon at Chelmer that was not replaced. In the year of the floods, there was a budgeted road safety improvement project for Kadumba Street and Kingsley Parade, which is an intersection upgrade.
The Council officers came to me in March—so less than two months after this—and said, we’re going to do this project. I said, look it’s not the right time to do it. The focus—this money needs to go into flood recovery. So I’m putting it on the record I said: ‘it needs to go into flood recovery’. They said: ‘yes Councillor, we’ll fund it again next year’. Eleven years later or 10 years later—every year it’s been in my budget submission to have it done and yet this Council has not done this road safety improvement project. Meanwhile, there have been several significant crashes and a cyclist died last year at this location.
At that time, 6:11pm, the Deputy Chair, Councillor Steven TOOMEY, assumed the Chair.
But this Administration has still not gone back and done the project that it promised to do in the 2010-11 budget. We made huge sacrifices in my ward to give up projects including Juliette Street. I see Councillor ADAMS; we know she’s a prime offender. Every time she gets up and claims we got everything it just incenses my residents. I reckon that’s why my votes has gone up. Do you know how many new playgrounds we got out of the floods? None. Do you know how many new footpaths we got out of the floods? None. We basically got the mulch dug up out of the bottom of all our old playgrounds. They got gurneyed off and the mulch replaced.
That was Council’s flood response in my ward. It took years afterwards to get the streets properly resurfaced. If Councillor ALLAN looks in my budget submission when he gets it in a few days, he’ll see that I still refer to some streets that have never been resurfaced following the floods that should have been—10 years on. The pontoon, Kadumba Street, these projects should have been done and the fact that 10 years on we’re still talking about them is not good enough. Here are some other things that Council has done. They have not completed the backflow valves. We did an independent report after the floods.
That independent report recommended 51 locations that are suitable for backflow valves around the city. Council has only done a few of them. There are still 35 locations in this city, including about nine in my ward that have not been done. Most of them aren’t even on the LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan) to be done. It is disgraceful. Councillor ADAMS goes on radio publicly and says: ‘no, no well they’re not important. They’re not really going to help people’. Yes, they will. Yes, they will. I don’t think she understands what happened. The floods came up through the drains the day before the river broke its bank and people got trapped in their homes and could not evacuate.
The backflow valves will help manage those impacts. Council should be listening to its expert report and doing these projects. It’s not like it’s me saying they should be done. Expert engineers said it should be done. What is Council’s approach to this? They stick a big red completed sticker on the Council independent report flood response and say completed. No they’re not. They are not done. We don’t have drainage upgrades that are supposed to be done, even under the LGIP major drainage upgrades in Yeronga where it floods all the time—not done. In the 10 years since the flood, has my office been involved in any kind of workshop, disaster planning, scenario planning? No.
I don’t know if any other Councillor has. Councillors in fact have had their role downgraded since then. We’ve been given these little walkie-talkies. They only ring one number so it can’t actually talk to people. They ring one number, that’s it. The latest from the LDCC (Local Disaster Coordination Centre) for Councillors was, you tell us what the jobs are and then we’ll log it. So that’s a three step process then that we’ve got to follow if we’ve got flood or other disaster recovery jobs. This Council has got so far away from the spirit of the recommendations in the flood report that it is not funny.
This Council was heavily criticised for failing to take on the knowledge and the connections of local Councillors in responding to disasters. It is still doing that. We are still fundamentally excluded from the process of managing disasters. We don’t want to run it—maybe probably Councillor OWEN would want to run it—but we don’t want to run the response. But when you have an expert in the community who understands how the groups work, who understands where every drain is in every street, we’ve got valuable information but we are shut out of the process.
Council has scrapped the flood buy-back scheme which is a massively retrograde step. We know a lot of people were not in an emotional or financial position to make a decision about selling to Council, even for several years after the floods. But now, they don’t even have that option. That was a retrograde step by Council to cut that scheme. I know it’s something that Councillor GRIFFITHS has been talking about for many years. Council has put in this Flood Resilient Homes Program but it’s only available in Inala and Paddington and Milton. It’s not available to residents in the suburbs that I represent.
Planning—there’s another great initiative by Council. Let’s just allow unfettered fill—unfettered fill in flood-prone suburbs. Yes. Up to a metre—up to a metre and 2.5 metres in industrial areas. You don’t even need Council approval. Council will let you go higher. You’ve just got to put a DA in. Meanwhile, all over my ward we’ve got houses on slabs but next to them they’ve filled huge amounts. It is going to cause devastation and heartache for neighbourhoods when it floods again, which it will. Council has got so many of its planning responses wrong.
Yes, more information is good, if it was accurate. I mean the amount of feedback from residents about, well that’s not where the water came to, Nicole. This Council didn’t care about any of those issues when I raised them with the residents—with Council on behalf of the residents. So you know, 10 years on I’d maybe give this Council a D minus for its response to the floods. I don’t think it is anything to be proud of. You started on a job probably with good intentions but have failed to deliver.
Deputy Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I thought Councillor JOHNSTON covered some very important ground there. I do want to start by just adding that I too have a few backflow prevention devices in my ward that ought to be delivered. I encourage the relevant Chairs to look closely at funding those in future years. Particularly, I think it’s important for the DEPUTY MAYOR to be aware that a couple of those streets such as Forbes Street have now had some very high density development around them and maybe this is something that Councillor McLACHLAN and Councillor CUNNINGHAM also need to pay attention to.
