TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4643 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 16 March 2021
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
Governance, Council and Committee Services
City Administration and Governance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
PRESENT: 1
OPENING OF MEETING: 1
APOLOGY: 1
MINUTES: 2
QUESTION TIME: 2
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: 16
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 16
A SUB-LEASE OF PREMISES TO 2-CONVENIENCE PTY LTD 30
B INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE PROJECT 32
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 33
A COMMENCEMENT TIME OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2021 39
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 44
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – 21-41 BOGGO ROAD, DUTTON PARK (A005260979) 49
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 51
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – NORTH BRISBANE BIKEWAY 58
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL CHANGE THE CITYGLIDER (BLUE) ROUTE 60 BUS SERVICE TO STOP INBOUND AT 405 MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END, AND OUTBOUND AT 406 MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END 59
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 62
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LABORATORY SERVICES 64
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL BUILD A ROAD CONNECTION BETWEEN CANVEY ROAD AND MT NEBO ROAD, UPPER KEDRON, FOR GENERAL TRAFFIC USE 65
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL DISCONTINUE THE PROPOSED UPGRADE FOR THE BARBOUR ROAD AND WICKFIELD STREET INTERSECTION, BRACKEN RIDGE 67
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 69
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – AQUATIC WILDLIFE MOVEMENT SOLUTIONS 69
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RENAME ALOOMBA STREET PARK, 69 SUVLA STREET, BALMORAL, AS ‘SUVLA BAY PARK’, IN RECOGNITION OF LOCAL RESIDENTS’ STRONG COMMITMENT TO COMMEMORATING THE ANZAC TRADITION 71
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL A VOLLEYBALL COURT IN D.M. HENDERSON PARK, 434 MCCULLOUGH STREET, MACGREGOR 72
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE 73
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CRUMB RUBBER IN ASPHALT 74
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE 74
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE GREETERS 75
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE 76
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – PERSONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN 76
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 77
GENERAL BUSINESS: 78
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 83
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 84
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) | |
|Sarah HUTTON (Jamboree) | |
|Sandy LANDERS (Bracken Ridge) | |
|James MACKAY (Walter Taylor) | |
|Kim MARX (Runcorn) | |
|Peter MATIC (Paddington) | |
|David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) | |
|Ryan MURPHY (Chandler) | |
|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: Please be seated. I declare the meeting open.
Are there any apologies?
Councillor CASSIDY.
APOLOGY:
580/2020-21
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.
581/2020-21
An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillors Angela OWEN and Steven HUANG, and they were granted leave of absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON.
Chair: Confirmation of Minutes please.
Councillor LANDERS.
MINUTES:
582/2020-21
The Minutes of the 4642 meeting of Council held on 9 March 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.
QUESTION TIME:
Chair: Councillors, we now move to Question Time.
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chair of any Standing Committee?
Councillor ATWOOD.
Question 1
Councillor ATWOOD: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, as Councillors would now be aware, a Special Meeting will be held next Tuesday to discuss the prospect of the Olympics being held in Brisbane in 2032. Can you give an update on what this meeting will entail and what are the next steps from here.
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair and through you, thank you to Councillor ATWOOD for the question. All Councillors would have received a letter from the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) yesterday, advising them of the intention to hold a Special Meeting at 9am next Tuesday, 23 March. This meeting is quite unique in many respects. In terms of the history of Brisbane City Council and the legislation that we operate under, it is possible to hold meetings such as this and in particular closed meetings, but obviously there has to be a very good reason for that to occur.
So, what we will see next Tuesday morning is a meeting that is specifically about what the next steps are in terms of Brisbane’s opportunity to host the Olympics in 2032. Now, this is important for a number of reasons. First of all that Brisbane will be a signatory to the host city contract. That means, the City of Brisbane will be signing a contract, obviously with the support—pending the support next Tuesday, as will the State Government. So, both the State of Queensland and the City of Brisbane will sign a contract with the IOC (International Olympic Committee) to host the Olympic Games, obviously if we are successful for the 2032 Games.
Now, it is important, I believe, that all Councillors are fully briefed on what is being put forward to the IOC. The final submission from the three levels of government and the AOC (Australian Olympic Committee) is due in April. So, by early April we expect to be in a position where the final submission from those three levels of government and the AOC will go to the International Olympic Committee for final consideration. Before that happens, as I said, it’s important that Councillors are fully briefed on what is being proposed.
That briefing will include information about where it is proposed to hold various sporting events, the venues that will be used. That includes option A and option B, so a preference for a particular event to be held at a particular location, an alternative location where that may be held and go into a lot of detail from a number of speakers about what will be happening, if we go forward. So, I’ve specifically asked for that briefing to be very fulsome and the briefing will include a briefing from the AOC President, Mr John Coates AM (Member of the Order of Australia).
So, he will be flying up to Brisbane to participate in that briefing. We will have a representative from Paralympics Australia. We will have representatives from the State and Federal Government and I’m pleased to confirm that Minister Stirling Hinchliffe, who is the responsible Minister for this bid, will be coming to brief us as well. We will have briefings from people such as EKS (EKS Consulting Group), which are the consultants which help in the preparation of the bid documents. We will also have Council’s senior or Chief Legal Officer as well on hand to answer any questions relating to legal matters.
Now, you would be aware that this meeting will be a closed meeting and the briefing will be a closed briefing. Now, the reason for that is very clear, the information to which Councillors will be privy to is not speculation on where venues might go, but narrowing down to a more specific decision on where those venues will be. That does have impacts on things like the property market, significant impacts. So Councillors will be getting this information before general members of the public and for that reason, it is important that is confidential.
We have also been asked by our colleagues at other levels of government to keep this confidential for those same reasons. So, we’re asking Councillors to respect that process, so that they can make an informed decision going forward with all the information, but obviously there are good reasons why that information, at this point in time, cannot be released to the wider public. So it will be a closed meeting. The debate will be closed, the vote will be recorded. So, how Councillors choose to vote on this will be a matter for the public record, so, I just wanted to make that clear.
So, this is quite a unique opportunity. The last time we had such a meeting was back in 2007 when, Councillors will remember, we had the joint arrangement between the LNP and Labor, or Liberal and Labor at the time, where Labor had the majority of numbers or Councillors in the Chamber, we had Lord Mayor Campbell Newman at the time and his deputy, Graham Quirk. It was a decision on the CLEM7 tunnel and that meeting was kept closed and confidential because—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
LORD MAYOR: Okay, thank you.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 2
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor ADAMS. Time and time again we see LNP Councillors hitting back at residents for wanting to have a say on local developments. Councillor HOWARD slammed local residents for wanting to have a say on the New Farm Park redevelopment and labelled them as ‘scaremongers’.
More recently, Councillor ADAMS herself told residents to be careful what they wish for and if they speak up they might be faced with increased development and on other occasions, LNP Councillors have just flat out ignored local residents. So, it’s clear that LNP residents think it’s okay to ignore, threaten and berate local communities across Brisbane. So, my question to Councillor ADAMS is what are you going to do to fix this concerning cultural issue within this Administration?
Chair: Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair and I have to say from the outset that I do not in any way, shape or form, agree with the intent of that question. It’s actually quite outrageous. We live in a democracy. We live in a democracy where the politicians, particularly the ones on this side of the Chamber, stand up for what they believe in. They have principles and they represent their community for the best outcome for their community, the best outcome for their community and for the wider community. This is the responsibility that those on the other side have long forgotten.
That when you are in administration, you can’t just be in opposition for opposition’s sake. You need to make the tough decisions, you need to make sure the decisions you make are the decisions for the entire community and unfortunately—and this is a case in democracy—you never get 100%. Western Australian Premier went very close, I have to say, in the last few days, but, there is always going to be people that are not happy with the outcome of a decision. That is what is democracy.
But as an LNP Administration, I am sure I talk for all of the LNP Councillors that have just had slurs cast upon them by the Leader of the Opposition, that they make their decisions with all the information in front of them and they make measured decisions on the best outcome for their community. Now, in the case of New Farm Park, there is some of the community that are very, very upset, again about ‘Chinese whispers’ that have gotten totally out of control on what is actually happening with the upgrades to the park.
With the outcome at Boggo Road Gaol, that was said to me that I told residents to be careful what they wished for. Well, I am happy to stand here and say that again and make the reasoning very clear, as I did in Committee and as I did on the radio 24 hours later, that this was an application which was code assessable at five-storeys. The officers worked very, very hard to get the outcomes that the local Councillor and the community wanted, with separated pedestrian paths, separated bike paths, minimised car parking at ground level, car parking going underneath. Only two-storeys, so you could see the lines of the sight to the extremely important heritage and historical area of Boggo Road Gaol.
But that area is now in a PDA (priority development area) and if I have learnt nothing else in 13 years as of yesterday—was my anniversary in this place—is that when the State has any say in it, it only goes up, it only goes up. So, my comments were based on the fact that you take this to P&E Court (Planning and Environment Court), you may win, you may not. If you win, the developers come around again, the applicant comes around again and this time it’s in a PDA. Council gets no say. We will get no say and residents will get absolutely no say.
So, when I say be careful what you wish for, I absolutely mean it and I hope you’re listening, Councillor SRI, because I can tell you, hands down the EDQ (Economic Development Queensland) has made it very clear that their role is one role only and that is make money. So the chances—put it this way, I wouldn’t be putting ‘two bob’ on it that that didn’t go to five-storeys. That is where my comment came from. I do not, never have and never will flippantly ignore residents and neither do my comments. The slurs we hear from the Leader of the Opposition are outrageous, but he doesn’t understand what it’s like to be in administration and goodness help us he will never find out.
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Excuse me, was that a point of order?
Point of order.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, just reflecting on something that the DEPUTY MAYOR said then, Chair. She used the phrase—I’m loath to repeat it but I will—
Chair: What is the point of order?
Councillor CASSIDY: —about Chinese whispers. I believe that might be a racist phrase.
Chair: Oh, no.
Councillor CASSIDY: No, I believe it is. So I would actually just ask that—
Chair: No, I don’t accept that.
Councillor CASSIDY: I think that should be withdrawn.
Chair: No, I don’t accept that.
Councillor CASSIDY: It’s a very racist term.
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: I am happy to withdraw it and just say that the hyperbole that has been spread has been a bit disturbing.
Chair: Okay, further questions?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Question 3
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is the to Chair of City Planning and Economic Development Committee, Councillor ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, next month Brisbane City Council will host the Brisbane Business Summit, a meeting of leading business minds and industry figures, to reflect on the impacts of the pandemic and the trends that are expected to shape our city for years. Can you outline for the Chamber the benefits this summit will bring and how businesses can get involved.
Chair: The DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND and I am more than happy to answer this question, because it’s extremely exciting to share the upcoming details of the Brisbane Business Summit. Unfortunately, one of the many events that got postponed with the events of last year, the Brisbane Innovate Summit has been going for a few years now. But we did take the opportunity to take our time after a bit of a quieter time last year and think about how the best way would be to support the local businesses going forward. So, the Business Summit has emerged and I don’t think it could have come at a better time for businesses in Brisbane.
We’ll come together on 21 April and reflect on the year that has been, but also look at what the opportunities are for the next years to come as well. What we are seeing is businesses are starting to look forward. So the summit is an unmissable opportunity to reset, re-evaluate and embrace the new normal that is this post-COVID-19 world. As I said, it is 21 April and it’s at BCEC (Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre). Tickets are limited, but I do believe there’s already a third that have been reserved and we haven’t even gone out to the public yet.
They’ve been spreading the word at the Business Hub and the word is definitely getting around. I thank BCEC again for their hosting, they always do a wonderful job for the Innovation Summit and I think it will be the same for the Business Summit. Of course, only fitting for our theme, which is the new normal, it will be a hybrid event. So, there’ll be opportunities to be there in person, or be there on your Zoom as well. We’ve got four key themes, post-COVID-19 analysis, business innovation, business outlook for 2021 and beyond and business adaptation.
We are lucky to have the fabulous and formidable Sofie Formica MC’ing the event and with Sofie’s experience right across the gamut of journalism, game shows and tourism events opportunities, she’ll be a great presenter. She’s also just started her own business, Travel Well Media, so she knows all about starting new businesses and this one in the wellness and healthy ageing initiative should be a great one too for some of our businesses to hear about.
We’re going to obviously have the address by the LORD MAYOR and then we’re going to be jumping straight in to key note speakers. I can give you a taste of a few of them today, but the big closing key note, we might have to keep secret. Mark McCrindle is joining us, he’s a recognised leader in tracking emerging issues and researching social trends. So he does demography but he’s also a futurist, he is a leader in guiding organisations to better understand what the future is expected to look like. The challenges we are going to be facing in the coming years, the way we work, lead, motivate and communicate as well. Very excited to hear from him.
Then we have a panel discussion, Our city, Our strengths. So, that’s going to be around the 360-degree perspective on what our city has to offer and how you can better leverage its unique strengths. I think with the opportunities of the Olympics coming, I think we can already see Brisbane is so excited about what those strengths may be in the years to come. I then have the great joy—and I’m very humble to join an esteemed panel—discuss some of those things around the opportunities with Li Cunxin from Queensland Ballet; Dimity Dornan, the Executive Director at Hear and Say, and Llew Jury, who’s the Founder and Managing Director of Sprint Ventures.
So all of those three, I think most of us know quite well. Li obviously with his remarkable story, but how he’s driven Queensland Ballet to the heights that it is today. Dimity Dornan, an entrepreneur, bionics advocate, speech pathologist and of course, the founder and face of, I said, of Hear and Say, a charity we’re all familiar with. I’m amazed at how well they have done over the many years as a Brisbane-based, born, bred and proud company supporting young people through deafness.
Llew Jury, an incredibly experienced digital business and marketing leader, managed and exited global digital marketing consulting businesses over the last two decades. So I am going to have to make sure I have my A-game on to join them at that panel. Then later in the morning, we’ll have key note speakers and workshops and breakouts, to make sure we can talk about some of the more detailed discussions around things that are impacting our city, our country, job trends, structural employment and the whole new world of work in what I’ve been calling BC (before COVID-19), different from BC (before Christ).
So our outlook for 2021 is looking better than most. Our unemployment figures are slowly dropping, the deficit is looking healthier and right now we are the envy of the world in Australia, Queensland, but most of all in Brisbane as well. So as I mentioned, our closing key note speaker, we are saving the absolute best until last and you’re going to have to wait until the announcement comes in the next couple of days, but make sure you get online because the tickets are going to go fast. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Question 4
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is to the Chair of Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM, in a very recent report it warned that decent tree cover and bushland preservation are key if we want to keep our city cool. We also recently found out that only 18% of the Bushland Preservation Levy is spent on actually buying bushland. That’s a very low proportion, but what makes it worse is that this Council is using that 18% for political purposes.
Like the time three cleared house blocks were purchased in Mt Gravatt East to stop a development and help the local LNP Councillor save face with her community. Now, we need to preserve actual bushland, like the koala habitat of Bridgeman Downs and this LNP Council refuses. Councillor CUNNINGHAM, how do you expect to stop Brisbane from heating up if you only spend 18% of the levy on buying bushland and the little you do spend, you waste on political purchases?
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair and thank you to Councillor GRIFFITHS for the question. Now, I would also like to point out that a recent report, which I find very relevant here, says that in fact Australians do face a hotter future, but it recognised that Brisbane was one of the greenest cities in Australia. In fact, 54% green cover in 2020 was recognised, not by us but by the experts. Now, when it comes to our Bushland Preservation Levy, we spend more money on buying bushland, not just by searching on .au, it’s not just about buying bushland; it’s about preserving bushland and it’s maintaining it and that costs money, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Now, this Administration has a proud track record of fast-tracking our Bushland Acquisition Program and in fact we bought 750 hectares in the last four years to 2020, accelerating our program. Now, this is not just about looking on .au, as I said, and finding attractive properties; this is about looking for opportunities to green our city. So, I completely reject the premise of the question, Councillor GRIFFITHS, that we just lock up land and not maintain it. We do need to spend money on maintaining our bushland and that’s exactly what we do.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor ADERMANN.
Question 5
Councillor ADERMANN: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor MURPHY. After months of negotiation, the State Government has finalised its position on articulated buses on the Blue CityGlider route. Can you update the Chamber on this issue.
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Councillor ADERMANN, for the question, I absolutely can. Mr Chair, we’ve been working very closely with the State Government and with TransLink for some time now to address the issue of crowded buses on the Blue CityGlider route that runs from Teneriffe to West End. The Blue CityGlider corridor is expected to be one of the highest growth corridors in Brisbane in the coming years and the service already operates at the maximum recommended frequency of five minutes in the peak period.
The Queensland Government outlined the need for articulated vehicles on the Blue CityGlider in the South Brisbane Transport and Mobility Study, which was developed by TransLink and released in November 2019. The findings of this study called for more high-frequency, reliable public transport services to cater for the growing population and employment in the inner south. Specifically, it called for—and I quote ‘expanded capacity of the Blue CityGlider route 60 service through the introduction of articulated buses’.
Now, currently the Blue CityGlider operates under a funding agreement with TransLink, where the cost is shared evenly between Council and the State Government after revenue. We know that Council’s funding contributions to public transport are over and above the normal responsibilities of a local government, but we do it because if we did nothing our city would grind to a halt. Strictly speaking, managing high loadings on the Teneriffe to the City and West End, and West End to the City, should be the responsibility of the public transport authority, TransLink.
Since May 2019, we have been prepared to offer articulated vehicles to this route to address these issues and indeed, the vehicles were ordered and mocked up under the understanding that the State Government would agree to share the additional cost. The first vehicle was set to enter service in May 2020, but what did we hear when we asked TransLink if they would stump up the cash? Crickets. Chair, the Blue CityGlider has experienced growth in patronage far in excess of the network average and it now regularly has the highest number of full standing loads in the network, other than the 66 and the 412.
Now, the 66 is already 100% operated with articulated vehicles and replaced by the M1 under Brisbane Metro. By comparison, the 412 cannot operate articulated vehicles due to infrastructure constraints at the terminus at the UQ (University of Queensland) Chancellors Place. Now, full standing loads on the Blue CityGlider are the subject of complaints from residents on both route segments. In particular, Bulimba passengers using the CityCat service in Teneriffe will often complain about being left behind, due to the lower capacity of the 12.5-metre buses, compared to the capacity on the CityCats when they go to transfer passengers.
It’s been great to have local Councillors in both Central Ward in Councillor Vicki HOWARD and The Gabba Ward in Jonathan SRI, as advocates of enhanced services to manage residents’ expectations and complaints when it comes to the Blue CityGlider. So Mr Chair, I’m very pleased to announce that after a meeting last week, Council officers and TransLink have reached a final agreement on the rollout of new articulated vehicles for the Blue CityGlider route. The first eight new vehicles will enter service in July, with a further 10 to be rolled out by December. This is great news for anyone that catches the Blue CityGlider.
But don’t think, Chair, that these articulated buses came about because the State Government had a change of heart. The agreement has only come about because the State Government and Cross River Rail needed something from Brisbane City Council, two things actually. Last year, Grace Grace, the Member for McConnel, made an election commitment to electrify the free Spring Hill City Loop, with no prior discussions with Council and lacking any ability to run an actual bus service.
Surprise, surprise, TransLink have now approached Council to consider the request, following the review of our e-bus trial that will be commencing midway through this year. We are always happy, Chair, to assist the State Government to make their election commitments a reality. The other requirement from TransLink to help fund the Blue CityGlider, was to take on a new 109 station link service. Now, what’s the 109, I hear you say? Well, this service will replace the rail service that is about to be closed for the upgrade of stations as part of Cross River Rail.
The station link service will service train stations at Moorooka, Yeerongpilly, Yeronga, Fairfield and Dutton Park, before terminating at the Boggo Road bus station. This is currently proposed for implementation on 19 April and the service will use a dedicated fleet of eight vehicles. Chair, as the largest bus operator in Brisbane we are always happy to provide services for the members of Brisbane’s travelling public, it’s just a shame that we have to barter and horse-trade in order to provide better services.
The Schrinner Council works hard every day to make sure residents and visitors get home sooner and safer and it’s great to see those on George Street getting on board with public transport network reform. There’s more to be done in this space and we look forward to doing that, working with the State Government and the people of the City of Brisbane.
Chair: Councillor MURPHY, your time has expired.
Further questions?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor SRI had a question last week.
Chair: Hang on, so your point of order is you’d prefer the question? Is that what you’re saying? You believe the rules say that you should have the question?
Councillor JOHNSTON: They have to go in order under the Meetings Local Law.
Chair: Yes, I appreciate that, but I did—
Councillor JOHNSTON: You have to alternatively provide them to—
Chair: No, thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON. I did say further questions, I looked over, Councillor SRI made eye contact and stood up. If you would like the question, I am happy to offer it to you.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 6
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. God help me. All right, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. On the second—and are you listening, LORD MAYOR? On 2 March, I asked you a question about why the stormwater projects in Yeronga had not been undertaken as in the LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan). Your Environment, Parks and Sustainability Chairperson, Councillor CUNNINGHAM, stated that and I quote ‘not all the projects in the LGIP will be constructed in the timeframe originally indicated’—end quote and—inverted commas—‘a number of projects in Yeronga will remain listed in Council’s LGIP between now and 2026’.
As the LGIP, publicly available on Council’s website, clearly states, all 21 of the Yeronga stormwater projects are listed to be completed between 2016 and 2021. None of the projects has been completed, none of them. None of the projects are listed to be completed by 2026, as stated by Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM has provided demonstrably false information about the Yeronga stormwater projects listed in the LGIP in her answer. So my question to you, the same as three weeks ago, is when will these projects be delivered?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair and thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON for the question. I did actually hear a question this time as opposed to a statement last time. I was listening for the question mark.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
LORD MAYOR: There was no question mark.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chairman, the rules of procedure state that the LORD MAYOR is required to answer the question, not argue the question itself. Please ask him to answer the question.
Chair: Thank you. LORD MAYOR, please answer the question.
LORD MAYOR: The normal procedure would be to listen to the answer as well.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: The Meetings Local Law require the LORD MAYOR not to argue the question, but to answer it and I ask you to enforce the Meetings Local Law, as required in your role.