The Councillors approved very high density development down around Forbes Street in that part of West End, right on the lowest part of the floodplain. The engineer reports have recommended installing backflow devices down there. Yet we still haven’t seen any funding allocated to that or any inclusion of those in the LGIP. I think that’s a glaring omission from this Council. I’m sure the next time those properties flood, there’s going to be significant complaints from residents about why Council didn’t act on the independent advice. I don’t want to speak for too long about the floods.
I do have a lot of thoughts on this but I just thought I would read into the record a quote from the book A River with a City Problem, A History of Brisbane Floods by Margaret Cook who is a well-respected—I should say Dr Margaret Cook—a well-respected researcher based at I think currently USQ (University of Southern Queensland), previously at UQ (University of Queensland). In the introduction to the book she writes: ‘following the 2011 floods many Brisbane residents expressed incredulity that their city could experience such extreme flooding despite the wide, muddy river that their suburbs and properties overlooked.
As lives were lost and possessions destroyed people looked for someone to blame. Many had pinned their homes on Somerset and Wivenhoe Dams to prevent such a tragedy and when the dams seemingly failed to do so, allegations of mismanagement quickly circulated and both the dam operations manual and flood engineers faced scrutiny. This response was not borne from an ignorance of climate or riverine history, but instead reflected Queensland’s long standing cultural and political values in relation to the environment.
Human action created the disaster—the hazard in part due to settling on a floodplain—yet this systemic problem was largely overlooked in the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry in 2011 and 2012’. I think those comments are worth reflecting on. Particularly in my ward, I’ve seen that foolhardy cultural arrogance continue where Brisbane City Council and the State Government continue to approve high density residential developments on sites which are extremely flood-prone. This is a mistake that successive Councils or Council administrations have made and replicated over many years.
It is extremely frustrating to people who spend time understanding the river, who look at the flood risks, who look at the climate modelling, to see that despite all the expert advice against approving developments in this area Council continues to allow further high density residential development on flood-prone sites. It truly is a special kind of madness that this Council Administration is so lax about allowing developers to build whatever they want down on that low-lying land beside the river. There are many parts of West End that flooded in 2011. There are parts of Woolloongabba as well.
My ward was quite severely impacted. One of the very common narratives that came out of the community at that time was that we hoped Council, we hoped the State Government, we hoped the property industry would learn the right lessons and would stop building so densely down in these flood prone areas. What Council should be doing, is buying back more of these private sites and converting them to public greenspace so that the river has room to move and so that these floodways are clearer. As other Councillors have noted, the failure to continue the flood buy-back scheme I think is really foolhardy and disappointing.
If the Council Administration is ever looking for an excuse to create more greenspace in the inner city, you have a very easy one in terms of buying back flood-affected properties. There are so many sites down along Montague Road, down along the West End riverfront, that are extremely flood vulnerable and ought not to be developed for private and commercial gain. They ought to be preserved or restored as public greenspace. That’s a serious community need. We’ve got so many people living in apartments that people need that additional public greenspace.
But it also makes sense from an environmental and flood engineering and flood mitigation perspective. It’s pretty simple. If a site is really prone to flooding and is likely to flood once every 20 years, probably don’t put 500 residents on that site. We’ve got three and four, five-level basement car parks that are all below the flood level. So all it takes is for the river to bust its banks and then suddenly five storeys of underground car parking are under water. The problems are really obvious to anyone who cares to look. Researchers like Margaret Cook have done that homework of really mapping the vulnerabilities and exposing the cultural contradictions in our city around this issue.
The 2011 flood was a disaster because we had built in stupid places. That’s not to disrespect any of the residents or homeowners in these low-lying areas but the simple fact remains that Councils have a responsibility to look at areas that are likely to flood, that are likely to be vulnerable to inundation, and discourage people from building there. Instead this Council has said to developers, you want to build down there? Go for it. That has been the true contributing factor to the floods. People ask, oh who’s to blame for the thing? Council is to blame because we allowed people to build in flood vulnerable areas.
That’s just a matter of common sense. Other cities make similar mistakes but other cultures often strike a better balance. They learn not to build in these really vulnerable areas. This isn’t a party political thing. It’s not an LNP versus Greens or Labor thing. It’s simply common sense. You don’t build in flood prone sites. The fact that this Council Administration keeps allowing that to happen shows that actually we haven’t done a particularly good job of recovering from the 2011 floods. We haven’t done a particularly good job of learning important lessons.
We’ve done some things well. We’ve rebuilt some stuff and had some positive outcomes. But we’ve made one of—we’ve continued to make that big fundamental error of failing to control rampant overdevelopment down in the most vulnerable parts of the floodplain. I think it was remiss of Councillor ALLAN to ignore this concern that was raised during the Committee. I think it’s a grievous error on the part of Council’s City Planning team that they continue to overlook this issue. We know that Council’s flood engineering advisors and hydrologists within Brisbane City Council continually advise the Planning team against zoning for residential development on these flood prone sites.
We know that Council’s own officers advise against this. Yet, because of pressure from the property industry and because of pressure from other sectors of Council, City Planning processes continue to allow developers to build down on the floodplain. It’s one of the most clear and obvious examples of the disproportionate and undemocratic influence that the property industry has over Council decision-making and planning and development. Because independent experts would tell you not to build down there. But because the private property developers want to build there, this Council Administration lets them build there, contradicting the advice of its own flood engineers and experts.
This is a serious problem in Brisbane City Council. It’s something I’ve spoken about before. It’s something I’m going to speak about again. I’m just really concerned that this Council Administration isn’t grappling sufficiently with this concern and seems to be dismissing the advice of independent experts. Let’s learn the lessons from the 2011 flood. Let’s learn the lessons from the 1974 flood. Let’s stop private property developers concentrating more and more high density, high impact development down in sites that are vulnerable to flooding and which exacerbate flood impacts on neighbouring properties.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thank you, Deputy Chair. Just briefly—I suppose I should speak a bit longer than that.
Deputy Chair: Briefly is fine.
Councillor STRUNK: I will be brief. Anyway the flood of 2011 of course—I mean it’s in living memory of everyone here in the Chamber. I went through the 1974 flood as well. Certainly the 2011 flood actually I thought was more impactful for me and what I saw. But I’ll let the experts sort that one out. But going through the presentation it was very well done by the presenter. But when I got the paperwork or when I got the presentation on paper, I was looking through the facts. The last item on the facts was the recovery cost of $440 million. So I looked for the acknowledgement of the Federal Government, the National Disaster Recovery Program to be mentioned.
Then I think it was Julia Gillard who was the Prime Minister and I’m thinking it probably wasn’t going to fit into the narrative they wanted. But I’ll mention it—thank you Julia Gillard—which the Federal Government of the time I think coughed up 75% of that $440 million. If my memory serves me correctly, I think Campbell Newman actually even dragged a lot more out of the Federal or State Government at the time. So I just don’t know what the final figure was for the infrastructure costs that this Council had to endure. So I just wanted to put it on the record. Thank you very much Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and her government that supported Queensland and this city, Brisbane, when we needed it. I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers? Councillor ALLAN?
Since there are no further speakers we will now put the motion.
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 – COUNCIL-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THE 2011 FLOOD
505/2020-21
1. The Manager, Disaster Management, City Administration and Governance, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council-wide improvements since the 2011 Flood. He provided the information below.
2. In January 2011, Brisbane received 322 millimetres of rain over five days. The Brisbane River peaked at 4.46 metres Australian Height Datum. Floodwater inundated 94 suburbs across Brisbane and affected more than 200,000 people and 24,696 properties. The flood recovery cost was $440 million.
3. Key statistics surrounding the 2011 Flood are as follows:
- Council produced 375,000 sandbags and 300,000 were taken by residents
- approximately 12,000 people were housed in evacuation centres
- an estimated 60,000 people joined the Mud Army
- Council coordinated 23,000 registered volunteers
- Council removed over 400,000 tonnes of waste
- Council received 81,000 calls from the public between 9 to 22 January 2011.
4. Following the 2011 Flood, Council’s Disaster Management branch (DM) expanded to include the Corporate Disaster Recovery Office (CDRO), previously part of the State Emergency Service (SES). The CDRO was disbanded after approximately two years but may be reinstated if required. Other DM changes included:
- introducing BIMS (Brisbane Information Management System) Online (a logging and tasking system)
- refurbishing the Local Disaster Coordination Centre (LDCC)
- establishing a community-focused Local Disaster Management Plan
- formalising the Emergency Human Services Operational Team
- refining LDCC processes and procedures
- maintaining Local Disaster Management Group stakeholder relationships
- programming funding for the Flood Information Centre.
5. From 2011 to 2021, SES resourcing increased as follows:
- membership grew from 330 volunteers to 780 volunteers
- eight depot and eight training nights to nine depots and 13 training nights
- seven flood boats to 12 flood boats
- 25 vehicles to 45 vehicles (including cars, trucks and buses)
- 100 units of small plant equipment (such as chainsaws, generators and lighting) to 250 units
- three administration officers to six administration officers (including paid Deputy Local Controller (DLC)).
6. The Moggill, South-Western, Eastern and Moreton Island depots were upgraded and the DLC role is now a paid position.
7. Disaster management tools and education produced by DM includes:
- the ‘Be prepared’ campaign for all disaster events
- the My Resilient Schools program
- flood tools for residents
- the Flood Hub
- internal LDCC training and investment in the Flood Information Centre.
8. Council has repaired, or replaced, the following assets:
- 17 CityCats, 23 ferry terminals and two pontoons
- 19,000 kilometres of road
- 38,000 trees replanted and 335 park trees replaced
- 12,036 potholes
- more than 11,000 square metres of bikeway
- 450 kilometres of stormwater drains cleaned
- 56 bridges, culverts and boardwalks
- 89 playgrounds
- 220 sporting fields and court
- 21 public toilets
- 155 traffic intersections
- 28.8 kilometres of footpath.
9. Council delivered a further $11.83 million through the Community Facility Flood Recovery package to 107 flood-affected community and sporting clubs, and $1.12 million from the Lord Mayor’s Community Disaster Relief Appeal to 32 community facilities.
10. Seventeen Flood Recovery Pontoon ferry terminals, that are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and designed for a 1-in-500-year flood event, have been installed to improve flood resilience. The Brisbane Riverwalk from the CBD to New Farm was rebuilt to withstand a 1-in-2,000-year flood event.
11. Stormwater drainage works have been undertaken to desilt and manage vegetation to ensure optimum flood conveyance, and telemetry gauges have been installed to send creek flooding alerts to Council’s FloodWise data.
12. Council’s Flood Action Plan was developed in response to the 2011 Flood, followed by the FloodSmart Future Strategy 2012-2031. The Brisbane River Strategic Management Plan is also in place and sets out a range of strategies and actions for State and local governments to consider in order to strengthen the flood resilience of the region.
13. Development-related initiatives to further assist Brisbane’s flood resilience effort includes provisions in Brisbane City Plan 2014, such as introducing the hazard-based Flood overlay code, the Flood Resilient Homes program, and the voluntary home purchase scheme (which operated between 2006 to 2016).
14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager, DM, for his informative presentation.
15. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: Councillors we will move on to petitions.
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Deputy Chair: Are there any Petitions?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. I’ve got a petition signed by some residents in a street in Wooloowin.