Chair: Thank you. The LORD MAYOR provided four words before—between your previous point of order and your next point of order. So I’d like to hear more of what he has to say, but—
LORD MAYOR, please answer the question.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Mr Chair, thank you, look, I am happy to answer the question. I cannot guarantee that the Councillor for Tennyson Ward will like the answer to the question and will hence continue to interrupt, as she is want to do. But I can say the information provided by the Chair was 100% correct. So, this is a case of Councillor JOHNSTON asking a question, getting the answer, not liking the answer and then saying you haven’t answered my question. Well yes, the question’s been answered and the information provided was correct.
Now, it’s important to fundamentally understand what an LGIP is. An LGIP exists for the purpose of allowing Council to collect developer contributions towards infrastructure. This is not a plan that binds Council to deliver things in a particular timeframe. This is a plan which allows us to collect infrastructure charges so that we can help fund infrastructure. Now, that’s why the LGIP is updated on a periodic basis, because very much the LGIP changes as development patterns around the city change. What we see is that some areas develop faster than were anticipated and some areas do not develop as fast as was anticipated.
Now, in the case of the area that Councillor JOHNSTON is referring to, the officers have advised that the area has not been developing as Council originally expected it would develop in terms of pace. Now, Councillor JOHNSTON may think there has been a lot of development, but in terms of what was anticipated in the LGIP, there has actually been less development than was anticipated. What that means is less infrastructure contributions have come to Council, which means the investment that we expected would occur has not occurred in the same timeframe that it was expected to occur.
So, this is very much a process that is led by the pace of development in different areas, it’s why the LGIP is continued to be updated on a periodic basis as things change. Now, the development in a particular area is very much guided by market conditions. We often see cases where developers will lodge applications but then not actually move on that application. So, they may sit on it for a number of years. So, a DA (development application) might be approved but no development actually happens. So, there’s a whole range of factors here, but the reality is the answer that was provided by the Chair was a correct answer and it simply relates to the pace of development.
So, we will continue to update LGIPs as we see the pace of development across the city change and some areas moving faster than anticipated, some areas moving slower than anticipated, we will continue to update those plans. But just to be clear, the LGIP exists for the sole reason of collecting contributions from developers to put into infrastructure. We are required to have the LGIP for the purpose of collecting those charges. We have our own annual budget process, which then puts those contributions towards projects as they’re received. But as you can imagine, if there is less funding in from development occurring then we have less funds available to do these projects.
We know that, for example, in this financial year there has been almost a 50% reduction in infrastructure charges received. That’s a significant hit to the bottom line of the budget as a result of lower than anticipated development activity. Basically this is the point we’re making, there is less money coming in as development occurs because there’s less development occurring. That means we have less money to fund those infrastructure projects attached to that development. As the economy recovers, this may well change and as I said, we’ll keep updating the LGIP to reflect that change.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I seek leave to suspend—actually I’ll have to write it down for you.
Chair: All right.
Councillor TOOMEY.
Question 7
Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN, can you please provide the Chamber with an update on infrastructure projects that are about to start and how the Schrinner Administration’s suite of road upgrades will deliver active travel benefits for the people of Brisbane.
Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair and through you, thank Councillor TOOMEY for the question. As you’re aware, I’ve been keeping the Chamber up-to-date with our rolling program of road and intersection upgrades. With so much going on, that’s been fairly frequently during the course of this term. I can assure the Chamber, anyone listening, that whenever there is a road and intersection upgrade, the standing instruction to Council traffic engineers is to also look at how to improve public and active transport outcomes too, wherever that’s possible.
Councillor SRI keeps editorialising about Program 1 and Program 2 needing to work together to deliver public and active transport outcomes when upgrading roads. Well, that is standard operating procedure, Councillor SRI, that’s business as usual, but it’s certainly the case, Mr Chair, with the Gresham Street Bridge replacement, which is in Councillor TOOMEY’s ward. The Gresham Street Bridge is a two-lane timber bridge built in 1931 and with significant restrictions on its capacity on all fronts.
It’s the only connection to the community of St Johns Wood from Waterworks Road in Ashgrove and as it stands, it has only very narrow pedestrian paths, less than a metre wide. The vehicle weight limit of 22.5 tonnes restricts bus access. Transport for Brisbane cannot schedule longer or heavier buses on the route when they’re using this bridge. It also experiences frequent flood inundation and has poor flooding immunity. The new concrete bridge will allow vehicles of up to 42.5 tonnes to use it, meaning better utilisation of our bus fleet to service this community and will provide a 2.5-metre-wide shared path on either side of the bridge to deliver active transport improvements and the flood resilience will be significantly improved.
This is, Mr Chair, a project supported by the Federal Government’s Bridges Renewal Program, the contract for construction has been awarded, with practical completion due in early 2022. Mr Chair, two Better Roads for Brisbane projects are commencing this week and in fact, the contractor moved onto site yesterday. These are bundled up as the Norris Road upgrades in Bracken Ridge, with two portions of work. The two projects include an intersection upgrade for the Norris Road and Barbour Road intersection, which will replace the existing single lane roundabout with traffic lights, as well as a new shared pedestrian and cycling path along Norris Road.
Norris Road is a key public transport corridor in the northern suburbs, so removing the single lane roundabout that can’t cope with the current volumes of traffic will help free up Norris Road and deliver better travel time reliability for all road users, those in private vehicles, bus passengers and tradies getting about their daily work. Mr Chair, Council will also be taking the opportunity of this road improvement project to construct a new 2.5-metre-wide shared path along the eastern verge of Norris Road, between Barbour Road and the Bracken Ridge Plaza.
We’ve got similar projects due to commence shortly, a two-part project being delivered through Program 2 and Program 1, the intersection of Rickertt Road and Chelsea Road, Ransome, is currently controlled by stop signs. However, the roads are carrying 25,000 and 2,000 vehicles respectively each day and it’s just not working anymore. To make matters worse, both roads are only one lane in each direction, so the intersection is subject to significant congestion issues. Neither road has any pedestrian crossing facilities, so this is another problem that will be addressed through this upgrade.
Mr Chair, for the intersection itself, the existing stop signs will be replaced with traffic lights and turning lanes on all four approaches. Rickertt Road at the intersection will be widened to two through-lanes in each direction to help alleviate the congestion problems. Councillor MURPHY mentioned this last week, I think, during our debate last week. At the same time as the new traffic lights were being constructed, the new Wakerley bikeway will be delivered to provide a new shared path connection from the new lights to the intersection of Green Camp Road.
This will help connect cyclists into the Moreton Bay Cycleway and provide a link for pedestrians to the local Bayside Parklands. Council is delivering projects like these, which do deliver improvements for all kinds of travel, projects that improve road safety, reduce congestion and deliver more active transport options. Mr Chair, road improvement projects will always take into consideration the need for the infrastructure to cater, within reason, for all current and projected users of that infrastructure, be they in vehicles, on the road, riding bikes or walking. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
583/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jonathan SRI, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That this Council recognises the significant four, five and six-storey development in Yeronga that have generated almost 800 new units across just three developments, in addition to infill development and millions of dollars in infrastructure charges charged and urgently invests funding currently allocated to purchase the Sherwood Bus Depot into the Yeronga stormwater projects listed in the LGIP.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, I’ll just make sure the clock’s reset please. Please proceed, three minutes.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Both three weeks ago and today the LORD MAYOR and the Parks Chairperson have indicated that there is insufficient development happening in Yeronga. That indicates to me that—
LORD MAYOR: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order.
LORD MAYOR: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: That they believe there is inadequate development happening in Yeronga and they will only invest funding—
LORD MAYOR: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Claim to be misrepresented again.
Chair: Noted, yes.
Councillor JOHNSTON: That they believe there is inadequate development happening in Yeronga and that there will only be infrastructure funding for the stormwater projects listed in the LGIP in the City Plan if more development happens in those areas. Well that indicates to me that there is a lack of awareness about the necessary development that is happening in Yeronga and the need for the stormwater infrastructure that must be urgently corrected. In the past few years there have been three major developments in Yeronga and those include 350 beds-plus in multiple campus-style five and six-storey units at The Village.
Chair: I appreciate the point you’re making, Councillor JOHNSTON, but I think your argument at this point is substantive rather than procedural.
Can I ask you to return to the matter of urgency.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes and it’s urgent, as I’ve explained, because they do not know what development is happening in Yeronga. The motion is to ensure that they are aware of that development. So it is urgent that they understand that there are large developments happening in Yeronga, including six-storey multiple campus-style, high-rise units at The Village at Yeronga. There are another five-stage, five-storey buildings on the old RSPCA site at Yeronga. There’s a four-storey building on the corner of Yeronga Street and Fairfield Road, Yeronga, with some 70 units in it.
There are hundreds and hundreds of single homes being lost to five, six, seven and eight-storey units and townhouse complex across Yeronga. The level of infill development in Yeronga is phenomenal. There is major development still to happen at the Yeronga TAFE site and of course, several other greenspaces in Yeronga under threat from development. It is disappointing that the people in charge are not aware of the significant level of development that is occurring in Yeronga.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, once again, much of this is substantive.
Can we please return to urgency.
Councillor JOHNSTON: It is incredibly urgent that the decision-makers of this Council understand that there are Council technical reports that say there should be no further infill development until the stormwater in Yeronga is upgraded. Instead, this Council has allowed massive development, five, six-storey units, on individual sites.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Can I also ask, what email did you send that to? When you forwarded that email with the words, what was the email? It just didn’t come through, that’s all. So we’ll just update—we’ll send a note out to all Councillors.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: That’s all right, we’ll just send out an email to everybody, just to make sure they’ve got the right email in the future. I have two notes of misrepresentation by the LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t make any judgement on whether there had been adequate or inadequate development, simply that it had been different to what the officers had anticipated. I have no view on whether there’s adequate or inadequate development, nor did I express such view.
Chair: Thank you, LORD MAYOR.
I will now put the resolution 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 Nicole JOHNSTON and Jonathan SRI immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 18 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: Are there any further questions, Councillors? One moment, we have seven minutes in the balance of questions.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 8
Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor MURPHY. Back when the wooden monohull ferries were pulled from the Brisbane River, I explained how this was all part of the LNP’s plan to privatise our public ferry services. Since then a lot has happened, this LORD MAYOR and the Public and Active Transport Committee Chair have terminated multiple routes and replaced the monohulls with privately owned KittyCats.
Now Norman Park residents are reporting that Councillor MURPHY is looking to get a private water taxi to service their terminal instead. So there it is, Chair, this LNP Administration was planning to privatise our public ferry services all along. So my question is, Councillor MURPHY, the cat is out of the bag now, why don’t you come clean with Brisbane residents and tell them exactly when you’ll be privatising the rest of their ferry fleet?
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Chair and thank you, Councillor CASSIDY for the question. Wow, what a question from Councillor CASSIDY. He wants to talk about privatisation of Council’s ferry fleet. Well, Chair, who do you think it was that brought the ferry fleet into private operation? Who do you think it was? It was Jim Soorley, the Labor Lord Mayor that actually set up Transdev, or previously Transfield Services, as the private operator of the CityCats in 1996. The CityCats had never been in public operation, it has always been run by a private company.
I’ll tell you why Jim Soorley did it. Jim Soorley had an MBA (Master of Business Administration) and he came into Council and said we’ve got to professionalise this place. We’ve got all these bureaucrats running around, we’re going to get the private sector, who are really good at operating ferry services, the people who know how to do it best, to do that job. He was a smart man, he was a Labor luminary, he was a guy with ideas.
In 20 years, the Labor Party has regressed, they have gone all the way back to saying the public sector should do everything, the public sector knows best. We should bring all of that in-house. We actually say that the private sector has a productive role to play in the provision of public services. We agree with Jim Soorley’s approach, that sometimes there are some services better provided by the private sector. Councillor CASSIDY, I’m really glad you mentioned the ferry terminal program, because I remember it was you who was calling our ferry terminal upgrade program cheap Chinese takeaway. That was you that called it that.
Chair: Councillor MURPHY, I must insist you address all comments to and through me please.
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Look, he called the ferry terminal upgrade program cheap Chinese takeaway, Chair, I do believe he called it that. Chair, accessibility and connectivity is a key focus for this Council, particularly as it pertains to our ferry terminal upgrade program. We know that 5.5 million people travel by ferry every year and river-based transport is a massive part of the Brisbane lifestyle. In June this year, this Administration announced $48.7 million over the next three years to upgrade ferry terminals. This includes new upgrades at Mowbray Park, at Dockside, at South Bank 1 and 2.
The LORD MAYOR and I were really pleased to be out at Howard Smith Wharves this morning having a look at Fitzgerald, a great, great Australian company who is building Australian terminals right here, using Australian steel. They were so glad, they said ‘LORD MAYOR, we are so proud to have this program under our banner, because it’s allowing us to change our entire supply chain, the way we do business. Because we’re employing more people here in Australia, building these products here at home, developing talent, creating jobs, giving people an opportunity to have a career in building terminals here. That is what we are all about.’
We recently completed a fantastic upgrade at New Farm Park and at Guyatt Park terminal, which was one of the first things that we did when I came into this role, was open the new Guyatt Park terminal. Councillor MACKAY, I believe people love that terminal upgrade, they are going absolutely wild about it. Now, we know the issues with Norman Park are significant, Chair, we know that there are significant challenges, both to meeting accessibility standards for public transport and to the ongoing patronage issues that we’ve experienced out there, 136 people travelling on 139 services per day.
That’s less than one passenger per service and Council has made the decision not to invest ratepayers’ money in that terminal upgrade because of those low patronage issues. It’s not a decision that this Council came to lightly and we are open, Chair, to working with the local Councillor and with members of the community to come up with alternative solutions and to look at the future of the site holistically. We know that Norman Park ferry terminal has been used for a private water taxi service in the past. Mind you, the past, we are talking about in the black and white film era, we’re talking about the past a significant time ago. We are talking about the 1920s and 1930s.
That said, Chair, we have some very creative, very smart people out there in and around Norman Park, some people who acknowledge the significant issues that we have faced with this terminal historically. That’s why—talking about Jim Soorley, Chair, that’s why Jim Soorley cancelled the service there previously. That’s why previous administrations had cancelled the ferry service at Norman Park. So we are absolutely open to working with the private sector to see if there is an alternative, to enable Norman Park residents to have access to New Farm Park, but we’ve been really clear, it must come at little or no cost to ratepayers. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor LANDERS.
Question 9
Councillor LANDERS: My question is to the Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee, Councillor ALLAN. Councillor ALLAN, can you outline Council’s approach to personal disaster management plans and the importance of residents applying their own plans.
Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair and thank you, Councillor LANDERS, for the question. Just like the Scouts’ motto of ‘Be Prepared’, it’s important that we all have a plan in place should we need to evacuate or hunker down. Personal disaster management plans are the individual responsibility of residents, to help to prepare themselves, their families and their homes for the potential threat of a natural disaster in Brisbane. It involves knowing individual risks, having a plan, who to contact, where to go and how to get there and having an emergency kit.
Recently, Council’s Disaster Management team and the SES (State Emergency Service) unit exhibited at the Brisbane Home Show as part of our ongoing community engagement and awareness strategy. Whilst there, I noticed a number of visitors taking great interest in the recommended emergency kits and the items essential for individuals and households to survive three days in isolation. Included amongst these items were non-perishable food, first-aid kits, rope, batteries, torches, water bottles, radios and gloves, to name just a few.
I think one thing that many took away from their visit was that we shouldn’t be complacent when it comes to our own and our families’ wellbeing, especially during an emergency. Importantly, a personal emergency plan is designed to keep you and your household members connected and safe in the event you become separated or lose mobile phone connectivity. Equally important is the need to have quick access to key information and keeping it in a safe place, like your insurance policies, energy and water providers, emergency contacts and emergency plans.
Those members of the Finance Committee who were at last week’s presentation will have seen the wallets that Council has available to store these particular items. You and your household should know what to do if the worst happens, whether you have a stay plan or an evacuation plan, everyone needs to be familiar with your personal plan. Whilst we hope residents never have to use their emergency management plans, as a Council we continue our commitment to educate and raise awareness of these important issues.
Over the years, we have targeted our engagement through various strategies, including advertising for broad reach, utilising Council channels and also through the likes of face-to-face engagement, like the Home Show and presentations to the Queensland Disability Network, to name a few. Another way Council engages with the community is through the My Resilient Schools program, which caters for students in Years 5 and 6. This program helps students understand local risk, create a personal emergency plan through face-to-face engagement and online resources.
Recently, Council developed a colouring book that tells a story of a family preparing for a natural disaster and the possible outcomes. This resource was developed to reach the younger demographics.
Finally, I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Disaster Management team, which recently received State-wide recognition at the Inspector-General Emergency Management Champion of Change Awards. These awards celebrate those demonstrating excellence in disaster management and recognised our My Resilient Schools and Bushfire Engagement programs. So congratulations to those officers and the teams involved. I would encourage everyone to consider whether they and their households should prepare a disaster management plan. Thank you.
Chair: That concludes Question Time.
Councillors, I draw your attention to the reports. The first report, the Establishment and Coordination Committee (E&C), 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 March 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, Mr Chair. Before I move on to other matters and the submissions in front of us, I did want to refer to what we saw happen around Australia yesterday on the streets of our cities. We saw thousands of women marching, saying enough is enough, thousands of women calling for justice. We hear those women and we support their cause. We support their calls for a city and a society that is safe, respectful and free from violence and discrimination. As an employer, a major employer of around 10,000 people ourselves, we reaffirm our commitment to having a workplace and an organisation that does not tolerate violence or discrimination or abuse.
Now, we all hope that something positive will come of this movement. We all hope to see positive change and we know that this is something that all levels of Government are taking seriously. We are positive about the future. In this organisation we can see some great examples where our balanced Civic Cabinet, with an equal number of women and men and our balanced Administration are showing that this is something that can be achieved in a positive manner. Whereby we get on with the job and we work together and we support each other and we respect each other. I know that that is something that we all support for not only our city and our organisation, but for our nation as well.
So I acknowledge that there are a number of Councillors that attended the rally, or part of the rally yesterday, and I understand from both sides of the Chamber we had some representation there, but it is certainly something that we understand and we support. All we want to see as a city is a city where women are safe, a city where women are respected, a city where women can excel and thrive. In fact, we have that aspiration not only for women, but for all Brisbane residents as well, but I know that’s something that we all support.
Today, ironically or coincidentally, I should say, marks the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence and today is the day that we will be lighting up Brisbane City Hall, the Sandgate Town Hall as well, in orange in support of that national initiative.
Tomorrow, of course, is St Patrick’s Day and guess what colour we’re lighting up our assets for tomorrow. We will have Reddacliff Place, the Tropical Dome at Mt Coot-tha, Victoria and Story Bridges, all in green tomorrow. I would point out though, Councillor HOWARD, I know you’re going to the St Patrick’s Day event tonight, you’ll have to remind them that we have made the Victoria Bridge permanently green. Maybe not green in colour permanently, but it is a permanent green bridge and is one of many green bridges to come.
Going forward, Mr Chair, to the items in front of us. Item A relates to the sublease of premises to 2-Convenience Pty Ltd. This relates to Council’s occupancy in Green Square, Fortitude Valley, and effectively we have the office accommodation there, but at the base of the office accommodation there is a convenience store. That convenience store is based on a sublease from Council to the operator of the convenience store. So this is continuing that arrangement and setting in place the arrangement going forward for that. So obviously that’s something that Council receives rent from, which is a positive thing.
Item B, the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade and the resumptions associated with it. This is a project that is particularly exciting and we know that the Indooroopilly roundabout is one of the major bottlenecks and causes of accidents and safety concerns in the western suburbs. It is infamous for that reason, sadly, and we’re getting on with the job of making sure that is upgraded to be safe and efficient, not only for motor vehicles but also for other users as well. A big part of that is there will be land requirements for the upgrade and resumptions required.
This submission goes through the 32 properties that will require some level of acquisition, with the vast majority of those being only partial. Councillors may remember that many years ago we acquired the centre of the roundabout, where there were some car dealerships. We did that because we were planning for this upgrade, but now that the design has been locked in there are further resumptions that are required, most of them being partial. So we’re going ahead with this project. This project has the strong support not only of Council, but of the Federal Government, with a $50 million contribution to the project.
I know that that was only possible through the advocacy of the local Federal Member for Ryan, Julian Simmonds, who’s done a fantastic job in advocating for Federal support for this project. I have to say it’s a big project, it’s an expensive project and without the Federal Government’s support we would not be able to do this project in the timeframe that we are able to do it. So thank you to the Federal Government and obviously I trust Councillors will support the acquisitions required to advance this project.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair. I rise to speak on both of these items. Clause A is the sublease for a convenience store. So here we have, Chair, the E&C Committee, which is one of the highest decision-making bodies within Council, where the senior LNP Councillors sit and decide on things before they come to Council. They have been discussing a sublease to a convenience store, that’s almost all they discussed last week before us.
So we’ve just had confirmed that the LORD MAYOR and LNP Councillors are more than happy to talk about subleases when it comes to a single private business, but refuse to talk about subleases when it comes to grassroots sports clubs. Like the Coorparoo Cricket Club, which was begging the LNP Administration to come in and help mediate their issues with Easts Rugby Union about a sublease, but of course, this Administration wasn’t interested.
All they’re interested in clearly, when it comes to subleases, is the sublease of a premise to 2-Convenience Pty Ltd. The subleases that do deserve the attention of E&C are subleases like that, like Coorparoo Cricket Club, Chair. This really exposes the cultural issues that are within the LNP Party here in Council. They’re willing to discuss the smallest of issues when it suits them, but not very important community issues when they don’t want to. They continuously ignore communities right around Brisbane and we think the E&C Committee should be—
Councillor ALLAN: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order.
Councillor ALLAN: Councillor CASSIDY seems to be well off of the nature of the report before us.
Chair: I think that the title is subleased premises. Councillor CASSIDY is talking about subleases. I will take the more generous interpretation.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. So exactly, this goes to the point of the type of work that this E&C Committee has been doing this session, this year so far. They bring one or two small items through and clearly aren’t discussing issues that are important to communities around Brisbane. We hear that time and time again, communities speaking out and their local LNP Councillors ignoring them, or telling them to go away and be quiet. So Chair, we don’t think this is good enough.