Deputy Chair: Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thank you, Deputy Chair. I have a petition requesting—from some constituents asking for a public swimming pool to be built in the Inala area.
Deputy Chair: Any further petitions?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Deputy Chair. I’ve got a petition regarding the restoration of ferry services for Kangaroo Point. I’ll email that through to the Council email list.
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Councillor LANDERS, can I have a motion please?
506/2020-21
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 |
|CA21/157636 |Fiona Hammond |Requesting Council remove inappropriate road signage promoting the use of |
| | |Norman Street, Wooloowin, by non-local and non-residential traffic. |
|CA21/157781 |Charles Strunk |Requesting Council install a public swimming pool in the Inala area. |
|CA21/160489 |Jonathan Sri |Requesting Council reinstate the Dockside Ferry Terminal and as an interim |
| | |measure allow CityCats to stop at the Holman Street Ferry stop. |
Deputy Chair: We’ll move on to General Business.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Deputy Chair: Councillors are there any statements required as a result of an Office of the Independent Assessor or Councillor Ethics Committee order?
There being no one standing, Councillors are there—
Councillor HUANG.
Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. I rise to wish everyone a happy Chinese New Year. Gong xi fa cai. Xin nian kuai le. Today is the fifth day of the new year, a day in Chinese tradition to welcome the god of wealth. For those who wish to have better financial fortune this year I suggest that you wear something with red or reddish colour. It is believed it will bring better financial rewards in this coming year. You can wear it either out or in, up to what you want. So Chinese New Year is the most important cultural festival in Chinese culture. It’s just like Christmas in the western culture.
It is a time for the family to get together to celebrate a new beginning. This year is the Year of the Ox. The ox symbolises calm, stability, reliability and patience. The ox is methodical and can be trusted. I think these are certainly the qualities we need to restore our lives after a turbulent Year of the Rat. On this auspicious day, I would just like to once again, wish everyone happy Chinese New Year and make sure we continue to make the Brisbane of tomorrow even better than Brisbane is of today. Xin nian kuai le, gong xi fa cai.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Deputy Chair. I just rise to speak on two local issues. The first is the 13th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations and the second is the passing of a significant community Elder in my community. Last weekend, marked the thirteenth anniversary of the national apology to the stolen generations. This apology given by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, on behalf of the nation, in the Parliament was one of those moments in our history where we knew that words matter. This has been brought into sharp relief over the last couple of months where we saw the words of a leader inspire domestic terrorists to storm the U.S. Capitol. Words of leaders matter. They can inspire actions.
We celebrated this special anniversary at Koobara Kindy on Friday last week with their annual breakfast. Listening to people that morning like Uncle Eddie Monet who spoke about how important these words were in giving people the confidence to begin to have conversations about Australia’s past and to act to make its future better for all Australians. This apology continued that conversation of Australia’s past, in the same spirit of the Redfern speech delivered by Paul Keating. It was truth telling which is an essential part of genuine reconciliation.
Uncle Louis Orcher told me how special that day was but also how special actions of previous lord mayors were in advancing the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were to him and Koobara as well. The site we gathered on was secured by Jim Soorley for Koobara Kindy. Jim also of course led the nation in acknowledging and acting on the Bringing Them Home report, apologising on behalf of the people of Brisbane a long time before national leaders would do that. So again, the words of leaders matter and I was very proud to add to those words last Friday.
A couple of weeks ago my community lost a great leader. Auntie Aileen Sandy-nee Dawson—passed away. There was a memorial service held at Koobara Kindy last Friday afternoon. I was asked to say a few words there. She was an active member of the community and a very proud mother, grandmother and auntie to some amazing community heroes who I have had the pleasure of working with over the last few years. Auntie Aileen assisted with the development of social emotional wellbeing spaces within Wontulp-Bi-Buya College in Far North Queensland, assisting with alcohol and other addictions management, community development and Indigenous mental health and counselling.
Auntie Aileen had a very special phone ministry that would minister to anyone across Australia, day or night, even the very early hours of the morning, praying and counselling many in their time of need. Auntie Aileen was an ordained minister and in September 2015 she founded Pass on the Fire Ministry which had its open day at Zillmere Community Centre and in 2017 Pass on the Fire Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation. That was another offspring of her community work.
She was mother to seven children—Jason, Wayne and Faylene Sandy and their younger siblings, Fred, Sammy, Sono and Otilla Leonie, of which are active members of the community making a difference each and every day. I got to know several of her children through my work as a Councillor. Fred’s work in cultural education through culture, art and music is well known throughout Queensland and Australia. He curated the largest cultural corroboree gathering in the past 150 years at Clancestry Festival at South Brisbane and is currently employed by Monash University to catalogue First Nations cultural language and song lines from across the nation with an aim to preserve and revive language.
Jason and Wayne Sandy were also instrumental in the revitalisation of culture through song and dance throughout the 1980s and 1990s in the South East corridor when they founded the Munjulee Yugumbir dance troupe and have been sharing cultural performance and sharing knowledge with First Nations people and the broader community right across Australia and throughout the world. Jason travelled the world to 25 countries with the group, Descendance and Wayne promoted culture in the early 1990s as a breakfast radio announcer on 98.9FM Murri Country.
Sono founded the organisation Strong Women Talking, an organisation providing workshops and support for First Nations women. Sono experienced domestic violence in her twenties and now she works to break the cycle. Sammy works as a community development and cultural worker at Jabiru Community College and established The Boss Boxing two years ago, something I’ve spoken about a few times in this Chamber. The Boss Boxing provides a safe space for young people in Zillmere. It’s changing lives and I know for a fact it’s saving lives.
Sammy continues to support the local community as a board member at Koobara Kindy. He has also been involved in the reconciliation space as a former cultural advisor to Beyond Blue, Ambrose Treacy College and currently the Jabiru Community College in Zillmere with their cultural development and safe spaces for First Nations people. I had the honour of cutting the ribbon at the opening of The Boss Boxing with Auntie Aileen. It was there when I spoke to her—and on other occasions like survival day—that I got to see how incredibly proud she was of the work of her children, the work that they were doing in the community.
I know she will continue to be proud where she is of the work they continue to do. Of course they wouldn’t be able to do that work without their mum. When rich and powerful people die monuments are erected, bridges, statues, buildings and things like that. But in years to come when we look around for the monuments to people like Auntie Aileen all you’ll need to do is look around.
Deputy Chair: Further items of General Business?
Councillor ADERMANN.
Councillor ADERMANN: Thank you, Deputy Chair. I rise to speak briefly and thank the Schrinner Council Administration for delivering new attractions costing more than half a million dollars in two of our parks in Bellbowrie this month. The new learn to ride bike facility at Kangaroo Gully Road Park has been completed and is already proving a popular attraction for local children. It even prompted a visit from my colleague, the Councillor for Walter Taylor who, with his young daughter, rode tested it last weekend and gave it the nod of approval. The bike paths have been well designed with an emphasis on educating children about road rules.
It will help prepare them for the different situations they will eventually face on open roads and bikeways. In addition to the bike paths Council has installed a new picnic shelter, pedestrian pathways, seating, a drinking fountain and bins, a retaining wall and landscaping works. Kangaroo Gully Road Park was previously a small playground and picnic facility but had to be removed because the structures had rusted and were no longer compliant with Council’s safety standards. The learn to ride bike facility was the option most favoured in local community consultation.
Mr Deputy Chair, the Schrinner Council Administration has also undertaken a comprehensive upgrade of facilities at Considen Place Park as promised in this year’s budget. This project involved the removal of old non-compliant wooden structure and replaced with new playground equipment. The area surrounding it has been turfed and a shade cover will be provided in the coming weeks. There is more to come. We have undertaken community consultation about what local residents would like to see at Pioneer Crescent Park and I’ll look forward to updating this Chamber when that project is completed. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Councillors are there any further items of business?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Deputy Chair. I rise to speak on a couple of events and an organisation here tonight. The first event is the GOPIO India Fair Fundraiser. Of course, GOPIO stands for the Global Organisation of People of Indian Origins. It is a nonpartisan, secular, global organisation, promotes the wellbeing of the people of Indian origin, works with all levels of government and community groups nationally and internationally to promote Indian culture. Congratulations to the newly elected, for a second term, President Rakesh Sharma and the new executive.
Thank you to Umesh and Usha Chandra, who are very well known throughout Brisbane within the Indian community. They continue to do their great work for their community and for the community in general. The dinner will be held this Friday. I believe of course Councillor OWEN will be coming along, representing the LORD MAYOR. This Friday, as I say, is a fundraising event. It’s pretty important because the India Day Fair of course doesn’t run on goodwill. It needs a little bit of money. So all that money will go towards the annual India Day Fair.
The day commemorates India’s independence from British rule. That was on 15 August 1947. The India Day Fair now is in its tenth year and is a free community event that brings the whole community together. So just mark that date down, the India Day Fair, 15 August 2021—which we’ll be celebrating on 15 August 2021. Now I’ve written down here 2020 but that’s obviously wrong. It’s got to be 2021. So I’ll move on. There is another event—a little event that is happening in my ward actually. It’s the Forest Lake Walking Group which is holding a little fundraiser for Red Feb Month. They’re getting together and they’re asking for the whole community to assist them.
Now this is a walking group that walk daily Monday to Friday up in the shopping centre before the shopping centre opens up. They get a pretty good group up there. But they’ve decided to support this event raising awareness for lifesaving medical research, raising funds for medical research and helping families stay together longer by everything possible before, during and when they find a cure. The group has already had 20 community walkers that have registered along with of course their own group which is—I think it’s near 100 people—that walk on a daily basis up there. So I encourage residents to come out and support them. It kicks off at 6:45am but it’s a worthy cause.
The last item I wanted to speak about is an organisation in my ward. It’s a business actually. It’s the Heritage—the Forest Lake branch—of the Heritage Bank. The reason I want to mention them is because this is a community bank. The money—the income from the branch in Forest Lake, once they pay expenses, half of that money goes back into the community. I’ll tell you what, this organisation has invested over the last—since they were established in 2005—they’ve actually paid out or invested in the community, $1.4 million. Now for the first five years they didn’t invest a lot because they were just building their business.
But I tell you what every year now it’s a few hundred thousand dollars that gets put back into my ward. Their catchment area really is Forest Lake, Inala and Durack, Richlands and Pallara. So they do broaden their—they’re just not Forest Lake focused. They do get out there and they do some fantastic work. Their current branch manager, Belinda, talk about hands-on. We held a little event on the weekend. We were putting these—you know those screws to protect your licence plates down at the Men’s Shed. The bank gave them a little bit of money. But she was down there doing the work that police officers and other volunteers were doing.
So she doesn’t just give the money and say go for it. She actually pitches in and really gets involved. Just some of the organisations that have benefited greatly—Glenala High School for their basketball court repairs—$18,000. That’s the sort of money that really the P&C’s can’t raise in—well even in the long term. That’s a lot of money. They also support the Forest Lake High School of course, their football excellence program to the tune of the last—$13,000. The Touch of Compassion which does some unbelievable work with people that are really struggling to look after their families with food and other issues—$15,000 for some equipment.