The E&C should be discussing these issues of citywide importance and bringing them to the Council Chamber, so all Councillors can have their say on these issues, whether it is subleases to community sports clubs like the Coorparoo Cricket Club, or whether it’s important issues like kerbside collection, of course. But it’s obviously a more convenient conversation for the LNP to have when they’re talking about issues like this one before us today.
On the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade, this is a $126 million project, it has come to this place a few times, to save motorists 43 seconds in the AM peak and 26 seconds during the PM peak and that’s a best-case scenario, that’s an absolute best-case scenario. So you sort of have to ask yourself the question is that really good bang for buck when it comes to ratepayers’ hard-earned. We know we asked Councillor ALLAN plenty of times over the last few months to confirm the double rates increase in the calendar year 2021 and it was finally revealed in The Courier-Mail just this week that rates went up 2.5%, a base increase of 2.5% on 1 January.
That will of course be going up again on 1 July. Chair, the point I’m making of course is that the money that people pay in their rates is hard-earned and they expect a reasonable and decent return for that. So we ask the question, is this $126 million project good bang for buck and can we trust the LNP to manage this project? When you look at some of the other projects that they are currently, or have recently managed and this is all sheeted home to the current LORD MAYOR, all these projects, of course, that we’ve seen over the last five or six years have his fingerprints all over them. Projects like Kingsford Smith Drive, cost blowouts and delays. If you—
Councillor SRI: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Just having trouble hearing the speaker due to rudeness from other Councillors in the Chamber.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor SRI. As always, we do tolerate a small amount of interjections, but can I please encourage all Councillors to be silent and allow the speaker to be heard.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: So the LORD MAYOR says a cost blowout and a delay of Kingsford Smith Drive is fantastic. They’re his words, Chair, he’s just said them just now. We don’t even know what the final cost blowout in Kingsford Smith Drive was. Some reports have it at $50 million, some media reports have it almost at $200 million at the opening of the Kingsford Smith Drive project. So we know that they have been desperate to keep those cost blowouts under wraps.
We know that the Metro project hasn’t even started work yet, that’s a $300 million cost blowout on the previously announced budget. So we know what they’re like, Chair, at managing projects. So what we have before us today is an item that’s asking us to expend, in total over the project, $126 million including expenditure on things like resumptions as well. So we have some serious concerns about how projects are managed. You only have to look at the Sherwood bus depot for another example of shocking, shocking mismanagement of ratepayers’ money. Chair, there hasn’t been a single project that this LORD MAYOR has undertaken that hasn’t led to a cost blowout or a delay.
He is the king of cost blowouts and delays and ratepayers are the ones that are picking up the bill and footing the inconvenience for those. They are seeing less services, like public transport cuts and cuts to kerbside collection, as a result of decisions that this LORD MAYOR makes and mismanaging projects. So Chair, unfortunately while we support this item going through today, we don’t have any confidence in this Administration carrying out this work in the best interests of ratepayers.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak briefly on item A, the sublease of premises to 2-Convenience Pty Ltd. So this submission, as the LORD MAYOR touched upon, relates to the sublease of Shop 2 in Green Square South Tower and it faces onto St Pauls Terrace in Fortitude Valley. Obviously in the building above this convenience shop is the team who are occupying Green Square, the Council team. The current leasee is 2-Convenience, a convenience store which has occupied the premises since 2018, with the current sublease expiring on 13 April this year.
2-Convenience approached Council, seeking to renew their lease tenure from 14 April 2021. The new lease will expire on 13 April 2027, which coincides with the expiration of Council’s lease down there. The sublease will be subject to annual rent reviews over the proposed six-year term, a fixed three per cent annual increase on each anniversary date will apply. Council’s lease over the Green Square South Tower, as I noted, expires on 21 August 2027 and accordingly, we could only offer the sub-lessee a lease that expired at that time.
So given the short length of term able to be offered, the cost of fitting out the premises and in the interest of supporting a local business, who have been a very good tenant, we’ve decided to extend their sublease without going to a public tender. I would note that we had a market appraisal on the rental undertaken. There was an increase in rent and this company has agreed to pay that uplift. So in conclusion, this is a great outcome. We are ensuring that the site remains tenanted and provides an income to Council and potentially even more importantly, we’re helping to support a small local business. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers?
Councillor—I’m obligated to go—
Councillor MACKAY.
Councillor MACKAY: Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak on item B, the resumptions for the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade. I’ve mentioned previously in this place that a good friend of mine was involved in a serious crash at the site some years ago. He was one of many involved in a crash. The intersection has a high crash history, with more than 40 crashes since 2012, including hospitalisations. It’s not a pleasant place to drive because it’s congested, clogged, confusing and dangerous. Modelling has shown that this intersection was at capacity in 2018 and from now to 2031 congestion will worsen, especially in the PM. Already this intersection carries 55,000 vehicles per day.
Chair, this is one of the most exciting infrastructure projects in Brisbane. I thank the Federal Government for funding assistance and I credit Julian Simmonds MP (member of parliament), the Federal Member for Ryan, for advocating so vociferously for local roads generally and this intersection specifically. Pleasingly, this intersection upgrade provides wonderful benefits for the people of the western suburbs, where I represent, including those in Fig Tree Pocket, Chapel Hill, Indooroopilly in the Walter Taylor Ward. Basically, Chair, the sooner this project is finished the better.
One key part of construction includes necessary resumptions of properties. It’s been an absolute pleasure to speak with and work with all the local residents who contacted my office about this matter. I make special mention of local resident, Lois and Ralph, for whom I advocated. What a wonderful couple, their land was slated for resumption and as you can imagine, they were a little concerned and anxious about their future. I know the project team has been very proactive and I commend those Council officers for making the resumption process as good as possible for affected landowners.
It is a credit to the landowners and the Council officers that the process has gone so smoothly. Open and free communication, clear expectations, the process works, Chair. I urge those in this Chamber to support this item so the intersection upgrade can proceed. Further, I urge the State Government to act quickly so we can deliver this upgrade and people can get home safer. I will note too the improvements for pedestrians that this intersection brings.
As a keen advocate of active travel, I was pleased to see the feedback during the consultation from people who wanted better pedestrian and cycle access. In fact, the road safety audit identified several issues in relation to pedestrian movements at the intersection. The key issue identified was the absence of adequate facilities to accommodate pedestrian desire lines between residential catchments and the local shopping centres. Currently, pedestrians cross at midblock locations, where they use splitter islands and medians as refuge points. I’m thrilled that the project will deliver a kilometre and a half of new or improved paths, so navigating around the area is better.
Further, I’m told Council is looking at options to create a cycling connection between this intersection and the nearly finished Indooroopilly Riverwalk, so riding your bike is easier. There will also be two new pedestrian crossings, making it easier to cross Coonan Street and Moggill Road. You’ll see the existing crossing near Nelson Parade moved closer to the desire lines and another crossing that will safely connect Stamford Road to the Indooroopilly Shopping Centre.
Thank you to the Council officers who have laboured so diligently over this complex project and thank you for being so considerate and understanding of the residents whose properties are slated for resumption. I look forward to this project completing to provide great benefit to those in the area.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise to speak on item B, the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade project. It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that the real details in this project just continue to dribble out. The LORD MAYOR said earlier in his comments that the detailed design had been undertaken for the project, but that’s not been publicly released as promised and I’ve certainly not been provided with any details of the detailed design, as we were promised would occur. So here we’re being asked to approve resumptions which are people’s homes, some of these are houses, some of them are unit blocks. A lot of people are going to be very unhappy, so I think probably Councillor MACKAY is understating things.
It’s not quite as extensive as Wynnum Road was in East Brisbane, but it’s a similar kind of process, where people are now going to be living on a very main road. The sad part of all of this is they’re going to be living through a major construction project that does not have the right design. The outcome that Council has come to here, benefits the east-west users on Moggill Road over the north-south users using Coonan Street, without question.
There is a key intersection that has been created with an overpass and very short, as my understanding is, again we’ve not been provided with any details about the merge lane for traffic coming from Coonan Street. That’s something that I have requested on multiple occasions in the briefings from Council officers, 18 months ago now, well over a year ago. So we’re being asked today to support another aspect of this project without having any of the detailed design and engineering plans available for us to have a look at. Now that is wrong, that’s putting the cart before the horse.
The other problem, of course, which Councillor MACKAY alluded to, that Council might be looking at some bikeways. There are no bikeways down Coonan Street as part of this project. There are no bikeways in the parallel street of Clarence Road. One of the fundamental problems with this project is that it absolutely has not properly planned for active transport. Some pedestrian improvements have been made, while others have been made worse. Again, I think Councillor MACKAY is going to find out the hard way, a still fairly new Councillor, that when you move the pedestrian entrance to Indooroopilly Shopping Town from right out the front of Indooroopilly Shopping Town on Moggill Road, to about 100 metres further towards the city, that residents aren’t going to be very happy about having to cross and then cross Stamford Road and then cross into the shopping centre.
So where they had one simple crossing point directly across Moggill Road into the main entrance of the shops, they’re going to be deviating about 100 metres to the east. They have to cross multiple side roads to get to the entrance of the shops and I know what is going to happen. People are going to start running across Moggill Road where it suits them, close to the entrance. The pedestrian changes here, some of them are not good and that is absolutely a significant problem.
The fascinating part of all of this, which both the LORD MAYOR alluded to and Councillor MACKAY, that I think he said since 2012 there have been 25 accidents.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Forty? I don’t know. It wasn’t very many anyway. I mean Ipswich Road carries more cars per day, 65,000 vehicles a day on Ipswich Road. Two people have died there, there are—it’s one of the top five accident crash hotspots in the whole State. The level of accidents—there’s hundreds of accidents that are happening every year on Ipswich Road. Are we seeing this Council investing in infrastructure to improve safety on Ipswich Road? No, we’re not, no, we’re not.
So the crash history, if that is the basis for this project. It means that the LORD MAYOR and this Council are fully aware that there are more dangerous roads in Brisbane that they are prepared to do nothing about. Now that is absolutely appalling behaviour in my view.
So just to wrap up. Let me be clear, approving these easements—sorry approving these resumptions without having seen the detailed design and the detailed project for this, is something that I can’t support and I will be abstaining. It is incumbent upon the LORD MAYOR and the Council to release the detailed design so we can see the full detail about what is proposed.
Where a lot of these resumptions are has significant impact on residents who come from the south-western suburbs. If this is not done properly they will be worse off, without question. The fact that this is a T-intersection for traffic coming up the Coonan Road corridor going into town is the worst possible outcome. From day dot, when this project was first announced and the roundabout acquisition came up, I’ve been calling for a flyover.
What Council is proposing to do here is not a proper flyover. It is a T-intersection. Which is what Council wanted all along, that was originally the only option that Council were preparing to consider. So the design definitely has flaws in it. The extent of the project doesn’t go past Allwood Street. The southern section of Coonan Road, between Allwood Street and the Walter Taylor Bridge, is not addressed at all. The Allwood Street intersection is already under significant pressure and it is going to take even more traffic, due to the side road changes that are associated with this.
So the LORD MAYOR must release the detailed design so that people can fully understand the extent of the project. The resumptions are premature until that occurs. The project lacks proper bikeways and pedestrian improvements and those matters should be fixed before the project continues.
Certainly I think that there is a real problem with Councillor MACKAY’s headlong pursuit of this project, particularly when a lot of his residents in Fig Tree Pocket, for example, are going to be significantly worse off in terms of the Coonan Street corridor impacts. I really don’t think that Council has thought this project through fully. As I said the first step, the best step would be to release the detailed design and engineering plans so we can fully understand how the project will work, what the impacts will be.
We don’t know, for example, if all of this land is actually needed. There’s barely any information here. There’s a few maps that show the chunks of land that are being acquired, but we don’t know then if Council is going to sell any of this land off if it’s surplus to needs afterwards. We don’t know if it’s going to be converted to parkland.
There is so—it is disappointing that Council simply is going headlong down a path without being open and transparent with our community about a project that is going to have a very significant impact on multiple suburbs on both sides of the Brisbane River. It’s just incumbent upon this Council to do the right thing and to provide that information in the public sphere. So when the LORD MAYOR stands up to sum up, I hope he will address the issue of whether or not any surplus land will be sold off, or whether it will be converted to parkland, or whether it will be converted to some sort of public and active transport type solution.
I’d certainly like the LORD MAYOR to give an undertaking that he will provide me with the detailed plan for the project, so my residents can understand the full extent of the works. The resumptions, as I said here, specifically relate to the overpass and I’ve not been provided with any details on that. Again, that’s something that I’ve raised with the project manager on multiple occasions, both in his meetings with me and at the last Committee meeting that I attended.
The length of those merge lanes, how they will operate and interface with Moggill Road? How they will be controlled, through signage and/or lights? All of that is unclear to me. When you have 25,000 or 30,000 vehicles a day using that access point, we know it will come second to the east-west traffic on Moggill Road. I am extremely concerned that my residents on the southern side of the Walter Taylor Bridge will be disadvantaged, as will all those residents in Fig Tree Pocket and St Lucia, who must use the Coonan Road corridor.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Are there any further speakers? Any other—
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I rise to speak on item B. Look, that was 10 minutes of a dusted off speech which we’ve heard before from Councillor JOHNSTON. Nothing new in any of that. This is a necessary part of the process which is to undertake resumptions within the corridor and to points that were being made by Councillor CASSIDY, in part, and Councillor JOHNSTON, specifically. Those who are affected have been consulted and are happy with the process. There’s been no issues in the consultation with the residents whose properties are being resumed.
That’s not been an issue raised. So, to that issue Councillor JOHNSTON that you raised, simply not the case. The residents have been quite happy with the process and understand the value proposition that’s been put to them and happy to engage with the Council in those discussions. So, that’s frankly a furphy.
Look, in relation to other issues raised, Councillor CASSIDY said this was a small item before us. It’s actually quite a large item. This is one of the big projects, one of the major infrastructure projects being—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: So, Councillor CASSIDY stood here and said the only items before us today are small items. Well I disagree with that, this is a particular large item—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor McLACHLAN: I thank Councillor CASSIDY for indicating his support for the project. But he can look at the Hansard and see what he said in relation to the items that were before us in E&C today where he said—quote, ‘these are small items’. He was referring to all items on the agenda, but look, let’s move on—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Yes, noted.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Councillor CASSIDY also tried to make a point that this is all related to traffic times and journey saving times and again, misses the point entirely. This is about safety—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: As Councillor MACKAY said, this is one of the scariest intersections, in a roundabout, in the city, that I’ve ever had the misfortune to have to drive through.
People daily take their lives into their hands negotiating that intersection. Those who are familiar with it can work out how to get around it, but if you’re from anywhere else in the city, blimey, I’ve not seen anything that’s worse than this one and it needs to be upgraded. There’s no doubt about that and that’s what this project is all about—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Which is to improve the safety for all users of these roads and that’s what is being delivered here with this project. Without the project, I’m told that the forecast evening queue length in 2031 at the Moggill Road westbound approach would be 1.43 kilometres long, 1.43 kilometres long. With the project the queue is forecast to be zero, zero metres. Not just kilometres, zero metres.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: So, this is one of the considerable benefits that come as a consequence of this project and I’m certainly looking forward to making sure that we’re participating in it. Look, Councillor JOHNSTON was making the point, yet again, about wanting to have detailed designs, because we know she worked for an engineering firm and has shares in an engineering firm—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: But I don’t believe that makes her an expert, through you Councillor—through you, Mr Chair, an expert in design. I will trust any day of the week the Council’s engineers who are working on this project in the design phase—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Working with the—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —external businesses that are involved—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —through the early tender process that we’ve announced here on numerous occasions, about the process that’s underway for completing the design work for this project to provide their input into a value added process to make sure we’ve got the right design. That’s the process that’s underway. We’ve announced it here on numerous occasions. A first step in the process is to undertake the resumptions of the properties within the corridor that won’t change, regardless of the design elements that come to us through that early tender involvement with potential contractors.
So, we can get on with the resumptions, get on with the final designs and get on with delivering a safer road network for the people of Brisbane.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Councillor—can I deal with the misrepresentation and then I’ll come back to your point of order?
We have three misrepresentations which were all effectively the same thing with Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, on all three occasions I quite clearly said that the $128 million project was a very large outlay of money. I was specifically referring to a sublease to a convenience store when I said a small item on the agenda.
Chair: Thank you and I have point of order.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Seriatim - Clause B
|Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause B, INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE PROJECT, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Chair: Are there any further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair, I rise to speak on item B. I’m somewhat familiar with the area in question having previously lived round the corner from this space. I agree that the current roundabout configuration is a bit of a shemozzle and I can understand why there’s a pressure and a desire to upgrade it. But my concern with the concept design and the current proposed project plan, is that it still reinforces a very car centric approach to traffic planning and traffic management in our city.
It strikes me as a little bit odd that in this Chamber we’ve sort of heard two contradictory narratives over the past few weeks and months regarding projects like this. On the one hand we’re told that funding and project priorities are determined quite strictly according to need, as evaluated by the public servant expertise in Council. So, priorities are ranked and then that’s—the projects that are considered the highest priority in terms of safety and transport efficiency are prioritised.
But then on the other hand we’re also hearing that this project has actually been expedited because there was political pressure and political lobbying from the Federal LNP representative to get funding allocated. So, it seems a little bit I guess inconsistent in that sense, that it’s not entirely clear to me whether this project is happening because it is the most—the highest priority project—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: —and the best place to allocate funding, or is it happening because a Liberal Party—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: —representative wanted it to happen and was advocating for it on that basis. It seems that the Administration, when it says that a project isn’t going to go ahead, it will tell Council officers it’s not a priority. But then even when it demonstrably is a priority then it becomes a problem of funding and lack of political support from potential funding pathways. So, I do think that does give rise to a bit of an inconsistency.
But I really want to concentrate my comments on the actual proposal itself. Looking at it, it seems very clear to me that the proposed design prioritises car traffic flow at the expense of convenience and safety for pedestrians and cyclists, but, also, at the expense of public transport. I think Councillor McLACHLAN is right to recognise that there are concerns with safety at this intersection. But I don’t think this is the most dangerous intersection in the city and I don’t accept the argument that there aren’t better ways to improve safety for this intersection, while also improving active and public transport connectivity.
That’s what we see with this project. That’s what we’ve seen with other major projects like the Lytton Road widening, is that safety is often used as the primary justification for these projects. But the way the upgrade is actually designed tends to lead to an increase in vehicle capacity and the de facto widening of the corridor. So, although this is being described as a safety improvement, and that’s clearly one of the motivating factors behind it, the net outcome is a road widening, designed to carry more cars and unfortunately that seems to be a common practice with this Administration.
But really what we should be doing, and what the vast majority of leading Council transport—leading transport planners and traffic planners around the world would say, is that we should be looking at how to move more people via public and active transport. From what I can understand this intersection upgrade doesn’t include dedicated bus lanes and I hope the Mayor will correct me if I’m wrong on that, but as far as I can see it’s just general traffic lanes—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: So, there’s no priority whatsoever given to buses moving through this congested area, nor is there any priority given towards car sharing or T3 lanes that might encourage people to carpool. It’s just general traffic lanes and then pedestrians and cyclists are forced to navigate their way through that.
I think even the new intersection layout, looking at the crossing points for pedestrians, says to me that Council has prioritised car flow ahead of pedestrian convenience and flow. Pedestrians have to stop at multiple points and wait at multiple sets of lights to move through this intersection. The same will be true of cyclists who aren’t travelling on one of the designated bike paths.
If you’re travelling through this intersection as a motorist you—from what I can gather—only have to wait at one, maybe two sets of lights. Depending on which way you’re going. But a pedestrian is going to have to wait at multiple sets of lights, multiple signals and to cross through the intersection at multiple legs of the journey—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: That approach to intersection design discourages active transport. It adds significantly to pedestrian walk times which means that more people are inclined to drive rather than walk, which, in turn, further exacerbates congestion. We’ve seen this approach to intersection design again and again with this Council.
The Council Administration pays lip service to public and active transport. But when it comes to major projects like this where we’re spending millions and millions of dollars redesigning an important part of the transport network, we’re still not thinking first and foremost about pedestrian safety and convenience. We’re still not thinking about opportunities to improve public transport flow or cycling safety. We’re primarily saying how can we improve safety of the intersection while also increasing the flow of cars? I think that’s a really backwards approach to intersection planning.
Through you, Chair, to the LORD MAYOR, I had expected better from the LORD MAYOR when he stepped up into this role and seemed to be positioning himself as a crusader for public and active transport. I was optimistic that we would see the end of regressive intersection upgrades like this one, but, unfortunately, they continue under this Administration, and I think that’s a real shame.
I’m not the only person saying this. You can look at the commentary from cycling advocacy groups. You can look at the commentary from groups like Queensland Walks, even public transport advocates. Everyone is frustrated that we continue to see designs like this that are simply about moving as many cars as possible through an intersection, rather than finding ways to encourage people to shift to public and active transport.
Now I know the Administration doesn’t have unlimited, direct control over public transport. I know that’s a shared responsibility and that suggestions such as increasing the frequency and reliability of buses through this corridor are only partially within the control of the Administration. But at the bare minimum, the Council should be looking at bus jump lanes or bus priorities through these intersections so that buses aren’t held up in general traffic. So that catching the bus becomes faster and more attractive than driving.
That’s what the Council’s goal should be when thinking about these intersection redesigns, is how can we make the intersection as a whole flow smoothly? How can we ensure that public transport is a more attractive option than driving? Because when we continue to prioritise cars at the expense of public transport and active transport, that encourages more people to drive, which makes the problem of traffic congestion worse.
Sure, in the short term we might see a temporary reduction in queuing, but having seen the Lytton Road widening and now watching that on the other side of that project, it’s apparent to me that Council’s own modelling is woefully inadequate, because predictions of travel time savings have not actually come true. There’s still long queues and bumper-to-bumper traffic congestion along Lytton Road and I expect that despite the claims that this intersection upgrade will improve traffic flow—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: —a few years afterwards we’ll still see the same problem there of traffic congestion. Because these kinds of upgrades are essentially road widenings that encourage people to drive, rather than safety upgrades that prioritise public and active transport.
So, I’m not singling out any particular Councillor, I think it’s a structural problem within the Administration, within the transport, engineering and design teams. I think residents are right to be frustrated, but I’m particularly frustrated just about the cost and the fact that to think this money could have been better spent in other ways. Instead of spending so much money on creating more capacity for cars we should be spending money on targeted intersection upgrades and safety upgrades for pedestrians and cyclists. That will encourage more people to shift away from cars as their primary mode of transport.