Recently the Backpack Initiative which I talked about a couple of weeks ago that supported the Inala Lions Club. So I just want to commend and any Councillors looking at maybe—that maybe have a bank moving into the ward just consider the Heritage Bank because they—especially if they establish a community bank as they do some wonderful work. Thank you, Deputy Chair.
Deputy Chair: Any further General Business? I see no one standing.
I declare the meeting closed.
Thank you, Councillors.
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 Jonathan Sri (received on 8 February 2021)
Q1. What was the total land acquisition cost for the creation of Bunyapa Park at 68 Vulture St, West End?
Q2. What is the total amount spent on establishment, embellishments and infrastructure for Bunyapa Park at 68 Vulture St, West End?
Q3. What was the total land acquisition cost for the creation of Buranda Urban Common at the corner of Carl St and Tottenham St, Woolloongabba?
Q4. What is the total amount spent on establishment, embellishments and infrastructure for Buranda Urban Common at the corner of Carl St and Tottenham St, Woolloongabba?
Q5. What is the total amount spent on land acquisition for new parkland since 2012 for each ward in Brisbane? (Please list each ward and the associated dollar value in a table)
Submitted by Councillor Jonathan Sri (received on 11 February 2021)
Q1. In setting the phase times for yellow traffic signals to change to red, engineering standards assume a certain reaction time for the average motorist. What assumed reaction time is used by Brisbane City Council for signals in Brisbane?
Q2. In setting the phase times for yellow traffic signals to change to red, engineering standards assume vehicles travelling through an intersection will be travelling at a certain minimum speed. What assumed minimum speed is used by Brisbane City Council for signals in Brisbane?
Q3. Do the yellow light timings for the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane allow enough time for cyclists to pass through the intersection safely before the lights change?
Q4. Do the yellow light timings for the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane allow enough time for motorists travelling through the intersection eastbound on Vulture St to pass through before the green pedestrian signal to cross Vulture St is displayed?
Q5. Is the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane fully compliant with the current designs standards in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices?
Q6. How many reported crashes have there been at the intersection of Vulture St, Stanley St and Dock St in South Brisbane since 2016?
Q7. How many reported crashes have there been at the intersection of Vulture St and Gladstone Rd, South Brisbane since 2016?
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (received on 11 February 2021)
Q1. How much did Brisbane City Council spend on repairing damage caused to parkland and environmental areas from bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in the following years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
Q2. How much money was spent on repairing damage caused by bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in Mt Coot-tha in the following financial years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
Q3. How much money was spent on repairing damage caused by bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in Karawatha Forest in the following financial years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
Q4. How much money was spent on repairing damage caused by bikes (trail and mountain bikes) in Toohey Forest in the following financial years:
a. 2018/19
b. 2019/2020
c. 2020 to date
Q5. How many years was the Trail Care Program operating in Mt Coot-tha?
Q6. How much did the Trail Care Program, operating in Mt Coot-tha, cost?
Q7. Please complete the tables below in relation to the following funding programs announced by Brisbane City Council in February 2021
a. Works for Queensland (W4Q) – approved funding $5.0M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
b. Unite & Recover Community Stimulus Package (URCSP) – approved funding $2.7M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
c. Local Roads & Community Infrastructure Phase 1 (LRCI – Phase 1) – approved funding $11.7M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
d. Local Roads & Community Infrastructure Phase 2 (LRCI – Phase 2) – approved funding $40.7M:
|Project |Description |Funding |
| | | |
Q8. Please provide a list of all new Brisbane parks since 1 January 2016 to date, indicating which were via developer contribution or Brisbane City Council, the year it became a park and the cost/amount spent.
|PARK NAME |SUBURB |DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTED PARK OR |YEAR IT BECAME A |COST/ AMOUNT |
| | |BCC |COUNCIL PARK |SPENT |
| | | | | |
Q9. Please provide a list of all dog off-leash parks which have irrigation systems installed.
|PARK NAME |SUBURB |
| | |
Q10. Please provide the number of cabinet bin boxes in Brisbane parks, broken down by region
|REGION |NUMBER OF CABINETS - GENERAL WASTE BINS |NUMBER OF CABINETS - GENERAL WASTE + |
| |ONLY |RECYCLING |
|Central | | |
|North | | |
|South | | |
|East | | |
|West | | |
Q11. Please provide the total number of Council staff working in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS STAFF |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
Q12. Please provide the total number of Council staff working in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS STAFF |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
Q13. Please provide the total number of contract staff worked in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT STAFF |
|2021 | |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
Q14. Please provide the total number of contract staff working in communications in the following years.
|YEAR |TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT STAFF |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
Q15. Please provide a breakdown of the total cost of operating the following services in the 2019-2020 year, and the revenue received from Translink:
|Service |Cost |Revenue - Translink |Revenue - Fares |
|CityCat | | | |
|CityHopper | | | |
|Bulimba to Teneriffe Cross | | | |
|River Ferry | | | |
|Kangaroo Point Cross River | | | |
|Ferry | | | |
|Service |Cost |Revenue - Translink |Revenue - Fares |
|Norman Park – New Farm Park | | | |
|Cross River Ferry | | | |
Q16. Please provide a list of the current Board members including any remuneration paid to those members for the 2019/2020 year and 2020-2021 year to date.
|Board Name: |Member Name: |Remuneration 2019/2020 |Remuneration 2020/2021 YTD |
|Better Suburbs Initiative | | | |
|Board | | | |
|Brisbane Bus Build Pty Ltd | | | |
|Brisbane Green Heart City | | | |
|Smart Pty Ltd | | | |
|Brisbane Marketing Pty | | | |
|Ltd/Brisbane Economic | | | |
|Development Agency | | | |
|Brisbane Powerhouse Pty Ltd | | | |
|Brisbane Tolling Pty Ltd | | | |
|City of Brisbane Investment | | | |
|Corporation | | | |
|City Parkland Services Pty | | | |
|Ltd | | | |
|City Super Pty Ltd | | | |
|Field Services Advisory | | | |
|Board | | | |
|Inclusive Brisbane Advisory | | | |
|Board | | | |
|Independent Design Advisory | | | |
|Panel | | | |
|Lord Mayor’s Creative | | | |
|Brisbane Advisory Board | | | |
|Major Brisbane Festivals Pty| | | |
|Ltd | | | |
|Major Projects Board | | | |
|Museum of Brisbane Board Pty| | | |
|Ltd | | | |
|Oxley Creek Transformation | | | |
|Pty Ltd | | | |
|QUU Board (BCC 85% | | | |
|shareholder) | | | |
|SunPAC Brisbane Pty Ltd | | | |
|Trade Coast Land Pty Ltd | | | |
|Urban Futures Brisbane Board| | | |
Q17. Please provide a list of external advisors engaged by Council so far in the 2020-2021 financial year in lieu of the Inclusive Brisbane, Urban Futures and Major Projects Boards (dissolved by Council in November 2020). Please include a breakdown of amounts paid and the projects they provided advice on.
|External Advisor |Project |Nature of Advice |Amount Paid |
| | | | |
Q18. Please provide a list of all Councillors officially appointed as Brisbane City Council representatives to external Boards including the annual remuneration for the role:
|Board |Councillor |2019-2020 Remuneration |2020-2021 Remuneration (YTD) |
| | | | |
Q19. Please provide a full detailed breakdown of the $84M allocation to the Victoria Park Project this term.
Q20. Please provide the total number of FTEs Council staff working on the Victoria Park project by role type.
Q21. Please provide the total number of FTEs contract staff working on the Victoria Park project by role type.
Q22. Please advise how many waste vouchers were issued and how many were redeemed in the following years:
|Year |Issued |Redeemed |
|2021 (YTD) | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
Q23. Where are the city cycles being disposed?
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 9 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.
A1. Part of the program allocation of program 8.1.1.1 has an allocation for one staff member to support the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust.
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.
A2. a. 2018/19 – not applicable
b. 2019/20 - $58,875
c. 2020 to date – as at 9 February 2021 $92,970
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?
A3-6. The Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Brisbane City Council and therefore this information is not available from Council.
However, information about the Trust can be found on the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust website at .au.
Q7. How many COVID-19 Suburban Priority Projects have commenced in the Wards and where are they located?
A7.
|Ward |Approved Projects |
|Bracken Ridge |6 |
|Deagon |5 |
|Hamilton |5 |
|Marchant |5 |
|McDowall |8 |
|Northgate |7 |
|Chandler |4 |
|Coorparoo |1 |
|Doboy |3 |
|Holland Park |1 |
|Morningside |2 |
|Wynnum |4 |
|Calamvale |4 |
|Forest Lake |3 |
|MacGregor |4 |
|Moorooka |7 |
|Runcorn |6 |
|Tennyson |4 |
|Enoggera |4 |
|The Gap |6 |
|Jamboree |3 |
|Pullenvale |8 |
|Walter Taylor |11 |
|Central |4 |
|The Gabba |4 |
|Paddington |4 |
Q8. How many COVID-19 Suburban Priority Projects have been completed and where are they located?
A8.
|Ward |Approved Projects |
|Bracken Ridge |1 |
|McDowall |3 |
|Marchant |2 |
|Northgate |5 |
|Chandler |1 |
|MacGregor |2 |
|Moorooka |7 |
|Runcorn |6 |
|Tennyson |2 |
|Jamboree |2 |
|Pullenvale |5 |
|Walter Taylor |4 |
|Central |1 |
|Paddington |2 |
|The Gabba |2 |
Q9. How many cars are in the Council fleet?
A9. 423.
Q10. How many trucks are in the Council fleet?
A10. 416.
Q11. How many ute vehicles are in the Council fleet?
A11. 523.
Q12. How many cars in the Council fleet are hybrid?
A12. 28.
Q13. How many cars in the Council fleet are electric?
A13. 20.
Q14. How many cars in the Council fleet are diesel?
A14. 35.
Q15. How many cars in the Council fleet are petrol?
A15. 340.
Q16. How many trucks in the Council fleet are hybrid?
A16. 5.
Q17. How many trucks in the Council fleet are electric?
A17. 0.
Q18. How many trucks in the Council fleet are diesel?
A18. 411.
Q19. How many trucks in the Council fleet are petrol?
A19. 0.
Q20. How many utes in the Council fleet are hybrid?
A20. 0.
Q21. How many utes in the Council fleet are electric?
A21. 0.
Q22. How many utes in the Council fleet are diesel?
A22. 492.
Q23. How many utes in the Council fleet and petrol?
A23. 31.
Q24. How many dog attacks have been registered with the Brisbane City Council Contact Centre in the last 12 months?
A24. 2,172 contacts were made to the Contact Centre concerning dog attacks. Please note, multiple contacts regarding the same attack often occurs.
Q25. How many dog attacks where investigated by council officers in the last 12 months?
A25. 1,704 customer reports referred to the Animal Attack team for actioning.
Q26. How many dogs were declared as dangerous in the last 12 months due to dog attacks?
A26. 65 dogs were declared as dangerous or menacing.