That’s what we should be focusing on. Rather than burning millions and millions of dollars on de facto road widenings that are disguised as safety upgrades.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Councillors who contributed to the debate. There was a lot of material there. I just did want to clarify one thing, I may have said that the detailed design is complete. What I should have said is the reference design is complete. Now there’s a difference between the two. The reference design is the starting point at which we go into the contract with the early tender involvement, which Councillor McLACHLAN referred to, then finesse that reference design into a detailed design. So that process is underway at the moment.
So, if I said detailed design—I can’t remember whether I said detailed design or reference design—the correct terminology is reference design. So, we’re going forward with the reference design. That will be further finessed into the detailed design, so just to clarify that point. I’m obviously referring to the Indooroopilly roundabout upgrade.
First of all, back to the Labor contribution. Councillor CASSIDY loves to refer to Kingsford Smith Drive project as some kind of project which is such a negative thing for the city—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: What he’s referring to is a fantastic project which the people of Brisbane love—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Which was delivered under budget—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: If there’s any doubt that it was under budget, people only just had to check their rates notice—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —in January, where an almost $30 rebate came on to—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —every single rate account, $15 million distributed equally across the ratepayers of Brisbane. Yet he still persists today in saying that the project was under budget—was over budget. It is incorrect. We have always said that the project was under budget and it was under budget, and we’ve in fact paid that money directly back to the ratepayers of Brisbane. Yet, you know what he—once—I’ve got to give him credit for one thing. Once he commits to a line—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —whether it’s true or not is irrelevant, he sticks to it. He will repeat that line again and again and again—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Kingsford Smith Drive is a fantastic project—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —and as one of the most complex engineering projects that Council has undertaken, a fantastic outcome for the city. One that not only improves the safety along that corridor, the amenity along that corridor. But also provides an active travel link which thousands of pedestrians and cyclists use every single day and which links in with the new Hamilton Northshore development area. Which is a State Government development area, provides a great gateway to the city.
So, if Councillor CASSIDY wants to use that project as a demonstration of what we can deliver, absolutely. We will, we will run with that, because we deliver great projects. They might be complex projects, they might throw up unexpected challenges, but it’s a project that was delivered under budget, $15 million under budget and we are very proud of that.
Councillor CASSIDY also referred to the Sherwood bus depot. It’s been interesting to see him try to develop a theme on this issue. He recently I’m told came out on social media to say there’s some kind of secret plan to sell off the depot to CBIC (City of Brisbane Investment Corporation). Well it was so secret—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —that we actually brought the submission to Council on 1 December last year which made it very clear that our intent was for CBIC to acquire the depot. So that is underway right now. Our investment arm will acquire this depot. We don’t have $133 million available right now, CBIC does, they are an investment arm, they will own the depot and that is the appropriate thing.
Just in the same way that QIC (Queensland Investment Corporation) is constantly acquiring and selling assets on behalf of the Queensland Government. Now QIC acquired Queensland Motorways, you remember that? Then they sold Queensland Motorways and they made a tidy profit on that and good for them, because that’s what they exist to do. CBIC is our future fund, it’s done a fantastic job in growing assets, delivering dividends which every dollar of goes into the Green Future Fund providing better and improved parkland for Brisbane residents—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, CBIC will be the owner of the Sherwood depot. We said it back in December, we repeat it again. Yes, I don’t know where—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —Councillor CASSIDY is going or what he doesn’t understand about this arrangement, CBIC will be the owner of the Sherwood bus depot. We originally had a block of land come on to the market, it was a vacant block of land out at Sherwood. Council acquired the vacant block of land to provide the opportunity for the private sector to come and partner with us and build a depot for us. That is exactly what happened. We did not pay for the depot. The private sector paid for the depot—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We provided a vacant block of land, they build a depot—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —which is an investment of around $80 million I’m told, into that—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We did not pay that $80 million—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, what will happen now—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —is that because of our prudent financial management—
Chair: Councillors, Councillors, please cease interjecting.
Just please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Because of our prudent financial management, because of our foresight, we made sure that in the contract it said, if the current owner ever sells the property, we get the first right of refusal. We have exercised that first right of refusal—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: It was the right thing to do for the ratepayers of Brisbane. Our investment corporation, our future fund, will be the owner of Sherwood depot. It is a great deal for the ratepayers—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —of Brisbane. A great deal which will deliver returns to the city for many years to come. So, these are the two examples that Councillor CASSIDY used as some kind of examples of mismanagement. They were both responsible and well managed issues. They were both issues which will deliver great benefits for the people of Brisbane—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: They were both issues which were managed financially, responsibly. Kingsford Smith Drive being delivered under budget. Sherwood bus depot, the arrangement there delivering significant savings to the ratepayers of Brisbane on an ongoing basis. On an ongoing basis. So, Councillor CASSIDY, just repeating a line again and again does not make it correct. Those two examples you used are both incorrect. In fact, the reverse of what you said is correct, Councillor CASSIDY.
But I did want to touch on something that Councillor SRI talked about. Now I know Councillor SRI, through you, Mr Chair, that you always have a concern when we do any kind of upgrade to roads, or where there’s any kind of capacity increase to roads. I know that you are fundamentally opposed to that approach, but the claim that you made was that—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, I appreciate you said through me, but can you please make all the comments to and through me please.
LORD MAYOR: Okay.
Chair: Yes.
LORD MAYOR: The claim that Councillor SRI made, Mr Chair—
Chair: Yes.
LORD MAYOR: —was that Council only—this is his claim—Council only pays lip service to public and active transport projects. Well if you consider the $1.2 billion Brisbane Metro lip service, if you consider $500 million plus on green bridges lip service. If you consider $136 million this year on subsidising public transport lip service. If you consider almost $50 million on ferry terminal upgrades lip service, or if you consider $30 million on new double-decker CityCats lip service. That is very alarming—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Because what we are seeing is the largest suite of investment in public and active transport the city has ever seen—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: The game changing level of investment here, no Council, no Brisbane City Council Administration has ever invested more in transformational public and active transport projects. We are talking if you list—if you tally up the type of investment that I’m talking about here—the biggest investment—game changing investment—our city—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —has ever seen in supporting public transport and active transport—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: But Councillor SRI calls it lip service. Well let me tell you about lip service through you, Mr Chair, Councillor MURPHY. I would consider lip service—let me think of an example. As a Greens Councillor supporting green bridges up to the point where you actually go to build them and then you oppose green bridges. I would call that lip service. Green in principle but not in practice—
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
LORD MAYOR: Undermining the Green Bridges Program by encouraging opposition on you know, so called loss of parkland. I would say that you’re supporting green bridges with lip service but not in practice—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —Mr Chair. Let’s talk about lip service, because Councillor SRI is quite exposed—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —on this issue. We want someone who actually follows through. We will follow through when it comes to supporting public and active transport and building Brisbane Metro, building new green bridges, building public transport facilities like ferry terminals, and new double-decker CityCats. We will do those things. We’ll follow through. We don’t just pay lip service to them, we do them—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: On the other side of the coin you see some Councillors saying they support something and then backing away at one million miles an hour when the going gets tough.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Councillor SRI, you have a misrepresentation.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair, I haven’t yet publicly expressed a position on the two green bridge proposals. I think it’s disappointing for the LORD MAYOR to mischaracterise—
Chair: Okay.
Councillor SRI: —the questions I’ve asked as being in opposition to those projects.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor SRI.
I will now put the resolution, recalling that they are taken individually, of 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: On item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Jonathan SRI immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 22 - 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, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES, The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Jared CASSIDY, Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.
NOES: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
The report read as follows(
A SUB-LEASE OF PREMISES TO 2-CONVENIENCE PTY LTD
112/445/444/562-002
584/2020-21
1. The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.
2. 2-Convenience Pty Ltd (ACN 129 144 234) as trustee for the J & M Family Trust (2-Convenience) has a sub-lease over Shop T2, Green Square South Tower, 505 St Pauls Terrace, Fortitude Valley, that expires on 13 April 2021. The lease over Shop T2 includes the premises area of 101 square metres and one secure car parking bay within the building.
3. 2-Convenience has sub-leased the tenancy at Green Square since 2008 from which it operates a convenience store which complements the tenancy mix in the area. Council’s lease over the Green Square South Tower expires on 21 August 2027 and includes an option for a further 10-year term, however, any sub-leases cannot extend beyond the expiry of the current term in 2027. Given the relatively short length of term able to be offered for a sub-lease and the cost of fitting out the premises it is proposed to grant a new sub-lease to 2-Convenience without going to public tender.
4. Under section 226(1)(c)(iii) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012, Council can grant a new sub-lease term to the existing sub-tenant without going to public tender subject to the sub-tenant not being in default under their sub-lease and the rental for the new term being at a market rate.
5. As 2-Convenience has no history of arrears or default under their lease Council engaged McGees Property to undertake a market valuation of the premises to ascertain the market rent for the premises. McGees Property assessed the rental for the premises as being $89,000 (excluding GST) per annum, which exceeds the current annual rental of $81,629.07 (excluding GST).
6. 2-Convenience has accepted the proposed rental of $89,000 (excluding GST) per annum. The proposed term is six years commencing 14 April 2021 and expiring on 13 April 2027. The rental will be subject to fixed three per cent annual increases on each anniversary of the commencement date.
7. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT RESOLUTION
DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL TO GRANT AND ENTER INTO A SUB-LEASE OVER SHOP T2 AT GREEN SQUARE SOUTH TOWER, 505 ST PAULS TERRACE, FORTITUDE VALLEY, WITH 2–CONVENIENCE PTY LTD
As:
i) Council is the lessee of land and the whole of the building constructed on the land known as Lot 1 SP195250 under registered dealing 711897115
ii) 2-Convenience Pty Ltd (ACN 129 144 234) as trustee for the J & M Family Trust (2-Convenience) is an existing sub-tenant of Shop T2 in the building constructed on the land under registered dealing 712725508
iii) 2-Convenience has requested Council grant them a new sub-lease over Shop T2 from 14 April 2021
iv) section 226(1)(c)(iii) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 provides that Council may dispose of an interest in land without going to public tender or auction if the disposal is for the purpose of renewing the lease of land to the existing tenant of the land,
then Council:
i) resolves that the exception under section 226(1)(c)(iii) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 applies to the granting of a sub-lease tenure to 2-Convenience over the premises
ii) resolves that a new sub-lease is granted to 2-Convenience, subject to any applicable Foreign Investment Review Board approvals or exemptions, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Attachment B (submitted on file), and otherwise on terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the Asset Portfolio Management Manager, Asset Management, Brisbane Infrastructure, and the Chief Legal Counsel, City Legal, City Administration and Governance.
ADOPTED
B INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE PROJECT
112/20/439/592
585/2020-21
9. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.
10. The Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade project has been designed to ensure the intersection can cater for current and future traffic demands, as well as providing safe and accessible transport options for all road users.
11. The Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade project will:
- improve safety for road users and pedestrians at the intersection and nearby streets
- improve traffic flow and reduce travel times with the construction of an overpass
- upgrade shared pedestrian and cycle paths, improving active travel opportunities and connectivity
- improve the overall visual appeal of the intersection through new landscaped spaces.
12. It is not possible to undertake the intersection upgrade within the existing road corridor.
13. To facilitate the Indooroopilly Roundabout Upgrade project, as shown at Attachment E (submitted on file), it is necessary to acquire the private land and easements described in Attachment B (submitted on file) and shown on the plans at Attachment C (submitted on file), under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. The easement terms referred to in Attachment B (submitted on file) are shown at Attachment D (submitted on file).
14. On 20 November 2020, the Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, approved the issuing of Notices of Intention to Resume to acquire land and easements required for the project. Council issued those notices on 20 November 2020. No objections were received to those notices.
15. Upon completion of the formal resumption process, all interests in the resumed land and easements are converted to a right to claim compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. Negotiations concerning compensation will occur concurrently with the formal resumption process.
16. The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
17. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE MINISTER FOR RESOURCES FOR THE RESUMPTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE INDOOROOPILLY ROUNDABOUT UPGRADE PROJECT
(1) As:
i) on 20 November 2020, Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, issued Notices of Intention to Resume for the privately owned land set out and identified in Attachment B (submitted on file)
ii) no objection in writing was received to those notices,
then Council is of the opinion that:
i) the land described is required for those purposes listed in the table at Attachment B (submitted on file) and in accordance with the plans listed at Attachment C (submitted on file) and in accordance with the easement terms at Attachment D (submitted on file)
ii) it is necessary to acquire the said land and easements.
(2) Council approves:
(i) City Legal, City Administration and Governance, making the required application for the approval of the Minister for Resources for the taking of the land and registered interests under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967.
ADOPTED
Chair: We will continue the second E&C report.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, I move that the report of the—
Chair: Excuse me. LORD MAYOR, we’re just going to reset your clock. Please proceed.
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), Chair of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Krista ADAMS), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 15 March 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. I seek the following further information regarding item A.
Firstly, will the LORD MAYOR confirm that any motions to be voted on at the Special Council Meeting will be provided to Councillors two days in advance? Secondly, will the LORD MAYOR ensure that information relevant to those motions that Councillors have to vote on, is provided to Councillors two days—two working days in advance.
And three, will the LORD MAYOR confirm that the Special Meeting will be held under the Ordinary Meetings Local Law rules of procedure?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: I think those questions are actually irrelevant to this particular submission. Happy to take them on notice and in relation to the information provided, I can say that—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, there is a process for me under the Meetings Local Law to request this information and the LORD MAYOR does not have the right to criticise that request. He can provide that information or not.
Chair: Okay, no, I appreciate your point of order. So your point—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chairman—
Chair: Yes, yes so what is the point of order?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, that there is a process for me to do this and criticism of me engaging that process is not reasonable, Mr Chairman—
Chair: Okay.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —and the LORD MAYOR should provide the information, not debate it.
Chair: All right, thank you. So, the notice of motion—the notice of the meeting will be done in the ordinary fashion and I can tell you—and the standard rules will apply.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, for answering that question. In relation to the item in front of us. Look, it is pretty self-explanatory, and it provides simply for a break to occur between the Special Meeting and the standard scheduled meeting that will happen next Tuesday.
So, we do not know how long the Special Meeting will go for. We do know that we need to leave time for a fulsome briefing and fulsome debate. So, there is a chance that—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —the morning meeting will continue on for several hours or more. This particular motion simply allows for the time of the Ordinary Meeting to be altered to give at least a one-hour break between the Special Meeting and the Ordinary Meeting. So, I trust Councillors will support this. I think it’s a reasonable thing to ask for, just to give not only Councillors a break but also the support staff that assist us in the running of the meeting. Thanks, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair, we will support this item, but it is—I think it is important to put on record now, ahead of this, because this will all be occurring—the Special Meeting will all be occurring before next week’s Council meeting. So, this is the opportunity to I think raise some concerns about the process anyway. We’ve not been supplied any details, apart from a letter from the CEO, that says there will be a Special Meeting to discuss items that the LORD MAYOR mentioned earlier in regards to the Olympics bid.
But we’ve been advised we won’t to be given any of those details about the decision we will have to make until 9am, at the start of that Special Council Meeting here in the Chamber. So, I don’t know how we’re supposed to have a full and proper debate about those items if we’re not provided any of that material ahead of time.
We understand that certain information does have to be kept confidential—for a number of reasons. We don’t really know what those reasons are, they’ve sort of been suggested what those reasons are. We accept that, that those reasons must be real. But, again, we haven’t even been provided that. Perhaps it’s at the request of the IOC or the State Government or the Federal Government, or Council itself. We actually don’t know the reason for that.
We should be given some sort of briefing ahead of a debate of course granted—but to be given a briefing and then have the debate and have all of that—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —paperwork provided at the same time is not really conducive to a good democratic process we don’t think here. It’s great that the E&C Committee has been able to prepare for that Council meeting because they certainly have all of the information at their fingertips. But other Councillors in this Chamber representing every other corner and community of the city don’t have that opportunity to be properly prepared for that meeting.
So, we, as I said, will be supporting this item going forward today because you know it may very well be reasonable. But, again, so little information has been provided to us. The whole announcement around the Special Meeting and now by design this special E&C that was had yesterday, to come to today. It’s clearly all been designed more about the publicity than the actual debate—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: It’s more about the announcement of this Special Meeting—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —than the substance of the decision being made. That’s pretty typical I think of how the LORD MAYOR operates. Trying to keep us Councillors as much in the dark about decisions they are required to make. While being out there and being the good news LORD MAYOR and trying to take all the credit for these decisions.
So, we certainly don’t think this is a very good process to have gone through in a democratic Chamber. But again, we’ll support this item before us today.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh yes, I rise to speak on item A. Firstly I’ll start with the timing of all of this. Now the LORD MAYOR spoke a little bit earlier about the need for the clerks to have a break and it was all about the clerks. We didn’t want people being overtaxed by work, that’s the implication of what he was saying.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: There are four other working days of the week—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —when there are no Council meetings. That we could have had a meeting at two o’clock on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Guess what, if it’s important I’ll come on Saturday and Sunday and have a debate as well. So there’s six days of the week that the LORD MAYOR could have chosen to announce a Special Meeting, but he—with no time limits or constrictions upon the time limits of the meeting. That’s not what the LORD MAYOR chose to do. He chose to go to the media and announce that there was going to be some sort of Council meeting where we’re going to approve the Olympics.
I don’t know what we’re going to be asked to do. We’ve not been given a single bit of information. The letter we got at about 4.30pm yesterday afternoon from the CEO of Council raises more questions—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —than it provides answers. So let’s be clear. When the LORD MAYOR talks about making sure that the—this meeting starts at 9am. That’s about limiting the timeframe for debate and disrupting the normal schedule of Council meetings. Because he could have put this on at nine o’clock on Wednesday morning and we would have all been here happily to debate it, without any impact on the ordinary Council meeting, but he chose not to do that.
Now the next thing that we’ve got here is we’ve been told, both in the paper before us today and in the letter from the CEO of Council—that this is a Special Meeting of Council. Now under the Meetings Local Laws, a Special Meeting of Council can only be held in closed session, which is what is proposed here, under very specific circumstances. No resolutions can be passed other than under the—under a closed session. So, there are a lot of restrictions about what can and can’t happen.
So, the first question is are we going to be asked to vote on some aspect of the Olympics that impact on the City of Brisbane? Simple question, LORD MAYOR, stand up and answer it now, because we’ve not been told if that is the case.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillors JOHNSTON: If that is the case, based on the letter we’ve got from the CEO, we’re not allowed to bring a phone or a computer into the Chamber. We’re not being given any Council papers prior to entering the Chamber before nine o’clock. We’ll have no opportunity to undertake any independent research or to go away and think about things. If we are being required to vote on a matter of substance on behalf of the City of Brisbane—after being told rock up at nine o’clock and we might tell you what we’re going to do—that is unacceptable.
So the questions I asked the LORD MAYOR earlier today were, would he ensure that we have motions two days in advance, which is the normal procedure. That will mean that we will have information available to us.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: So we can make an informed decision as the elected representatives of this city. (2) What are the rules of procedure for the Special Meeting? Because the Special Meeting runs under the Meetings Local Law and the letter from the CEO says, as does the E&C item before us, it says the same thing, ‘it will include an opportunity for questions from Councillors to be answered.’
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Now I’m, not going to hold my breath because I ask questions in here all the time and the LORD MAYOR normally isn’t listening, that’s the new thing. Now he’s taking them on notice. So is he going to take them on notice at nine o’clock next Tuesday when we’ve got a vote about five minutes later? I don’t know. Are we going to get any answers? I don’t know. Is it Council officers that are going to answer our questions? Is it any invited guests, are they going to answer our questions? Is it the Councillors? Is it going to run like Question Time? I don’t think these are unreasonable questions to ask.
So, if we’re going to have a Special Meeting that somehow is going to lock this city into running the Olympics, with all that entails, whether that related to infrastructure commitments or funding commitments, then we as a city need to do that in a considered and informed way. Not some publicity stunt the LORD MAYOR does at 9am, so he can be finished by 1pm, have a meeting at 2pm and wash his hands of any kind of detailed decision-making on behalf of this city.
That’s not the way to run the City of Brisbane. Now we know that they’ve had briefings in E&C. We get the table that comes we know that John Coates—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —has been often briefed in them. We know the LORD MAYOR’s been to meetings with the Premier and others and we know that they’ve had a lot of briefings on this. None of that information has been brought to this Council for consideration. None of that information has been given to Councillors outside of Civic Cabinet. So let’s be clear, the LNP who control this Council have all this information available to them. They’ve not shared it with, I presume the Labor Councillors—Councillor SRI shaking his head. They’ve certainly not shared it with me.
So here’s what we’re being told we have to do, rock up here at nine o’clock. Maybe we’ll have to vote on something, maybe we could have a question answered. Maybe someone will talk to us about what’s involved, but we won’t know. The way Special Meetings work, essentially, we don’t get any advance notice of what is happening.
So again, LORD MAYOR, my questions to you are, will you commit now to ensure that any motions we are required to vote on as Councillors are provided to all Councillors in the normal way, two days in advance of the Special Meeting? Will you ensure that the information for those motions is also provided two days in advance?
Let me be clear, week in and week out we deal with confidential information in this place. There is a very standard process to deal with it. Why is this different? If the information is so special, so secret and so confidential, why is it that we can’t be briefed in advance of the Special Meeting? So that we can go away and consider that information and then a few days later come back and make any decisions. So, that information needs to be provided in advance so we can make detailed decisions.
(3) We all need to know what the rules of procedure are, because we know that successive Chairs in this place like to make it up as they go along. If there is a problem next Tuesday I want to be clear, I am on the record, in writing to the CEO, the Chief Legal Officer and the Executive Officer of Brisbane City Council—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —in person with the LORD MAYOR today. Seeking to understand what the rules of procedure are going to be in advance. If I am attacked next week for trying to clarify these matters, I can guarantee you that I will take it further.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor LANDERS: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor LANDERS.
ADJOURNMENT:
|586/2020-21 |
|At that time, 4.03pm, 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 4:06pm. |
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Councillors, we now have quorum.
We’ll return to the matter at hand.
Are there any further speakers to the report? Any further speakers to the report? Anyone? No?
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in relation to the some of the commentary that we have had, I just wanted to confirm a few things. Firstly, the rules of this place state and understand that to call a Special Meeting of Council, you need to give at least two days’ notice. I understand that’s right, Mr Chair.
Deputy Chair: That’s right.
LORD MAYOR: We have given over a week’s notice for this meeting. We wanted to give the maximum possible notice that it was coming. If we had the motives that some Councillors have suggested, we would have called it two days in advance, but that is not what we wanted to happen. We wanted to make sure that people had adequate notice. In relation to the questions about how the meeting will run and what will happen, this is different to a normal Council meeting because it will include a fulsome and intensive briefing by multiple people.
These are not Council officers we’re talking about, these are external people, knowledgeable in their topics, who will be available to answer questions. So, you will be getting a lot of information and also the ability to ask questions about that information, as well. So, it’s not a matter that people will be going into a debate not equipped with the information they need for that debate. That’s the whole intent of the fulsome briefing. This submission literally allows the meeting to go for as long as it needs to go for.
So, there won’t be any guillotining of that debate. It will go for as long as it needs to go for, first for people to be briefed, second for people to ask questions, and third for people to have a debate. So, we’ve thought ahead, and this submission will allow the meeting to go for as long as it needs to. If it goes over time or if it goes close to the standard Ordinary Meeting of Council scheduled for 2pm next Tuesday, then we will simply move back the start of that Council meeting by an appropriate time to give that break in between the Special Meeting and the Ordinary Meeting of Council. So, there will be detailed briefings provided.
The issue about confidentiality is very clear, and in Question Time, I was harking back to the issue of Clem7 and I ran out of time as I was just starting to talk about that meeting that we had with Clem7. At the time, we had information being provided to Councillors that would materially impact on the share price of the tenderers. So, there were competitive tenders, public/private partnership arrangements. The information that we had and the decision that we’re about to make was irrelevant to the share market.
So, for that reason, Councillors had a confidential meeting. They had briefings and then a confidential debate followed by a vote. We have seen in recent times what happens if Councillors have access to confidential information—sorry, not Councillors, if elected representatives have access to confidential information, and we saw what happened when it came to Cross River Rail and the acquisition of a property in the area of a Cross River Rail station.
Now, that got a lot of media attention. This is the type of thing we’re trying to avoid here. We don’t want that sort of situation to happen, and so, we have to respect the confidentiality of the process and there’s a very clear reason for that, because there will be significant material impacts on—well, not impacts, benefits on property values as a result of some of the decisions that we’ve made going forward in terms of Olympic venues, for example, and these things—as I said, the confidentiality exists so that we don’t get ourselves into those situations we’ve seen at other levels of Government that have caused concern.
I would finally point out one thing that is really relevant here. The State and the Federal Government will be going through their own processes to get to the same point that we will, to be signing a contract and a range of guarantees for the Olympic Games. Now, where will those debates happen at the State and Federal level? I can tell you they will happen behind closed doors, in Cabinet, under Cabinet confidentiality, in secret. Guess when the people of Australia and the people of Queensland will find out about those discussions? After 30 years.
So, while we’re having our closed meeting of Council, there will be a State Cabinet meeting where they may have a similar discussion, but it won’t go to the floor of Parliament for debate. An opposition State MP won’t be any the wiser about this decision, and they won’t get to participate in this decision. So, we actually are setting a much higher standard when it comes to bringing Councillors into this process to make sure that everyone is fully informed, but in order for that to work, we have to have that confidentiality respected in the meeting.
That’s the process going forward. I think it will be a positive process and I think it is good that we are having that Special Meeting next week. Like I said, this particular submission allows for the Special Meeting to go for as long as it needs to go to achieve what we need to achieve. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: We’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMENCEMENT TIME OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2021
137/220/14/20
587/2020-21
1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
2. Brisbane, Queensland has now commenced Targeted Dialogue with the International Olympic Committee to host the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
3. To enable the progression of the Targeted Dialogue, a Special Council Meeting will be held at 9am on Tuesday 23 March 2021. The meeting will provide an opportunity for Councillors to be briefed on Council’s preparations and involvement to date and going forward and will include an opportunity for questions from Councillors to be answered.
4. The Ordinary Council Meeting for Tuesday 23 March 2021 will proceed in the afternoon; however, the duration of the Special Council Meeting is unknown. To ensure there is sufficient time for consideration and debate of matters at the Special Council Meeting, and to allow Clerks and Councillors to prepare for the Ordinary Council Meeting, it is necessary that Council resolve to allow the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday 23 March 2021 to begin one hour after the conclusion of the Special Council Meeting, if required.
5. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT THE COMMENCEMENT TIME OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2021 BE:
(A) ONE HOUR FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 23 MARCH 2021 COMMENCING AT 9AM, IF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HAS NOT CONCLUDED BY 1PM; OR
(B) 2PM IF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HAS CONCLUDED BY 1PM.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the City—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.
588/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Jared CASSIDY moved, seconded by Councillor Peter CUMMING, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
Brisbane City Council immediately halts all plans to privatise public transport routes and services.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, we’ll reset your clock and you’ll have three minutes, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. This is urgent today because the cat’s out of the bag. Councillor MURPHY has confirmed, he has confirmed today that his preferred option for public transport services in the eastern suburbs, like at Norman Park, is for private, on-demand water taxis, rather than publicly-provided services. It was—there was a message that was sent through after a resident of Norman Park had these discussions with Councillor MURPHY and one of those solutions that he offers in that communication was getting private water taxis to service Norman Park to New Farm cross-river ferry route. That’s the service that he and the LORD MAYOR cut without any consultation with that community.
So, when we said at the time that this would likely happen, it has been confirmed over the weekend and again today by Councillor MURPHY himself that this plan for private water taxis is to replace public transport services. I think this is an urgent thing we should be looking at today, Chair, because this is the thin edge of the wedge. Private water taxis using dedicated public transport infrastructure will set a precedent. We’re not talking about river access hubs here or people using kayaks and canoes and things like that, or tinnies or sailboats on the river.
What we’re talking about here is infrastructure that is public transport infrastructure, and now the solution that this Council wants to put in place for residents who pay their rates, who all chip in for that public transport, is private, on-demand water taxis, essentially the Uber of the river. So, if one water taxi is given access to a piece of public transport infrastructure at Norman Park to New Farm, what’s to stop other services being cut, as well?
So what this motion is about, Chair, urgently calling on Brisbane City Council to halt all plans to privatise further public transport routes and services as well. He tried—he protested quite a lot earlier—Councillor MURPHY, that is, Chair—about blaming everyone else. It was, of course, in this instance, all Jim Soorley’s fault, and he said that—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —all those services were, say, Labor’s fault from time to time. It’s never their fault, Chair, but—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —Chair, what he said today was quite revealing because, at the time and right up until a couple of months ago, up until last year, they were publicly-owned boats. They were publicly-owned assets. Yes, there’s a debate to be had, Chair, about having contractors in to do that work, of course. Let’s have that debate, but they were publicly-owned boats. So now, what we have on our river is privately-owned boats and now privately-run water taxi services to replace public transport services. That should come to an end.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, your time has expired.
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: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 17 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: Councillors, we will now proceed to the City Planning—
Councillor CUMMING: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order.
Councillor CUMMING: Point of order. I move to—
Chair: Yes, Councillor CUMMING.
589/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Peter CUMMING moved, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That Brisbane City Council immediately starts emergency drainage restoration and upgrade works at Carmichael Park in Tingalpa.
Chair: Councillor CUMMING, we’re resetting your clock. You have three minutes, please, to urgency.
Councillor CUMMING: Thank you. Carmichael Park is the longstanding home of the Wynnum District Cricket Club. There’s three ovals, turf wickets which are heavily used by Queensland Cricket Association cricketers. The main oval is such quality that it’s being used for a Second XI game between Queensland and New South Wales in the near future, but this motion is urgent because every single storm with a few millimetres of rain and every king tide costs the cricket club big time, and it’s crippling them.
Water quickly ponds on the fields within the boundary. It’s urgent because the works need to be done now while the cricket season is coming to the end and the football season is about to start. Wynnum Wolves Soccer Club are also based at this ground and they would also benefit from the works being done. It gives Council the perfect opportunity to right the LNP’s wrong in between the two sporting seasons. It is urgent because this LNP Administration continues to wage a war on grassroots cricket clubs, the prime example being the Coorparoo Cricket Club.
Precious facilities are being lost. It’s urgent because the LNP have ignored this community club now for a decade and enough is enough. It’s urgent because, under the LNP, clubs are being neglected and this display of arrogance is reflecting horribly on the Brisbane City Council as an organisation.
Chair: To 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: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 17 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: We will now proceed to the City Planning and Economic—I knew it, I knew there’d be another one.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Another one. Point of order.
Chair: Point of order.
590/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS moved, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That the Lord Mayor and Councillor Owen attend a public meeting at Acacia Ridge to explain the impacts of lnland Rail on the City of Brisbane, with particular focus on the issues that will affect local residents living around the intermodal exchange at Acacia Ridge.
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS, we will now reset your clock, please. You have three minutes to the matter of urgency.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. This is urgent because this gives the LORD MAYOR and Councillor OWEN time to clear their diaries so that they can attend the public meeting at Acacia Ridge State School on Saturday 27 March at 2pm. Residents in the southern suburbs are very concerned about the proposed impact of Inland Rail on their suburbs, and they want to hear from the LORD MAYOR as the leader of the city about his issues with Inland Rail. I’ve also extended an invitation to Councillor OWEN, who is the LNP Federal candidate for Moreton, so that she can present—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —her points of view in relation to Inland Rail. It’s interesting that both the LORD MAYOR and Councillor OWEN were out of the Chamber when we had this come through as a notified motion—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —just a couple of weeks ago, and it’s the LORD MAYOR who actually wants more notified motions on—open here for debate, and that’s what we offered him. So I’m calling on the LNP to actually release all the reports, environmental, social, infrastructure or any other reports that they have undertaken so that the people of Brisbane can see them, and if they haven’t, then to get those reports done so that we know what the effect of this huge project on the people of Brisbane will be. I encourage and hope to see the LORD MAYOR and Councillor OWEN at that meeting. Thank you.
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 Charles STRUNK 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: 17 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
591/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That this Council’s legal advisors provide a confidential briefing on any Olympic Games contracts BCC may be considering at least two business days prior the Special Council Meeting on 23 March 2021.
Chair: Your clock has just been reset. Please proceed. You have three minutes to urgency.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, the issue of notification to Councillors, consultation, detailed consideration of any significant decision-making our Council has to make on the Olympics is a critical one because we’ve been advised today that the LORD MAYOR is calling a Special Meeting at 9am on Tuesday next week, but we will not be given any information about what we are to debate and approve prior to 9am next Tuesday. Now, in his response to the E&C matter before us today, the LORD MAYOR indicated that there were some contractual arrangements that the Council may be considering.
So, if we are as a Council to sign off on any contracts as Brisbane City Council as an entity, it is essential that Councillors are briefed about those contracts prior to the meeting where we have to vote on them. Now, I heard what the LORD MAYOR was saying about, we’ll get briefings from experts. Fine, John Coates can pop in here and he can wax lyrical about how excellent the Olympics are as long as he wants to. I like the Olympics, the Olympics are great.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, but as the elected representative for Tennyson Ward, I have a responsibility to ensure that this Council’s decision-making process does not have adverse impacts for our residents. That means understanding the financial implications of any major contracts, the legal implications of any major contracts. It means understanding whether or not we are going to be committed into particular outcomes. We need to know as a city whether or not residents of the city will still be able to drive on the local roads. In Sydney, the Council shut down the roads for local residents.
So, I would like to know if this Council is going to enter into a legal document that will bind this Council for the next 12 years with respect to any Olympic decision-making. I think we deserve a briefing at least two days in advance so that we can consider the information that we are being given and we can make an informed decision at the Special Council Meeting on 23 March. It is inherently unreasonable for us to turn up to a meeting in here at nine o’clock next Tuesday with no access to computers, no access to the internet, and have to make a decision on the spot about an issue that could have extremely significant financial and legal implications for the City of Brisbane.
So, I call on all Councillors to support this urgency motion. It’s clear the LORD MAYOR knows, it’s clear the LORD MAYOR knows what’s going on and he stood up before and he said, ‘oh yes, well, we’re giving you lots of notice.’ You’re telling us today. You’ve told us there’s a meeting. You haven’t told us what’s in the meeting.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
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 Nicole JOHNSTON and Charles STRUNK 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: 17 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: Councillors, I will move to the City—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Okay, no, no.
Councillor STRUNK?
Councillor STRUNK: I just wanted to sign the book.
Chair: Oh right, all right, all right.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: I will now proceed to the City Planning and Economic Development Committee report.
Can I please acknowledge the Kenmore Scouts and Venturers in the gallery and assure you we don’t normally do that, but that was a rare opportunity to see us all voting very fast in a small amount of time.
Councillor ADAMS.
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 March 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, before I get to the Committee report last week, I would just like to talk about a few things economic development. I would like to just say in the light of economic development and sustainability, particularly in our local clubs, that we work very closely with, Councillor CUMMING, particularly if they do have a lease, and that is the thing, they need a lease to actually fight for a lease, but don’t let the details get in the way of a good story around Coorparoo Cricket. I do notice that—
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —when it comes to Wynnum Manly Cricket Club, that they met today with the Chair of NEWS (Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability) with Councillor CUNNINGHAM and with Councillor HOWARD about their ongoing works at this club. So, I’m hoping to see that, through the fantastic representation from Councillor ATWOOD, that that will continue, as well, hence why—
Councillors interjecting.
At that time, 4.53pm, the Deputy Chair, Councillor Steven TOOMEY, assumed the Chair.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —it was not urgent.
Deputy Chair: Councillors, please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Hence why it’s not urgent, but it’s great to see that we are supporting the sustainability of clubs. Not only are we supporting the sustainability of clubs, we are supporting the sustainability of small businesses. Coming out of COVID-19, the business hub continues to go from strength to strength. This week, we’ve got a Fintech conference on Wednesday. We have had a lot of industry work in PropTech this week, including three facilitated masterclasses, 44 one-on-one mentor sessions, three facilitators’ workshops and four mentor workshops.
Coming up for the rest of the week, tomorrow at 9am, there is a Funding to Scale: Asset and Trade Finance workshop being presented by ScotPac, and then on Thursday at 5.30pm—and I think it may actually be sold out—is On the Couch with James Tuma, the Group Director at Urbis, who’s going to be talking about futurist and strategist ideas on how to support businesses and the impact on Brisbane coming out of COVID-19, as well. So, always a lot happening, and more and more of those feet off the street just dropping in to see how they can be supported as well.
To the Committee last week, we had the Boggo Road, Dutton Park, application that was mentioned earlier today, an application that was lodged in 2019. It is on State Government land, but they were presented with landowner’s consent with their application for a mixed-use retail site between the Environmental Sciences complex there and the heritage Boggo Road Gaol. It did get a lot of attention from local residents. There were over 200 submissions received within the period, 25 of them within the public notification.
We were also conscious that there were a lot of issues and listened to the residents about a lot of those issues and a lot of them being around the pedestrian/cyclist connectivity front and centre of the proposal, and how you got through with the cars onto the site, as well. So, as mentioned earlier today, there was a significant reduction in car park spaces, as well as a treatment to make the internal road almost like a green road at a very slow speed.
What was presented as a 3.5-metre shared path in the application ended up a 4.2-metre pedestrian path, separated by the three-metre-wide bicycle path, as well, totally separated and separated from the traffic that now travels one way at low speeds, as well. It’s mixed-use. It caters for a range of different opportunities on the site. We’re not sure what they’re doing yet, but it is around a site that is going to see 22,000 people a week come in with Cross River Rail. There does need to be some convenience stores there and I think that’s what they’ll probably look at on this site, as well.
It joins Boggo Road Gaol, Boggo Road, therefore the State Government were a referral agency and they gave their approval because of the lines of sites through there and the connection to the Boggo Road Gaol. You can still go through and access those opportunities to visit the heritage in Brisbane as well. The new inner city South State Secondary College brings 1,600 students, that is across the road, 22,000 people every day from 2036. It is an area that needs to see some type of convenience and, of course, everybody that’s working in the environment centres and the Mater and everywhere else around this, as well.
It’s appropriately located and it meets the active travel needs. It is, however, now in a priority development area under the full control of the State, and again, as I said earlier today, if it was to be contested in P&E Court and it was to be overturned, our decision—Council would no longer have any right of assessment on this site.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I went for the timer on the microphone.
Chair: Just one moment. There it is.
Councillor SRI: I rise to speak on the Boggo Road development application, and I think really, it’s a shame that there isn’t space for me to be more actively involved on the City Planning Committee, because I’m sure that if Councillor ADAMS and I had more opportunities for face-to-face conversations, we’d probably find that we have more in common than she realises and that we might be able to reach some constructive points of agreement, but sadly, the Administration hasn’t been open to that opportunity for dialogue. I don’t even have a seat at the City Planning Committee, and as such, my opportunities to advocate for my community are a little more limited.
I did, of course, provide comments and submissions regarding this particular development application and residents were certainly quite active in making their own comments, but there are some particularly significant flaws, both in the arguments Councillor ADAMS has presented and I would go so far as to suggest that some of the arguments she has offered are completely illogical and irrational. I would also suggest that Councillor ADAMS probably hasn’t paid enough close attention to the mixed use code.
As one very simple example of a very straightforward flaw in this development, the mixed use code in the City Plan requires that the frontages of a development site for a mixed use development like this should have a footpath. Now, probably most Councillors when they think about, okay, a shopping area is being built, there’s a new set of shops going to a local community, should there be a footpath connecting from that development—connecting along the frontage of that development? The very, very obvious answer is yes.
A mixed use development should have a footpath in front of it. In this case, unfortunately, the approved development plans for this site at Boggo Road did not have a footpath along the Boggo Road frontage, connecting from the shops to the intersection with Annerley Road. So, for Councillors who don’t know this area, the main road corridor coming through the precinct is Annerley Road and then the site in question is accessed via Boggo Road and Peter Doherty Street, which are the two side streets that come off Annerley Road.
The Peter Doherty Street side frontage of the site does have a footpath, it connects down to Annerley Road, but the Boggo Road side of the site does not have a footpath. There is no footpath connecting along Boggo Road from the shops to the pedestrian crossing at the intersection with Annerley Road. Furthermore, there’s no pedestrian crossing from these shops to the primary school directly across the road, and there’s no direct pedestrian crossing on the southern side, either.
So what’s likely to happen is that we’ll have parents, teachers, students perhaps moving between these shops on the southern side of Boggo Road and the Dutton Park State School on the northern side of Boggo Road, the train station on the northern side of Boggo Road and the bus station on the northern side of Boggo Road, but no pedestrian crossing from those facilities to these shops. That’s a very clear and obvious failure to provide that most basic piece of local connectivity and safety infrastructure, a pedestrian crossing.
The Administration’s failure to find a way to condition that or negotiate with the developers to provide that as part of this development is, quite frankly, a bit of an embarrassment to the Council, but the fact that the Council couldn’t even get the developers to comply with their own City Plan code and provide a footpath, a footpath from the shops to the nearest intersection is woeful. I thought even a simple request like that surely should have been enough for the Council Administration.
We might disagree on a lot of things—I certainly have concerns about the privatisation of this site and the fact that it’s being sold off, as it’s public land and public greenspace that’s being sold off to a private developer—but the fact that the Council’s city planning and development assessment team couldn’t even get that simple element, a footpath along Boggo Road to connect to the Annerley Road intersection, is just appalling really. What that’s going to mean is that people are going to end up walking along the roadway or they’re going to end up walking along the northern side of Boggo Road and then having to cross where there is no signalised intersection in order to access these shops.
The many concerns with this development application have already been well articulated by the community in their submissions. First and foremost is the loss of public greenspace. Councillor ADAMS might be right that it’s currently—or it’s already been zoned for mixed use. That’s a decision that this Council made a couple of years ago and I certainly didn’t support it at the time, but regardless of how a site has been zoned, this is public land that has for a very long time now served a purpose as public greenspace.
So, for the community, this development proposal represents a significant loss because this is a space where kids could safely learn to ride their bikes, where people could come to escape the traffic and escape this busy inner city neighbourhood and have a quiet recreation space that also had the advantage of a little shade from the western sun, thanks to the gaol. This development will take away greenspace. It will take away established trees. Quite a large number of existing trees would have to be removed to facilitate this, and in particular, much of the site footprint is just a car park.
It’s not even shops that might be of some benefit to the community. It’s simply a car park in the middle of an active transport precinct, where Council’s own planners admit that they want the vast majority of people to be travelling by public and active transport in and out of this precinct. Council’s own transport planners don’t want people driving into this precinct, and yet Councillor ADAMS and her team have approved this development, which will do just that by including so much car parking and encouraging so many people to drive into this precinct.
That’s a fundamental problem with the way these kinds of developments are conceived because there is value in having some shops on this site. I think most residents would probably agree with that. Certainly, I am persuaded that there’s some value in having some commercial activation in the vicinity of this site, but the type of development that’s proposed and the scale of development proposed is so large that the developers feel it won’t be commercially viable unless they’re able to draw on a larger customer base, with motorists driving in from further afield.
This is a common problem we see with a lot of suburban shopping precincts, where one new shopping precinct pops up and lots of people are driving from further away to get to it, and then the people who live—then the closer, smaller shops that are within walking distance of the community, they get degraded and overlooked. So people aren’t walking to their local shops, they’re driving further away to get to the trendy new development that has a lot more car parking. That’s a bad outcome from an active transport perspective.
So, the transport outcomes here are pretty poor. We’re losing greenspace. We’re losing a safe pedestrian and cycle way, to be replaced by a less safe pedestrian and cycle way. I acknowledge there is still a path through the middle of the site and that’s better than the original plans, but I certainly wouldn’t feel safe letting my nieces and nephews ride around there and learn to ride their bikes in that space, because it’s now going to be a busy car park rather than a quiet active transport corridor.