Q27. How many dog attacks on people occurred in the last 12 months?
A27. 540 attacks on people have been reported to Council.
Q28. How many dog attacks on other animals occurred in the last 12 months?
A28. 716 attacks on animals have been reported to Council.
Q29. How many fines were issued in the last 12 months for dogs found off leash?
A29. 960 Infringement Notices and 146 zero-dollar Warning Infringement Notices for off-leash dogs.
Q30. How many Council officers are employed to investigate dog attacks that are registered with the Contact Centre?
A30. Council employs 6 full-time Animal Attack Officers, 2 desktop-based Animal Attack Triage Officers and 1 Animal Attack Supervisor.
Q31. What is the timeframe for Council to investigate a dog attack, from registering with the Contact centre to closure of investigation?
A31. Council will respond within one hour to an attack in progress to make sure that there is no on-going threat or risk.
Where the attack is not in progress, officers from Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Services team will endeavour to contact the complainant as soon as possible within 24 hours. Animal attack complaints are treated as matters of high priority.
Investigation time may vary, dependant on the complexity of the matter, and matters such as confirming the identity of the animal involved and/or the keeper of the animal and obtaining evidence to establish the relevant events surrounding the attack and determining the most appropriate action. This can include reviewing CCTV footage and obtaining statements from witnesses. Owners also have an option to make an appeal of Council’s decision through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal process which can also lengthen the time investigation timeframe.
Section 52 of the Justices Act 1886 provides the statutory limitations that apply with respect to the taking of proceedings for simple offences: “In any case of a simple offence or breach of duty, unless some other time is limited for making complaint by the law relating to the particular case, complaint must be made within 1 year from the time when the matter of complaint arose”.
Q32. Please provide the total number of Brisbane City Council-owned public toilets, with a breakdown of how many have needle disposal units.
A32. 246 Council owned public toilets, 109 have sharps containers.
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 | |
A33.
|Year |Total Number of Reported Needlestick Injuries |
|2020 |0 |
|2019 |2 |
|2018 |0 |
|2017 |5 |
|2016 |4 |
Q34. Please provide the top 5 types of locations where needlestick injuries on Brisbane City Council property were reported in 2016-2020.
A34.
|Location Type |Volume |
|Parks or Parklands |7 |
|Wynnum Wading Pool |2 |
|Road/Footpath |2 |
Q35. Please provide the top 10 suburbs where needlestick injuries were reported in 2016-2020, with the number of reports.
A35.
|Syringe Injury Top Suburbs | Number |
|Wynnum |2 |
|South Brisbane |2 |
|East Brisbane |1 |
|Stafford Heights |1 |
|Forest Lake |1 |
|Wacol |1 |
|Brisbane City |1 |
|Red Hill |1 |
|Spring Hill |1 |
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 | | |
A36. The approved City Plan 2014 road hierarchy does not classify roads under the categories listed in the table.
Roads are categorised based on the function that the road performs from a traffic flow perspective, driving speed and capacity to carry a number of vehicles per hour. Lengths of Council roads, as per the road classifications contained in City Plan 2014 are below.
|Class |Length (km) |
|Arterial Routes |395.5 |
|District Routes |386.2 |
|Neighbourhood Roads |4,509.5 |
|Suburban Roads |520.8 |
|Total BCC Roads |5,812 |
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 | |
A37.
|ITEM |AMOUNT/ NUMBER |
|Total number printed |1,000 |
|Total printing cost |$2,690 ex GST |
|Total cost of the video fly-through |$20,000 (Both fly through and artists |
|Total cost of artist impressions |impressions were completed as a joint item) |
|Total cost of photographics |Nil – these were existing items |
Q38. Please provide details of where the printed copies of the “Victoria Park Vision” document have been distributed.
A38. Copies of the Victoria Park Vision have been provided to stakeholders, consultants, and the Brisbane Greeters as part of the Victoria Park project engagement plan.
Q39. Please provide a breakdown of the $84M allocation to Victoria Park this Council term?
A39. The funding for the Victoria Park project is allocated over the forward estimates in the 2020/21 budget.
The phasing of expenditure in the future years will be determined as part of the budget process for the 2021/22 budget from work currently being undertaken from the $3 million allocated this financial year. This includes cost estimates and design work to inform future budget phasing for capital and operational costs for delivering the Victoria Park Vision.
Q40. Please advise the total number of Brisbane City Council Kitchen Organic Bins have been distributed.
A40. 8,408.
Q41. Please advise the total number of Brisbane City Council Kitchen Organic Bins have ordered from the supplier, and the total cost.
A41. 10,510 caddies have been ordered at a cost of $48,919.20.
Q42. Please advise how many people have registered for the Brisbane City Council’s Community Composting program.
A42. 9,569.
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 | |
A43.
|PROPERTY |TOTAL LEASE FEES PAID IN 2019-2020 (ex GST) |
|Rivergate Marina |$1,805,073 |
|7 Rivergate Place, Murarrie | |
|TradeCoast Central |$3,094,577 |
|20 TradeCoast Drive, Eagle Farm | |
|North Regional Business Centre |$3,978,731 |
|375 Hamilton Road, Chermside | |
|Wynnum Shopping Centre |$919,283 |
|145 Florence Street, Wynnum | |
|16 Industrial Avenue, Wacol |$375,097 |
|(until 13 November 2019) | |
|South Regional Business Centre |$2,318,081 |
|665 Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly | |
|(until 30 April 2020) | |
|TOTAL AMOUNT PAID |$12,490,842 |
RISING OF COUNCIL: 6:45pm.
PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED
CHAIR
Council officers in attendance:
Victor Tan (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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.