I think perhaps one of the most misleading comments that Councillor ADAMS has made in this Chamber is the suggestion that, if this development is rejected, there’s a serious risk that the State Government might approve something denser on the site, anyway. The fact of the matter is that that’s already a risk. Because this has been declared a priority development area, there is literally nothing stopping the developers from going back to the State Government and saying, this is under the PDA, now we want to apply for a bigger development proposal or a more intensive use.
That option remains open to the developers, whether Council approved this particular development application or not. So I think it’s a little bit—maybe not deliberately misleading, but perhaps not as accurate as it should be or for Councillor ADAMS to suggest that, if this thing wasn’t approved, we might get something worse, when the honest reality is, we might get something worse, anyway.
I agree with the Administration’s criticisms of the PDA process and the way that Economic Development Queensland operates. I’m certainly not defending that process, but I think it’s quite obvious that if the developers wanted to go back to the State Government and apply for something denser, they could do that anyway, but certainly I’ve been very disappointed that the Council didn’t take a stronger line regarding this application. There were clear elements in the Council’s own mixed use code, such as the footpath example I’ve given, that gave Council grounds to reject this development application if it really wanted to.
The fact that the Council didn’t reject this development application says to me that they’re concerned more about supporting the commercial interests of the property development industry than they are about upholding the public interest and the views of local residents, who are clearly and overwhelmingly opposed to this project.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers?
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you. I’d like to start by saying I outrightly, absolutely do not agree that if we sat down and had a chat, we’d come to an agreement of any sort after that. Councillor SRI has misconstrued what I have said, has not understood the planning process, which does not surprise me because this happens time and time again, and makes it sound like kittens and rainbows because you can just condition a footpath for as long as you like beside a DA, but the area that Councillor SRI is talking about for that footpath on Boggo Road, the majority of that is in front of a gaol. Well, you cannot condition a footpath that is not in front of the DA site itself. On top of anything else, there is a two-metre drop.
The reason we didn’t get it—and the officers asked and they pushed and they wanted to see it done, but there is a two-metre drop with a retaining wall from where the lie of the land is to the road. No, you can’t walk along there safely from the school, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to do it. We’re not going to ask them to put a footpath there to encourage them to do it. They do need to walk on the other side of the road. It’s not suitable, we looked at it. The topography does not work for a footpath, but we did look at the pedestrian access through and we definitely have the footpath connection through Peter Doherty, as well.
The suggestion that this was taking away greenspace, it was an open parkland, this is another part that Councillor SRI continually fails to want to understand, that if somebody owns a piece of land and there’s nothing built on it, that does not make it parkland. That makes it not developed, it makes it not built on, but it does not make it parkland where kiddies can learn to ride their bikes forevermore. In this case, it was actually owned by the State Government, and they gave landowner’s consent.
So, as I’ve said many times in this place—and we continue to hear and get petitions from the community inspired by those in Opposition, reject this DA—we can’t outright reject DAs. We need to assess them. So we had an application that came in here from an applicant with landowner’s consent. The State Government said, ‘yes, go for it, this is our land and this is what we want here’, so we had to assess it. I never said, if it’s not approved, you might get something worse. I did not ever say that. I said, if it is taken to P&E Court and it is overturned, there is a good chance you will get something else.
The only thing I do agree with Councillor SRI is that he is right, the applicant can go back right now to the State Government and say, we would like five storeys. That’s why I was hoping, like the BUG (bicycle user group) groups who gave us a great rap for the work we did here, the community and maybe the local Councillor would say, let’s get behind this and say, yes, we’re happy with this and this is what we’d like, State Government, because otherwise, there is every chance they’ll take the opportunity to uplift, because that’s how it works. You ask them to call it in, you get the extra height.
That’s what happened with West Village, it’s what happened with the Milton train station. Councillor MATIC knows, as well. Every time, every time. Retail and mixed use—not mixed use, because it’s not residential, but retail on this site is needed to cater for the community. This is a community shops, but it is absolutely utopia if Councillor SRI thinks that retail centres, regardless of how large, are going to survive with no car parking whatsoever. So Mum and Dad or carers, they pick the kids up from school in the afternoon and want to pop in and grab something, an ice block or there was a vet or there was something—
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —they need a car park.
Deputy Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor ADAMS take a question? Claim to be mispresented.
Deputy Chair: DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: So it is a local store, and local stores need car parking, and there is car parking ratios and that’s what has been kept, but we have tried to make—and we have made—the top level at the ground level as safe as possible for those travelling through. Councillor SRI believes he understands—through you, Mr Chair—the planning scheme, but he does not. Unfortunately, I’ll say the same things he said to me. It may not be on purpose that he’s misleading, but it definitely helps his argument. This application is a great outcome for this site, considering the increase of movement through this area in the next 10 to 15 years, and I hope this is how this application stays.
Deputy Chair: Councillor SRI, your misrepresentation.
Councillor SRI: Yes, Councillor ADAMS, I think, attributed some comments to me about whether shops couldn’t survive without car parking, which I think was a bit incorrect, but I note that there are plenty of shops in the inner city that don’t have proximate car parking that are viable, and as this is a train station and a bus station, I think the same is probably true for this precinct.
Deputy Chair: All right, we’ll now put the report.
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 – 21-41 BOGGO ROAD, DUTTON PARK (A005260979)
592/2020-21
1. The Manager, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on 21-41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park (A005260979) (the site). She provided the information below.
2. The Committee was shown an aerial view and the zoning map of the site. The site has split zoning with Mixed use and Specialised centre.
3. The development details are as follows:
- landowner – the Queensland Government’s Department of Energy and Public Works
- site area – approximately 6,741 square metres
- proposal – Bar, community use, educational establishment, food and drink outlet, function facility, health care service, indoor sport and recreation, office, shop, theatre and veterinary service
- building height – two-storeys, approximately 9.5 metres in height above ground level
- site coverage – approximately 2,712 square metres
- vehicle access – via Boggo Road and exit via Peter Doherty Street
- parking – 149 car spaces and 14 secure bicycle spaces
- heritage interface – retains the gaol observation tower and integrates access.
4. The Committee was shown a perspective of the site from Boggo Road, highlighting the separate pedestrian pathway, cyclist pathway and driveway access to Boggo Road.
5. The Committee was shown a perspective of the site from Peter Doherty Street, highlighting the separate pedestrian pathway, cyclist pathway and driveway access to Peter Doherty Street.
6. The key assessment matters include a maximum 4.2-metre-wide pedestrian pathway provided along an activated building edge, a separate 3-metre-wide cycle pathway provided along the eastern site boundary and the existing access easements extended over the relocated pedestrian and cycle pathways maintained in private property.
7. The Committee was shown a locality plan of the pedestrian and cyclist pathways within the site.
8. The development provides 149 car parking spaces, including four persons with disability car parking spaces. The site maintains one-way vehicle movement with access via Boggo Road and exit via Peter Doherty Street. There is separate basement access from Boggo Road and high quality driveway finishes to promote an attractive and low-speed environment.
9. The public realm will provide strong site legibility and wayfinding, with surveillance of publicly accessible areas. The separate pedestrian and cyclist pathways improve safety and access to public transport and the parkland.
10. Referral agency advice was received in relation to the Boggo Road Gaol, the Cross River Rail integration and on the basis of the site being located on a State-controlled transport tunnel and near a State-controlled transport corridor. The State Assessment and Referral Agency referral response approved the development application, subject to conditions.
11. The development application received 205 submissions, with 25 properly made. The key matters raised in the submissions include:
- heritage listing
- loss of existing public space
- car parking and traffic
- pedestrian and cyclist access
- land use
- removal of existing trees.
12. The development application was approved as the development:
- contributes to the Boggo Road Urban Village precinct by providing a Mixed use centre that provides highly active pedestrian pathways
- provides direct pedestrian and cyclist connections from the Boggo Road busway station and future Cross River Rail station to surrounding residential and employment areas
- provides safe and efficient access for all transport modes that does not impact adversely on the efficiency and safety of the transport network or diminish the amenity of nearby land uses
- contributes to the economic activity and vitality of the location and is appropriate to its relative catchment and expected hours of operation
- presents attractive frontages that enhance the streetscape and the character and amenity of the street
- incorporates materials, design elements and form that reduces building bulk and scale and integrates with the existing and intended neighbourhood structure for the area
- is appropriately located according to the proposed use, and building and landscape design are of a scale, height and bulk that is generally compatible with the surrounding area and transitions sensitively to surrounding uses
- provides high-quality onsite landscaping that contributes to the subtropical landscape character and microclimate of the locality.
13. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager for her informative presentation.
14. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: We’ll now move on to the next report.
Councillor MURPHY, please.
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Greg ADERMANN, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 March 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Deputy Chair. Last week, the Committee received an update on the North Brisbane Bikeway (NBB). As we know, the North Brisbane Bikeway is a key strategic active transport route being delivered by Council, in partnership with the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). Stages 1 to 4 connect Brisbane City to Wooloowin, with Stage 4 opened by TMR in late January this year. Council’s next stages will connect Stage 4 to the Kedron Brook Bikeway and extend the NBB further north into Aspley.
The route alignments have—three route alignments have been investigated through this process, a 1.1-kilometre route via Price Street, Kent Road and Brook Road, a 1.2-kilometre route via Chalk Street, Wellington Street and Bradshaw Street, and a 1.5-kilometre route via Dixon Street, Junction Road, Keith Street, Sydney Street and Jackson Street. Treatments of these three alignments include a mix of separated cycleway, shared pathway and shared cycle treatments, and were considered by the joint Council and Queensland Government Active Transport Advisory Committee, ATAC.
The ATAC includes Bicycle Queensland and a number of local bicycle user groups, the BUG groups, as we call them, including Space for Cycling, North BUG, West BUG and East BUG. Now, the Price Street, Wooloowin, to Kedron Brook via Dixon Street, Junction Road, Keith Street, Sydney Street and Jackson Street alignment was the alignment that was eventually selected by ATAC, and we did give them free choice in the matter. The groups chose it because it provides the largest benefit to the most users, getting people into the city from the north. It has an existing desire line. A lot of people already use these streets to get into the city. It provides connections to major destinations, including the Brisbane Airport and the Gateway North Bikeway.
Now, the next steps for the Price Street to Kedron Brook NBB connection include completing the draft concept design, which is currently being developed in partnership with the private sector. Another North Brisbane Bikeway connection from Webster Road to Nevin Street will also extend the bikeway between Aspley and Chermside, a very important connection. This will provide a shared path through to Aspley Lions Club Park, a safer, lower speed environment along the Gympie service road and a shared path along Gympie Road, all the way through to Nevin Street, Deputy Chair.
The project introduction were released on Friday 26 February, and construction completion is anticipated midway through this year. The next step includes finalising the design of the shared path through Aspley Lions Club Park. Now, during Committee last week, Councillor SRI raised a question about the proposed speed limit of 40 km/h along the Gympie Road service road. The service road between Webster Road and Nevin Street will become a low-speed local street that will serve as a bicycle route while it will also remain open to vehicle traffic.
The design the Council has proposed provides a safer environment, Deputy Chair, for cyclists by reducing the speed limit and moderating vehicle speeds with a change in the speeding environment through construction of traffic calming devices such as speed platforms, traffic islands and kerb buildouts. Now, a 40-kilometre posted speed is the most likely outcome along this street, balancing the need for vehicle operations with road user safety. However, the final outcome will require a formal speed limit review and endorsement from the State Government Speed Management Committee, of which Council is a member, and obviously, the Queensland Police. So they will have the final say—so on the speed limit of this street.
Now, a proposed speed limit, I would say, would be consistent with other low-speed environments around Brisbane, and there is provision to reassess the speed limit in the future, but as I have often said in this space, when it comes to setting the speed limits for these streets, it’s often a case of balancing community expectations around speed, along with compliance. We know that if we just set 20 or 30-kilometre speed limits everywhere, the levels of compliance will go through the floor, so it is about striking a balance, something that is achievable.
I also took a question on notice, from Councillor SRI today regarding the 234 bus service and a bus stop closure. I can advise, as I said in the Committee, Councillor SRI, that this bus stop is due to a project in the Brisbane Infrastructure area, the Story Bridge maintenance works that are ongoing. There is a holding yard under the bridge in Captain Burke Park and construction that is happening as part of that work. As part of Span 1 of this important work, you would have been advised that a bus stop on Baildon Street where the 234 bus and, of course, the 27 shuttle was being serviced on would be out of commission due to the restoration work.
Shuttle 27 will be moved to Main Street, but in the case of the 234 bus service, it commences at Woolloongabba then it travels north before exiting from the bridge to travel underneath. Then it turns at Baildon Street to actually service the bus stop. It then proceeds to turn at Rotherham before coming back out to re-emerge onto the bridge and continue north. So, buses travelling on this route need both Baildon and Rotherham to turn around and because it cannot turn at Baildon, it cannot now service the lower part of Kangaroo Point. So I understand that this work will take a few months and then the service will be reinstated from Baildon Street, so should you require any further information, I am sure Councillor McLACHLAN—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MURPHY: —as the project owner will be happy to respond to those concerns. Now, also, two weeks ago, Councillor CASSIDY asked a question regarding the 12-month review of COVID-19 patronage on public transport in other jurisdictions. We did have an officer presenting at the time, Dr Greg Spelman. We went through some of the numbers in other capital cities. We have patronage data that shows Perth is 80%, which is higher than across the rest of the country, but it is—averages generally across the country are in line with Brisbane’s 70% patronage levels at the moment. Auckland patronage is at 70%, Adelaide is just under 70%. Sydney patronage has taken a massive hit, it is sitting at around 50%.
So, I would encourage each and every Councillor in this place to do all that they can to encourage people to get back on board public transport, but certainly Brisbane is doing fairly well, compared to other cities. The Committee also considered a petition requesting Council change the CityGlider route 60 to stop inbound at 405 Montague Road and outbound at 406 Montague Road, West End, and the Committee supported the petition response, which was that Councillor SRI would be supported by Transport for Brisbane to conduct further consultation with his community on that change, noting that these changes can sometimes be controversial with the community. So I will leave any further debate to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor MURPHY.
Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. It’s a shame I’m not allowed to talk about the Baildon Street bus stop because I have a bit to say about that, but maybe Councillor MURPHY and I can chat outside afterwards. I rise to speak primarily on the North Brisbane Bikeway and maybe also to touch on the CityGlider petition. I’m broadly supportive of this project and I think it’s really great that the Administration is slowly, perhaps not quickly enough, but gradually working towards this. I think it is positive to see a bit more of an emphasis towards some of these active transport missing links.
I did really want to, though, pick up on that conversation about shared roads and whether we think shared roads are a satisfactory form of bikeway infrastructure. I don’t know if I’m alone in the Chamber on this, maybe you’ll all call me crazy, but I think bikeways should be safe for children to ride on. That’s my view, is that if we are designing bikeways, those bikeways should be safe enough for kids to ride to school along, they should be safe enough for riders of all abilities to feel that they can use that infrastructure to get from A to B, and that should be our goal when we’re developing new infrastructure or we’re improving bikeways as part of major projects like this one.
The concern I have, particularly with the part of the bikeway project that Councillor MURPHY alluded to, is that we’re calling this stretch a shared street configuration, I think is the terminology. Cyclists are expected to ride down the road and share that roadway with cars. Now, there are a few areas in Brisbane where we’ve started to do what might be called more genuine shared streets, and one of those is in my ward on the approach to the Goodwill Bridge, where there’s quite a low-speed environment.
Cars are traveling at 20 kilometres now most of the time and sharing that roadway with bikes. There’s traffic calming and signage to limit the speeds accordingly and it’s a safer environment for cyclists. It means that even bike riders who are less confident can feel safe riding along that shared road, that shared street, because it’s a low-speed environment, but there’s a big difference between a roadway that has a speed limit of 20 or 30 km/h, as compared to a roadway that has a speed limit of 40 km/h.
When a cyclist is hit by a car travelling at 40 km/h, there is a significantly higher risk of serious injury or death. At those lower speeds, sure, it’s still possible that a car might run into a cyclist, or vice versa, but the chance of a serious injury involving hospitalisation is much, much lower. The problem here, though, is that Council is suggesting that this particular stretch of the bikeway will have a posted speed limit of 40 km/h. Now, even if the Council puts in a lot of extra traffic calming and speed bumps and some vehicles might be travelling more like 30 km/h. It’s still going to be posted as a 40 km/h road, and that means that it’s not going to be safe enough for those less experienced riders to use.
The alternative available will be for cyclists to use a very narrow footpath that currently runs alongside of the road and that footpath has a lot of high fences and driveways along it. I’m sure anyone who’s ridden through a neighbourhood like that would be aware that, when cyclists are riding along a narrow footpath, there’s a bit of a risk that a car might pop out of a driveway suddenly and take them out without warning. So it’s not ideal to have cyclists riding along a very narrow footpath so close to so many driveways. It’s also certainly not ideal to have cyclists riding along a road with a 40 km/h speed limit, noting that this will be one of the connections to local schools, it will be a connection to a few other arterial bikeways, et cetera.
So really, the question was, did the Administration have a choice? Would it have been possible for the Administration to do something else, other than make cyclists ride along the 40 km/h road? The answer, in my view, is yes, because there are alternative design options available. It would, for example, have been possible for Council to take away a little bit of that road width from cars and create a separated bike lane. There is enough road width there to do that, and barrier technology is pretty cheap and effective now, as we’ve seen with some of the other projects Council’s implementing.
So, just as we’ve dropped separated cycle infrastructure in along Elizabeth Street to create separated bike lanes, it’s possible that along this service road, alongside Gympie Road, Council could have created separated bike lanes to accommodate the cyclist volumes rather than forcing them to share the 40 km/h road. Another alternative is that Council could simply introduce more, you might say, aggressive traffic calming to force an even lower speed environment so that the speed limit can actually be dropped to 20 or 30 km/h.
I know that this is a difficult point of negotiation and contestation with the State Government, but we have a precedent now where we’ve had a few other stretches of road that we’ve been able to traffic calm down to 20 or 30 km/h speed environments that the State Government has supported. So we’ve got a precedent, we’ve got a proven concept. I don’t understand really why we couldn’t drop this stretch of road to a slightly lower speed, and maybe Councillor MURPHY wants to provide more commentary on that as to why it wasn’t possible to instead propose a 30 km/h speed limit and have a bit more traffic calming, if that’s necessary.
So there are two options there. There’s one is separated bike lanes, taking away a little bit of the road width so we can have a barrier-separated bike lane for users of this stretch of the bikeway. The other option is to have additional traffic calming and drop the speed limit down to 30 km/h or perhaps even 20 km/h, and I’m still not clear why those two options haven’t been given the weight and consideration that I think they deserve.
I’m sure there are other bikeways through this neighbourhood. I used to ride around here a bit as a kid and there are always alternative routes and other backstreets that people can take, but if this is the main northern bikeway stretch and the alignment that Council has chosen, then we should be looking to make this alignment as safe as possible, noting that it’s also the direct connection to other shops further along Gympie Road and other residential hubs.
The reason I’m kind of concerned about this one is not specifically about this particular project, but because I don’t want Council to think that it can get away with calling a 40 km/h street a bikeway, because a 40 km/h street is not a bikeway. It’s a 40 km/h street. I accept that the Administration is trying to act in good faith. I’m not suggesting there’s any kind of nefarious motive here. I also accept when Councillor MURPHY says that the Administration will explore lower speed limits in the future, but I want to state very clearly that I don’t think it is acceptable to set for ourselves a standard where we can say, yes, this is our major bikeway.
It’s going to be a 40 km/h shared road where cyclists and presumably even e-scooters, I’m not sure, are going to be sharing that roadway with cars that are moving fast enough to kill them. That’s just not acceptable. I would hope that the bikeway designers within the Council and that the Council Administration doesn’t make the same mistake for other projects going forward and that down the line, if there’s a need to direct cyclists down a side street or for high volumes of cyclists to be sharing a road, that we either look at proper barrier-separated infrastructure or that we look at lower speed limits.
I noted with interest that Councillor MURPHY said that the various bicycle user groups and bicycle advocacy groups had been consulted about the alignment. I would suspect that, if Councillor MURPHY goes back to them and asks, do they think this sort of speed limit and this particular road configuration is safe enough, they’ll probably say no, it’s not. I think, in a way, for someone who doesn’t pay close attention to this project, it would be easy to be lured into a false sense of security, because when you read it, you read mix of separated cycleway, shared pathway and shared cycle street treatments.
That makes you think that it’s something safer and more cycling focused than just a 40 km/h road with a bit of traffic calming and some signs that say, slow down, there are bikes around. I just don’t think someone who reads that as a casual observer would understand that the type of infrastructure that’s being proposed here is not genuinely safe bike infrastructure that’s appropriate for riders of all ages. We need to be designing our bike paths and bikeways so that children can ride them safely.
That’s a very simple principle, and from the information presented to us so far, it doesn’t seem like this stretch of this particular bikeway will be safe for small children to ride on. They’ll either ride on the road in an unsafe configuration or they’ll ride on the footpath and risk being hit by cars that are pulling out of driveways.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I rise to speak on item A and I would like to thank Councillor SRI for saying that I didn’t keep a close eye on this project. It’s not as simple as what Councillor SRI has said. The road width is not wide enough, and also, what he probably doesn’t know is ‘Bulldozer Bart’, as we know him in Aspley, is putting a sound wall up, as well. Residents are very concerned about the trees being removed, and what you’re proposing would mean—for you, Councillor SRI, being a Greens Councillor, I would have thought that you would want the green trees and whatever—
Deputy Chair: Councillor HAMMOND, can I direct—ask you—
Councillor HAMMOND: Through you—
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Councillor HAMMOND: —Deputy Chair. I would have thought that you would like to keep the trees there to give more buffer.
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair?
Deputy Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor HAMMOND take a question?
Deputy Chair: Would you care to take a question?
Councillor HAMMOND: Quickly.
Deputy Chair: If you can keep it brief.
Councillor SRI: Yes. Through you, Chair, I don’t think I ever said anything about removing trees, and I don’t understand why Councillor HAMMOND thinks I’m suggesting we need to remove trees.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: I was clearly saying that Councillor SRI doesn’t know what this project actually entails. He isn’t aware that the State Government are rushing through a sound wall along Gympie Road, and if he had what he wanted with the designated—because he says the road is wide enough. The road isn’t wide enough to put a designated bikeway in there without removing the extra trees, which the residents are really concerned with. They do not want their trees to go. They don’t want to look outside their houses and see a big, ugly sound wall with no vegetation there, which would be taken away if Councillor SRI wanted this.
Councillor SRI also doesn’t realise that we have spoken to our residents for a while. It’s been very difficult to work with the State Government over this because Bulldozer Bart had no idea that Lions Park was actually a State Government park. He kept on pushing it back. He has absolutely no idea. So a majority of this bikeway is actually going through Lions Park, bringing the State Member kicking and screaming to admit that it is actually his park.
Councillor DAVIS, I still don’t think he actually knows it’s his park, even though there is a big State Government sign on this park claiming it is theirs. Residents were concerned about lack of parking. Councillor SRI said at one point that we should cut off the road. Well, Councillor SRI, I know you’re a northside boy. I know you are. I know you went to a local high school in that area. So you would understand, if you cut off that road, how—
Deputy Chair: Councillor HAMMOND, again through the Chair, please.
Councillor HAMMOND: Sorry, Mr Deputy Chair. How would you—
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Deputy Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.
Deputy Chair: Noted.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: How are those residents actually going to get home? So, those of us who live and are privileged enough to live on the northside, the better side of town—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: —you would realise that there—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: —you would realise that, at the end of that service road, there’s a set of lights in one section halfway through. That comes from Darwin Street across to the service road. You will no longer be able to do that movement with this design that’s been happening. You’ll be able to turn into it from Gympie Road, but you won’t be able to turn out and do that movement that residents do now every day—I do, too, when I’m going around the ward—of coming out of the service road, through those set of lights, onto Darwin Street, onto Maundrell Terrace.
That movement is going to be removed, so it’s actually going to reduce the amount of traffic on that particular road. Not so long ago, in this very place, I handed a petition over that my residents wanted extra speed traffic calming in that particular section, which is delivered in this project. May I remind this Chamber, working with this State Government is very, very difficult? Very difficult, and has delayed—and even Councillor GRIFFITHS agrees that his mates down in George Street are very difficult to deal with, so that would be—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: Yep, see, again, the Labor State Government is not easy to work with.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: Said very much so by the State—the Labor Councillor on the other side. He admits that it’s almost impossible. This project, going down to 30, it was talked about to go down to 30 as part of the beginning of the project, but when you work with the speed review team and this State Government, it has come out as the 40 kilometres. The Chair has already said he will get them to review this traffic speed again. There is extra traffic calming. I don’t know if we want it to be a scooter park going down that service road with putting extra traffic management, which the Councillor on the other side has suggested, extra traffic calming. I’m sure the skateboarders might like it. It might be the new Bradbury Park scooter park if we do that down there.
The traffic engineers, they know they have to have a certain amount of distance between the traffic managements to make it work. So, residents are happy with the 40 kilometres, the majority. You’ll never make everyone happy, that’s the first thing you learn about this job, when I came in 13 years ago. You learn it in a week or so, that you’re never going to make people happy. The majority of people are happy. Again, Councillor SRI, know the whole facts—through you, Deputy Chair.
The sound wall in that particular corridor that’s going through and a designated bikeway would actually take away basically all parking for my residents. Also, I think my residents actually have a right to be able to not have their road closed off, to actually get home to their residence, and have their friends and family come and visit them. This is a project that we have been waiting for, for a long time, and again, working with this State Government has been very difficult when they don’t even know what their property and ownership is in the area.
So, I want to thank the State Government after saying that, because they are basically paying for the majority of this project, and that is why there hasn’t been more consultation on this project, because the State Government are rushing it through, absolutely rushing it through, and basically saying that our residents have very little say over this project because they just want to deliver it. Of course, who do they get to do that and deliver that, which is very un-Council, but us? They don’t want to take ownership for it.
So, for my residents out there who do have concerns about the timeframe of the information going out to them, ring up Bulldozer Bart and ask him why the State Government didn’t allow us to get more time, why they had to rush it through, and again, I would like to remind the State Member, Lions Park is State Government. So, I have heard rumours that State Government might want to stop this part of the bikeway, which would be a massive, massive impact on this bikeway. I hope they don’t. I hope they continue it through because, again, the majority of the bikeway along that small section of road is through Lion Park.
This will be a massive improvement for the safety of the community, allowing the community to be able to park and have guests, stopping them from doing extra movements, reducing the amount of traffic going down the road, and also having that beautiful link from Chermside all the way through. Thank you very much.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor SRI, your misrepresentation, please.
Councillor SRI: Thanks. Councillor HAMMOND very disingenuously seemed to be implying that I had advocated closing the road or partial access to the road, and that’s completely untrue and I wholeheartedly reject that assertion.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers? No further speakers?
Councillor MURPHY, care to sum up?
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Deputy Chair. That was a very spirited debate and I thank Councillor HAMMOND and Councillor SRI for their contributions on this item. Clearly, you see in these two Councillors, I think, part of the problem of building a new bikeway in our city writ large. Really, we’re talking about one issue here, Deputy Chair, which is the pace of change. Now, Councillor HAMMOND represents the aspirations of suburban Brisbane, of middle Brisbane, the suburbs where most people own a car, most people use a car to go to and from work, most people use a car to drop the kids off at school and to visit grandma and all those things, they use cars.
When you go and you take away parking and you build a bikeway and you slow the street down, you put in traffic calming, you often upset a great many of those residents. So Councillor HAMMOND representing the views of those residents, that the pace of change when it comes to bikeway development and installation of new bikeways may be too fast. You have Councillor SRI on the other hand of this argument, Deputy Chair, who has said in this place—and I hope I’m not misquoting him here—that he is an anarcho-communist and the pace of change is too slow, and he wishes to upend the very order on which society is based.
So it’s no wonder that he comes in here and says, I applaud what Council is doing in some aspects, but in other aspects, you’re going too slow. We need to get—ironically, you need to slow the cars down even further to encourage social change. The reality is that here, particularly in the outer suburbs, we are dealing with trying to strike a balance between providing a safe solution for users of this cycle facility and keeping in mind, this is not a green street solution.
This is a solution that uses a range of different measures, off-road, on-road, speed platforms, ways in which we manage the cycle traffic to strike a balance and achieve an outcome that is a compromise, yes, between community expectations in the outer suburbs and also providing a solution that will enable safer bike travel in this corridor. So yes, yes, unashamedly, that is our job in this place. It is the Administration’s job to take people on the journey when it comes to changes like this.
We have done that with a range of projects where we have struck a balance and we have taken the community with us. I would argue that’s been part of the success of this team now over three Lord Mayors. It’s one of the reasons we haven’t lost a Councillor in this place in 20 years, because we take the community with us on major societal changes, on major infrastructure changes for our city, and so it will be with the Webster Road to Nevin Street alignment for the North Brisbane Bikeway, but I will just say, the low volumes along this street have contributed to the design. This is not a cyclist superhighway, as some other parts of the city are.
So, if we do see an increase in cyclist traffic along here, encouraged by these works, then of course, as Councillor HAMMOND said, we will look to reduce that speed limit. Probably the final thing I’ll say is, all of the speed limit changes—and indeed, the designs of these bikeways—are signed off by the State Speed Management Committee and a registered professional engineer of Queensland who puts their name to it, who signs their name and says, this is safe. So I certainly take them into our trust and we appreciate the guidance from all registered professional engineers that sign off on these designs for these major projects.
Just finally, Councillor HAMMOND alluded to it, this was a Works for Queensland project, so Council did not have the timeframe that we would have otherwise had to go out and consult with the community heavily on this. The State has provided mandated timeframes by the end of the financial year, that we need to have these works completed and so, certainly, it was a truncated process. We weren’t able to undertake the same kind of consultation that will be undertaken with Stage 5 of the North Brisbane Bikeway where we will go in depth with the community, with the BUG (Bicycle User Group) groups, to look at those treatments. Of course, that is a much higher patronaged corridor, and so we know that we will need to really go out to both the community and the cyclists to talk about that alignment with them.
So, I thank both Councillors for the debate and, Chair, I recommend that on to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor MURPHY.
We will 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 – NORTH BRISBANE BIKEWAY
593/2020-21
1. The Policy Strategy and Planning Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the North Brisbane Bikeway (NBB). He provided the information below.
2. The NBB is a key, strategic active transport route being delivered by Council in partnership with the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). Stage 4 was opened by TMR in late-January 2021. Stages 1 to 4 have been completed and connect Brisbane City to Wooloowin. Council’s next stages will connect Stage 4 to the Kedron Brook Bikeway and extend the NBB further north into Aspley.
3. Three route alignments for the Price Street, Wooloowin, to Kedron Brook NBB connection have been investigated, including a:
- 1.1-kilometre route via Price Street, Kent Road and Brook Road
- 1.2-kilometre route via Chalk Street, Wellington Street and Bradshaw Street
- 1.5-kilometre route via Dickson Street, Junction Road, Keith Street, Sydney Street and Jackson Street.
4. Treatments of these three alignments include a mix of separated cycleway, shared pathway and shared cycle street treatments, and were considered by the joint Council-Queensland Government Active Transport Advisory Committee (ATAC) which also comprises:
- Bicycle Queensland
- local Bicycle User Groups (BUGs) including Space4CyclingBNE, North BUG, West BUG and East BUG.
5. The Price Street, Wooloowin, to Kedron Brook, via Dickson Street, Junction Road, Keith Street, Sydney Street and Jackson Street alignment was recommended by ATAC as it:
- provides the largest benefit to the most users
- is an existing identified desire line
- provides connections to major destinations including the Brisbane Airport and Gateway North Bikeway.
6. The Webster Road to Nevin Street, Aspley, NBB connection will extend the NBB between Aspley and Chermside, providing a:
- shared path through Aspley Lions Club Park
- safer, lower-speed environment along the Gympie Road service road
- shared path along Gympie Road to Nevin Street.
7. The Webster Road to Nevin Street, Aspley, extension will be delivered in partnership with the Queensland Government through its 2020-21 COVID Works for Queensland program. The project introduction letter and plan were released on Friday 26 February 2021, and construction completion is anticipated mid-2021. The Committee was shown an illustration of the plan.
8. Next steps for the Price Street, Wooloowin, to Kedron Brook NBB connection include:
- completing the concept design which is currently underway
- approving the design in mid to late-2021
- undertaking community consultation.
9. Next steps for the Webster Road to Nevin Street, Aspley, NBB connection include:
- finalising the design of the shared path through Aspley Lions Club Park with TMR
- commencing construction in March 2021
- completing construction by approximately mid-2021.
10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Policy Strategy and Planning Manager, for his informative presentation.
11. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL CHANGE THE CITYGLIDER (BLUE) ROUTE 60 BUS SERVICE TO STOP INBOUND AT 405 MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END, AND OUTBOUND AT 406 MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END
CA20/1393274
594/2020-21
12. A petition from residents, requesting Council change the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service to stop inbound at 405 Montague Road, West End, and outbound at 406 Montague Road, West End, was received during the Summer Recess 2020-21.
13. The Divisional Manager, Transport for Brisbane, provided the following information.
14. The petition contains a total of 585 signatures, with 489 signatories residing in West End.
15. Council operates its bus services under a contract with TransLink, a division of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads. TransLink is responsible for the delivery of public transport services, fare collection and infrastructure for South East Queensland. Council works in conjunction with TransLink to ensure residents and visitors of Brisbane have access to a reliable and accessible public transport network, with TransLink having overall responsibility for approving and funding modifications to services including any service augmentations.
16. The CityGlider service operates high-frequency bus services with features including pre-paid ticketing, dual-door boarding for faster entry and exit, and a fast and regular timetable, including 24-hour-a-day services on Fridays and Saturdays and 18-hour-a-day services from Sundays to Thursdays. The CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service operates every five minutes during peak times and 10-15 minutes during off peak times. A key feature of the success of the CityGlider brand is the express stopping pattern, which trades off a lower number of stops for an increased speed of service. The service levels on the CityGliders are the highest of any bus services in Brisbane and, consequently, operate on high demand corridors.
17. CityGlider bus services are specifically designed to connect the CBD and inner-city areas that are planned for future medium to high density land use developments in accordance with Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). These traffic generators have the appropriate size and scope to provide service demand and patronage across the extended period of operation to sustain CityGlider service levels.
18. Council and TransLink implemented the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service in April 2010. Prior to implementation in 2010, Council conducted a thorough investigation to select and upgrade existing bus stops along Montague Road, West End, for the new CityGlider service. This was prior to the City Plan being implemented in 2014, including designated land use zones at Montague Road. Since that time, there have been considerable changes and increased development along Montague Road that have altered the patterns of use of the CityGlider.
19. The current CityGlider (Blue) route 60 inbound and outbound bus stops located on Montague Road are near Cordeaux Street, West End, at Montague Road at Cordeaux Street, stop 30/14, West End. The next stops when travelling inbound along Montague Road are located next to Aldi at Montague Road near Victoria Street, stop 10, West End. Currently, the inbound stop has been temporarily relocated to Montague Road at Ashington Street, stop 9, West End, while construction work is undertaken as part of the Victoria Street traffic intersection upgrade.
20. In addition, the route 192 bus service currently services inbound and outbound stops at Montague Road at Raven Street, stop 12, West End. These stops are located next to the newly developed Montague Markets or 405 (inbound) and 406 (outbound) Montague Road, West End.
21. The petition proposes the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service stop at 405 (inbound) and 406 (outbound) Montague Road, West End, which would require a change to the current stopping pattern of the service and would result in the route no longer servicing the bus stops on Montague Road near Cordeaux Street. While this proposal would advantage passengers travelling to, or from, this stop catchment, residents in the vicinity of the existing stops at Cordeaux Street would be disadvantaged.
22. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
23. Before considering the petition proposal, to amend the stopping pattern for the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service, Council proposes further community consultation to gauge the views of passengers who use the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service at the Cordeaux Street stops.
24. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, would be well placed to gauge this community sentiment, conduct any community consultation about the proposed change and make a recommendation to Council.
25. At the conclusion of this process, if there was support for the proposal to alter the stopping pattern of the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service, Council would prepare a business case for TransLink for its consideration and approval.
Consultation
26. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
27. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
28. 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: CA20/1393274
Thank you for your petition requesting Council change the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service to stop inbound at 405 Montague Road, West End, and outbound at 406 Montague Road, West End.
Council operates its bus services under a contract with TransLink, a division of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads. TransLink is responsible for the delivery of public transport services, fare collection and infrastructure for South East Queensland. Council works in conjunction with TransLink to ensure residents and visitors of Brisbane have access to a reliable and accessible public transport network, with TransLink having overall responsibility for approving and funding modifications to services including any service augmentations.
The CityGlider service operates high-frequency bus services with features including pre-paid ticketing, dual-door boarding for faster entry and exit, and a fast and regular timetable, including 24-hour-a-day services on Fridays and Saturdays and 18-hour-a-day services from Sundays to Thursdays. The CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service operates every five minutes during peak times and 10-15 minutes during off peak times. A key feature of the success of the CityGlider brand is the express stopping pattern, which trades off a lower number of stops for an increased speed of service. The service levels on the CityGliders are the highest of any bus services in Brisbane and, consequently, operate on high demand corridors.
CityGlider bus services are specifically designed to connect the CBD and inner city areas that are planned for future medium to high density land use developments in accordance with Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). These traffic generators have the appropriate size and scope to provide service demand and patronage across the extended period of operation to sustain CityGlider service levels.
Council and TransLink implemented the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service in April 2010. Prior to implementation in 2010, Council conducted a thorough investigation to select and upgrade existing bus stops along Montague Road, West End, for the new CityGlider service. This was prior to the City Plan being implemented in 2014, including designated land use zones at Montague Road. Since that time, there have been considerable changes and increased development along Montague Road that have altered the patterns of use of the CityGlider.
The current CityGlider (Blue) route 60 inbound and outbound bus stops located on Montague Road are near Cordeaux Street, West End, at Montague Road at Cordeaux Street, stop 30/14, West End. The next stops when travelling inbound along Montague Road are located next to Aldi at Montague Road near Victoria Street, stop 10, West End. Currently, the inbound stop has been temporarily relocated to Montague Road at Ashington Street, stop 9, West End, while construction work is undertaken as part of the Victoria Street traffic intersection upgrade.
In addition, the route 192 bus service currently services inbound and outbound stops at Montague Road at Raven Street, stop 12, West End. These stops are located next to the newly developed Montague Markets or 405 (inbound) and 406 (outbound) Montague Road, West End.
The petition proposes the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service stop at 405 (inbound) and 406 (outbound) Montague Road, West End, which would require a change to the current stopping pattern of the service and would result in the route no longer servicing the bus stops on Montague Road near Cordeaux Street. While this proposal would advantage passengers travelling to, or from, this stop catchment, residents in the vicinity of the existing stops at Cordeaux Street would be disadvantaged.
Before considering the petition proposal, to amend the stopping pattern for the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service, Council proposes further community consultation to gauge the views of passengers who use the CityGlider service at the Cordeaux Street stops.
Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward would be best placed to gauge this community sentiment, conduct any community consultation about the proposed change and make a recommendation to Council.
At the conclusion of this process, if there was support for the proposal to alter the stopping pattern of the CityGlider (Blue) route 60 bus service, Council would prepare a business case for TransLink for its consideration and approval.
The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Selena Beaverson, Executive Assistant, Divisional Manager’s Office, Transport for Brisbane, on (07) 3407 2216.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: We will now move on.
Councillor McLACHLAN, Infrastructure Committee, please.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Peter MATIC, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 March 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. We’ll go to the report from last week. So, at item A, quite often what we talk about in this place—what I talk about in this place is infrastructure, Chair, the high-vis projects where you see workers doing great things to make our city better, out literally on the roads and on our footpaths. What we saw in our presentation last week in the Committee was, I guess what you’d call lifting the curtain. What happens behind the scenes to ensure that those works are done well? This is what we had the presentation on last week, the work of our Laboratory Services team in the city planning and operations field of the Council.
So this is the work that they do, the laboratory engineers do, to make sure that the projects that we undertake are based on science. For those who don’t know, the laboratory is located in the almost brand-new regional operations centre at Eagle Farm. The laboratory office is one of the only locations in Australia that offers full in-house pavement investigation services. So there are others in other states, but certainly, this is the only one in Queensland, and it’s the laboratory of choice for anybody doing pavement works and bitumen works in this State.
The team undertakes soil and pavement testing, which is part of the start of undertaking road resurfacing programs, major road corridor and intersection upgrades, and works in car parks and doing all the testing that’s required before we spend money on bringing in the services to finish those works. So they undertake a range of testing which can get pretty technical. It’s a bit geeky, so I won’t try to go into all the detail, but this is an example of some of the works that they undertake in any given year.
Last year, 2,000 borehole drilling, 4,000 particle size analyses, 400 California Bearing Ratio tests, which test the material strength below the road pavement, so you see the surface of the road. This machinery and their expertise looks at the quality of the road below what you can actually see. They do concrete slump tests, making sure that the concrete we’re getting for our projects is up to speed and strength tests as well, and also if you’ve got a road that needs to be tested for slipping and skidding, these are the guys who undertake that work.
So, this is a snapshot of some of the works that they do each year. That’s a small team, small but mighty team out there at Eagle Farm, and they do fantastic work and I commend them for what they do for us, and on behalf of the city, certainly a great in-house service that’s provided to all the other areas that Council—all the other services that Council provides.
Mr Deputy Chair, there were a couple of petitions last week, one of interest to you, I believe, a petition requesting Council build a road connection between Canvey Road and Mt Nebo Road in Upper Kedron for general traffic use, and a petition requesting Council discontinue a proposed upgrade or look at alternatives to a proposed upgrade for the Barbour Road and Wickfield Street intersection in Bracken Ridge. I’ll leave it to any debate in the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor.
Further speakers?
Councillor DAVIS.
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Deputy Chair, and I rise to speak briefly on item A, the Laboratory Services, Planning and Design, City Projects Office (CPO). Recently, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours at the CPO soils and pavement laboratory at Eagle Farm and through you, Deputy Chair, I’d like to thank the Chair for Infrastructure for facilitating that. My husband is an engineer, and when I told him I was visiting the lab, I detected a little bit of disappointment that he wasn’t able to come along with me, and having visited the lab, I can certainly understand why. It was really wonderful to meet the team and to see firsthand the important work that they do.
The Laboratory Services team are one of the professional disciplines within the Planning and Design division, and they do play a very crucial role in testing soils, pavements and roads across our city. During the visit, not only did I learn about testing techniques, I also learnt more about road construction techniques and how troubleshooting investigations are conducted. I also learnt that Council’s Laboratory Services team is the only facility offering a full in-house pavement investigation service across Queensland, as you alluded to, Chair, in your contribution.
It is easy to forget when we see a new road, resurfacing job or footpath that there is a considerable amount of work done behind the scenes and beforehand, and the team carry out regular tests of concrete surfaces and conduct slip and skid resistant testing, falling weight deflector testing, and borehole drill rigging to sample soils. I took that straight off the website. That is hard going, isn’t it? They undertake particle size analysis. They measure the ability for asphalt to deform under load and return to shape, and much, much more.
I was very appreciative of the opportunity—under supervision, of course—to operate a piece of the equipment out there that tests concrete compression strength, which in layman’s terms means that the concrete supplied to Council actually supports design loads. Deputy Chair, the team at the CPO lab are very proud and passionate about the work that they do. They work on projects like the Smoother Suburban Streets program, major road corridor upgrades and intersection upgrades, various car parks and Council construction sites, just to name a few. I’d like to thank them for being so very generous with their time in broadening my knowledge of the work of the lab, and to thank them for the integral part they play in the delivery of quality infrastructure for the residents of Brisbane.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor.
Further speakers?
Councillor LANDERS.
Councillor LANDERS: Chair, I rise to speak on item C and the petition to discontinue the proposed upgrade for Barbour Road and Wickfield Street. Due to the identified queuing issues along Barbour Road, I sought to secure funding for an investigation into this intersection to see if traffic flow could be optimised and safety enhanced. After it was identified as a priority project in the 2021 budget, Council officers came back with a proposal. I wanted to put this proposal to residents to consult and encourage their feedback, and ensure they had the opportunity to have their say.
Following a formal consultation process and conversations with residents, we worked towards a solution that will provide a safer turning point and maintain adequate on-street parking. The new proposal is currently being drafted and will be circulated to residents in the near future. The Schrinner Council Administration is committed to keeping Brisbane moving, and is working to reduce congestion to create an efficient road network for our growing city. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor LANDERS.
Are there any further speakers?
Councillor McLACHLAN? No?
We will then put the resolution before us.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LABORATORY SERVICES
595/2020-21
1. The Manager, Planning and Design, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s Laboratory Services. He provided the information below.
2. Laboratory Services is one of the professional disciplines within Planning and Design, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure. The area consists of professional and technical staff delivering project services across the majority of Council’s programs.
3. Laboratory Services is primarily a soils and pavement test laboratory, located at the Regional Operations Centre, Eagle Farm. A number of other tests are also undertaken as required, including concrete testing and slip testing.
4. Key areas where testing work is undertaken include:
- the Smoother Suburban Streets program (road resurfacing)
- major road corridor upgrades and intersection upgrades
- various car parks within parks or Council facilities
- inspections and testing for Council-delivered construction.
5. Laboratory Services is the only facility offering full in-house pavement investigation services in Queensland. Laboratory Services is:
- certified to ISO 17025 by National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) Australia
- endorsed by NATA to conduct and report the results of more than 50 Australian Standard and Department of Transport and Main Roads’ test methods
- certified to ISO 9001 by Lloyds Register.
6. Laboratory tests include:
- falling weight deflectometer testing – non-destructive test to ascertain general pavement strength
- borehole drill rig – truck mounted drill rig for all terrain access, capable of drilling and sampling soils to a depth of 10 metres
- core rig – vehicle mounted drill rig to enable safe and efficient pavement core sampling
- slip/skid resistance using a British pendulum tester – measure of the frictional resistance of a surface (footpath/bikeway/roadway)
- nuclear density gauge – used to determine compaction of earthworks, granular pavement materials and asphalt pavement
- California Bearing Ratio (CBR) – test on subgrade material strength below the road pavement
- resilient modulus of asphalt (indirect tensile method) – measure of the ability for asphalt to deform under load and return to shape (elasticity/rebound)
- concrete compressive strength – ensures the quality of concrete as supplied will support design loads
- particle size analysis – performed on a road base sample to ascertain soil texture class
- atterberg limits test (plasticity index) – testing to establish the moisture content at which clay soils transition between solid, plastic and liquid states.
7. Laboratory Services carry out, per year, approximately:
- 650 kilometres of falling weight deflectometer testing and pavement defect mapping
- 2,000 investigation boreholes drilled
- 4,000 particle size distribution and plasticity index tests
- 400 CBR tests
- 80 automated traffic counts
- 100 concrete slump tests
- 300 concrete strength tests
- 40 slip/skid tests
- 100 field densities by nuclear gauge
- 120 asphalt modulus tests.
8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager for his informative presentation.
9. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL BUILD A ROAD CONNECTION BETWEEN CANVEY ROAD AND MT NEBO ROAD, UPPER KEDRON, FOR GENERAL TRAFFIC USE
CA20/1069187
596/2020-21
10. A petition from residents, requesting Council build a road connection between Canvey Road and Mt Nebo Road, Upper Kedron, for general traffic use, was received during the Spring Recess 2020-21.
11. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
12. The petition contains 667 signatures. Of the petitioners, 448 live in the suburb of Upper Kedron, 171 live in various suburbs of the City of Brisbane and 48 live outside the City of Brisbane.
13. Mt Nebo Road is classified as a suburban road and Canvey Road is classified as a district road in Council’s road hierarchy under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and both roads function as major roads. Major roads are intended to be high quality connections for general traffic between local neighbourhoods, residential and commercial suburban areas and inner-city precincts across the Brisbane metropolitan area. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.
14. The petitioners’ request to open the proposed emergency services road connection between Mt Nebo Road and Canvey Road to general traffic has been noted. Canvey Road forms part of Ellendale Estate. During the development of the Ferny Grove—Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan (neighbourhood plan), several local communities on Waterworks Road, in Ashgrove and The Gap, objected to a direct connection onto Mt Nebo Road from Ellendale Estate due to its potential impacts to amenity and traffic on Waterworks Road. Furthermore, part of the land required to construct this new road is zoned as Conservation in the City Plan and considered to be of highly significant ecological value.
15. The neighbourhood plan came into effect on 21 September 2018 following consultation with the community and approval (subject to conditions) by the then Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister). The Minister included a ministerial condition to incorporate an indicative emergency services and active transport only link to Mt Nebo Road. This condition ensures that that this link can only be utilised for emergency access and active transport purposes, such as cycling and walking, providing wider network efficiencies and community benefits.
16. The above condition was incorporated in the neighbourhood plan code. The neighbourhood plan now forms part of City Plan, with the neighbourhood plan code requiring that “Development excludes general traffic access from Mt Nebo Road and exclusively supports emergency services and active transport use only”.
17. Accordingly, the neighbourhood plan, consistent with the direction provided by the Planning Minister in 2018, provides no support and specifically excludes a road connection to Mt Nebo Road for general traffic use.
18. It is noted that the Ferny Grove rail line is near Upper Kedron Road, Upper Kedron, which is the primary access into Ellendale Estate. This public transport service provides direct connections into the Brisbane CBD and the broader rail network which can also be utilised by local residents as an alternative to vehicular traffic.
Consultation
19. Councillor Steven Toomey, Councillor for The Gap Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
20. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.
21. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
22. 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: CA20/1069187
Thank you for your petition requesting Council build a road connection between Canvey Road and Mt Nebo Road, Upper Kedron, for general traffic use.
Your request to open the proposed emergency services road connection between Mt Nebo Road and Canvey Road to general traffic has been noted. Canvey Road forms part of Ellendale Estate. During the development of the Ferny Grove—Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan (neighbourhood plan), several local communities on Waterworks Road in Ashgrove and The Gap, objected to a direct connection onto Mt Nebo Road from Ellendale Estate due to its potential impacts to amenity and traffic on Waterworks Road. Furthermore, part of the land required to construct this new road is zoned as Conservation under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and considered to be of highly significant ecological value.
The neighbourhood plan came into effect on 21 September 2018 following consultation with the community and approval (subject to conditions) by the then Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the Minister). The Minister included a ministerial condition to incorporate an indicative emergency services and active transport only link to Mt Nebo Road. This condition ensures that that this link can only be utilised for emergency access and active transport purposes, such as cycling and walking.
The above condition was incorporated in the neighbourhood plan code. The neighbourhood plan now forms part of City Plan, with the neighbourhood plan code requiring that “Development excludes general traffic access from Mt Nebo Road and exclusively supports emergency services and active transport use only”.
Accordingly, the neighbourhood plan, consistent with the direction provided by the Planning Minister in 2018, provides no support and specifically excludes a road connection to Mt Nebo Road for general traffic use.
It is noted that the Ferny Grove rail line is near Upper Kedron Road, Upper Kedron, which is the primary access into Ellendale Estate. This public transport service provides direct connections into the Brisbane CBD and the broader rail network which can also be utilised by local residents as an alternative to vehicular traffic.
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
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL DISCONTINUE THE PROPOSED UPGRADE FOR THE BARBOUR ROAD AND WICKFIELD STREET INTERSECTION, BRACKEN RIDGE
CA20/1438044
597/2020-21
23. A petition from residents, requesting Council discontinue the proposed upgrade of the Barbour Road and Wickfield Street intersection, Bracken Ridge, was received during the Summer Recess 2020-21.
24. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
25. The petition contains 82 signatures from 38 properties on Barbour Road or Wickfield Street.
26. The proposed upgrade aims to improve traffic flow efficiency, reduce congestion during peak travel times, and improve safety for all road users. Currently, traffic turning right from Barbour Road into Wickfield Street is blocking through westbound traffic.
27. The proposed traffic improvements provided to the community for consultation included:
- installing a right-turn lane on Barbour Road into Wickfield Street, with a 4.5-metre-wide through lane for westbound traffic
- installing two new concrete islands on Barbour Road at the approaches to Wickfield Street to separate road users
- installing a new 2.5-metre-wide cycle lane along the northern side of Barbour Road
- extending the ‘No Stopping’ line marking on the northern side of Barbour Road and installing a ‘No Stopping’ line marking along the southern side of Barbour Road.
28. Consultation was undertaken in November 2020, with the project plan and information sent to 45 properties and 10 absentee owners. Council received feedback from 15 properties, with 14 residents opposed to the proposed upgrade and one partially in favour.
29. The feedback received indicated that local residents objected to the ‘No Stopping’ line marking proposed on the southern side of Barbour Road, opposite Wickfield Street, due to the loss of parking. Other concerns included the proposed 2.5-metre-wide cycle lane on the northern side of Barbour Road due to perceived lack of need, and potential safety concerns and driveway access restrictions from the placement of concrete traffic islands on Barbour Road.
30. In response to the feedback, Council has reviewed the design to minimise loss of parking on Barbour Road. A letter will be sent to the local community in the coming months along with a new project plan providing details on the design features.
31. Residents have raised concerns about the volume of traffic accessing the Northpoint Estate at the end of Barbour Road. Some residents have requested that Council construct a new road to connect this estate to Telegraph Road, via Denning Road, to reduce the traffic volumes on Barbour Road. During consultation, Council advised residents that drainage issues in this location would mean a road cannot be constructed to connect Denning Road to Telegraph Road. The petitioners also included this suggestion as an alternate solution to the proposed upgrade of the Barbour Road and Wickfield Street intersection.
32. Council will proceed with an alternative design for the intersection upgrade at Barbour Road and Wickfield Street that considers feedback from local residents, while still achieving network efficiency outcomes.
Funding
33. Funding has been allocated to the project in the 2020-21 Budget under Congestion Busting Projects.
Consultation
34. Councillor Sandy Landers, Councillor for Bracken Ridge Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
35. The submission will respond to the petitioners’ concerns.
36. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
37. 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: CA20/1438044
Thank you for your petition requesting Council discontinue the proposed upgrade for the Barbour Road and Wickfield Street intersection, Bracken Ridge, and replace it with an alternative solution.
Barbour Road was identified as a priority location for network performance. It is a key road corridor servicing multiple local access networks. Council determined that vehicles turning right from Barbour Road into Wickfield Street were at times impacting westbound through traffic that could not continue on Barbour Road due to parked vehicles. The proposed upgrade aimed to resolve this issue by separating through traffic from turning vehicles, improving safety and traffic flow efficiency during peak periods.
As you are aware, Council released the project plan for the proposal on Barbour Road and Wickfield Street intersection to residents on 23 November 2020. Council received feedback from residents with concerns about the yellow ‘No Stopping’ line along Barbour Road, the proposed 2.5-metre-wide bike lane, and other elements of the design.
Following an evaluation of the feedback received, Council has determined that the project design should be amended to consider feedback from local residents. As such, Council is investigating an alternative option that will achieve network efficiencies during peak hours. Currently, it is proposed to include a ‘No Stopping’ zone between 4pm and 6pm, Monday to Friday, along the southern section of Barbour Road directly adjacent to Wickfield Street. Council will provide an update and an amended design to the community in the coming months.
Council acknowledges your alternative proposal to construct a road from Denning Road to Telegraph Road to service the Northpoint Estate, reducing traffic volumes on Barbour Road. Council will not investigate constructing a road link at this location due to existing drainage issues.
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
Deputy Chair: Councillors, we move on to Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee.
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 March 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Deputy Chair. Why did the fish cross the road? Well, that was the question our Committee was addressed last week, with a presentation about aquatic wildlife movement solutions. We often talk about Council’s work to facilitate wildlife movement across roads, but we also need to facilitate aquatic wildlife movement in our waterways to help fish access food and habitat, avoid predators, defend territory and for seasonal migration, of course.
The presentation showed examples of infrastructure, such as rock ramps to eliminate drops, baffles to break up flow, and the replacement of culverts, all ways we can assist aquatic wildlife passage. Council is adhering to legislation when constructing waterway crossings, continuing to assess legacy assets and removing all retrofitting barriers. We also had two petitions, but I’ll leave comments to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: So, it really was to get to the other side, wasn’t it? Yes, thought so.
Any further speakers? No?
There being none, Councillor CUNNINGHAM? No?
We’ll put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – AQUATIC WILDLIFE MOVEMENT SOLUTIONS
598/2020-21
1. The Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on aquatic wildlife movement solutions. He provided the information below.
2. Within the Brisbane Local Government Area there is more than 4,000 kilometres of waterways that are home to aquatic wildlife such as fish, platypus, turtles, water rats, frogs and vegetation.
3. Aquatic wildlife movement is important to maintain healthy waterways and biodiversity. For example, fish need to cross under roadways in order to:
- access food and habitat
- avoid predators
- defend territory
- migrate as per seasonal requirements.
4. Fish migrate at all times of the year and under many different flow conditions, such as between rivers, floodplains, estuaries and the sea. Fish also move at different life stages, from juveniles dispersing after hatching to adults moving to breed.
5. Barriers to aquatic wildlife movement are:
- physical structures – dams, weirs, tidal gates or dense weeds
- hydraulic – high velocity flow or turbulence
- chemical – pollution or patches of low dissolved oxygen
- behavioural – unwillingness to swim through dark tunnels.
6. Typical waterway barriers in Brisbane are culverts, causeways, weirs, weed chokes and concrete channelisation.
7. The benefits of fish passage (the ability for fish and aquatic wildlife to move throughout a water system) are as follows:
- environmental
- improved aquatic flora and fauna connectivity
- improved fish health and lifecycle completion
- connectivity of multiple habitat zones
- social
- improved recreation and amenity
- improved cultural connection
- improved public engagement and stewardship
- economic
- recreational fisheries
- commercial fisheries.
8. The Queensland Government’s Fisheries Act 1994 requires that adequate fish passage be provided when constructing new, or raising existing, waterway barriers. Development approval is required for waterway barrier construction work where the work does not comply with code. Self-assessable codes may be used for minor, low impact waterway barrier construction work. Development approval is not required for normal maintenance and culverts in drainage lines (not waterways).
9. The Committee was shown photos of movement solutions such as rock ramps to eliminate drops, baffles to break up flow and the replacement of culverts.
10. Council adheres to legislation when constructing waterway crossings. Further, Council assesses the legacy of waterway barriers by conducting site visits to continually assess potential barriers, prioritise barriers and remove or retrofit barriers.
11. The Committee was shown images of fish-friendly crossings including the previous use of vertical baffles at Tennis Avenue, Ashgrove, and a low-level pipe culvert at Wynnum Creek.
12. The Committee was shown images of rock ramps at Freesia Street, MacGregor; Waterbrooke Circuit, Stretton; and Blunder Road, Durack.
13. The Committee was shown an example of the complexities of retrofitting a pipe as a barrier at Bulimba Creek, Wecker Road, Carindale.
14. Urban environments create complexity for aquatic wildlife movement due to:
- high density of barriers
- different asset owners
- waterways which may include essential services
- constrained sites.
15. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, for his informative presentation.
16. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RENAME ALOOMBA STREET PARK, 69 SUVLA STREET, BALMORAL, AS ‘SUVLA BAY PARK’, IN RECOGNITION OF LOCAL RESIDENTS’ STRONG COMMITMENT TO COMMEMORATING THE ANZAC TRADITION
CA19/1178332
599/2020-21
17. A petition from residents, requesting Council rename Aloomba Street Park at 69 Suvla Street, Balmoral, as ‘Suvla Bay Park’, in recognition of the local residents’ strong commitment to commemorating the ANZAC tradition, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 3 December 2019, by Councillor Kara Cook, and received.
18. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
19. The petition contains eight signatures.
20. The request to rename the park is in in recognition of the local residents’ strong commitment to commemorating the ANZAC tradition.
21. Currently, Aloomba Street Park is not a formally named park. The name is taken from the longest street where the park is situated. Council will consider renaming Aloomba Street Park in accordance with Council’s OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities and Tracks Procedure.
Consultation
22. Councillor Kara Cook, Councillor for Morningside Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
23. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
24. RECOMMENDATION:
that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA19/1178332
Thank you for your petition requesting Council rename Aloomba Street Park at 69 Suvla Street, Balmoral, as ‘Suvla Bay Park’, in recognition of the local residents’ strong commitment to commemorating the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) tradition.
Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.
Currently, Aloomba Street Park is not a formally named park. The name is taken from the longest street where the park is situated. Council will consider renaming Aloomba Street Park in accordance with Council’s OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities and Tracks Procedure.
The above information will be forwarded to the other petitioners via email.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Brendon Whittaker, A/Regional Coordinator Parks, East Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 1477.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL A VOLLEYBALL COURT IN D.M. HENDERSON PARK, 434 MCCULLOUGH STREET, MACGREGOR
CA20/1447273
600/2020-21
25. A petition from residents, requesting Council install a volleyball court in D.M. Henderson Park, 434 McCullough Street, MacGregor, was received during the Summer Recess 2020-21.
26. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
27. The petition contains 26 signatures.
28. D.M. Henderson Park (the park) is situated along McCullough and Granadilla Streets, MacGregor, and supports multiple uses including:
- a rebound wall
- a dog off-leash area
- a playground
- a pump track
- a basketball half-court
- a car park
- toilets
- fitness equipment
- handball courts
- general recreational space.
29. The park is approximately 240,000 m² in size and consists of the following park classifications:
- District general outdoor sport (58%, approximately 140,000 m²)
- District general recreation (17%, approximately 41,000 m²)
- District nature conservation area (13%, approximately 33,000 m²)
- District access recreation corridor (10%, approximately 26,000 m²)
- general recreational space (1.7%, approximately 4,100 m2).
30. There are various community leased areas within the District general outdoor sport area and these are used by a number of community organisations, including Sunnybank Brass, Sunnybank Performing Arts and Cultural Centre (SunPAC), MacGregor Souths Cricket Club, Sunnybank Senior and Junior Rugby Union, MacGregor Netball Association and Sunnybank Community and Sports Club. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a map of the leased areas and park classifications of D.M. Henderson Park.
31. These various community organisations support various physical activities for all ages. As a result, the remaining available space within the park for general recreational activities is very limited.
32. Currently, there are seven existing volleyball courts available at the following parks:
- Solferino Place Park, The Gap
- Shaw Estate Park, Wavell Heights
- Keperra Picnic Ground Park, Ferny Grove
- D.J. Sherrington Park, Inala
- Brittain Park, Coopers Plains
- Kev Hooper Memorial Park, Inala
- Boyd Park, Nundah.
33. Of the existing volleyball courts, the closest is located at Brittain Park which is approximately 3.4 km from D.M. Henderson Park.
34. Due to this and the limited space available due to leased areas, Council does not support the installation of a volleyball court within D.M. Henderson Park.
Consultation
35. Councillor Steven Huang, Councillor for MacGregor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
36. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
37. RECOMMENDATION:
that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1447273
Thank you for your petition requesting Council install a volleyball court in D.M. Henderson Park, 434 McCullough Street, MacGregor.
Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.
Council recognises the benefits of being healthy and active and strives to find a balance for ongoing enjoyment for all park users.
Council currently leases several areas in D.M. Henderson Park to community organisations, such as Sunnybank Brass, Sunnybank Performing Arts and Cultural Centre (SunPAC), MacGregor Souths Cricket Club, Sunnybank Senior and Junior Rugby Union, MacGregor Netball Association and Sunnybank Community and Sports Club. These community organisations support various physical activities for all ages. As a result, the remaining available space within the park for general recreational activities is very limited.
Council currently has seven existing volleyball courts within Brisbane, with the closest being in Brittain Park, Coopers Plains, which is 3.4 km from D.M. Henderson Park. Due to this and the limited space available, Council does not support the installation of a volleyball court within D.M. Henderson Park.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Dayne Harkness, Regional Coordinator Parks, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0689.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: We will now move on to Community Standards, Health and Safety Committee.
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 Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 March 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I just want to—last week’s presentation was on the use of crumb rubber within the asphalt. It was a very useful information session that was held by Jamie, the Acting Manager for Asphalt and Aggregates. It was basically all about—as you were aware, Mr Deputy Chair, because you were there at the meeting—is that it’s the use of tyres. So, we crumb tyres, that’s kind of the not-so-technical term, and put it into rubber asphalt. Anyway, it’s recycling tyres, and it was a good presentation. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: It was a fantastic presentation.
Further speakers?
There being none, Councillor MARX? No?
We’ll 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 – CRUMB RUBBER IN ASPHALT
601/2020-21
1. The A/Manager, Asphalt and Aggregates, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on crumb rubber in asphalt. He provided the information below.
2. Old processing technology to produce and blend crumb rubber with bitumen relied on high temperatures or use of flammable cutting agents to be able to produce asphalt with crumbed rubber. Highly modified asphalt mixes have been expensive and difficult to produce. Improvements in processing technology has overcome some of these constraints. Over the past five years, there has been an increase in the use of crumb rubber in bitumen sealing, with research into its use in asphalt across Australia progressing quickly. Council is focusing on the use of crumbed rubber on low-traffic roads.
3. Used tyres are being stockpiled and create a safety and environmental hazard. The addition of rubber to asphalt can improve the performance of road surfaces, and by developing products that use recycled materials, Council can assist in reducing landfill. Council commenced using crumb rubber modifiers instead of polymer modifiers in bitumen seals in 2014.
4. Tyre Stewardship Australia (TSA) aims to enhance outcomes associated with the disposal of end-of-life tyres. A key priority for TSA is to facilitate the development of markets for Australian tyre-derived product. Council has been involved in a TSA funded project with Australian Road Research Board to research the use of crumb rubber asphalt for local government use and received a grant from TSA for plant modifications to enable the use of crumb rubber binders at Council’s Eagle Farm asphalt plant.
5. The first field trial was undertaken in February 2021 using five per cent rubber on a low-traffic road, with further validation testing underway. The validation testing is to demonstrate a minor reduction in surface cracking and reduced aging of bitumen, which will extend the surface life. Further trials are proposed on medium density traffic roads, with higher levels of cracking, using between 10 and 15% of rubber, to stop ‘reflective’ block cracking from concrete or cement treated pavements.
6. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the A/Manager for his informative presentation.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: We will now move on to Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee meeting.
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 March 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. Just before moving to the Committee report, I would like to mention that Councillor CASSIDY and I attended the Crime Stoppers Volunteers Dinner on Saturday night. It was a very enjoyable event, and I just want to put on the record, I think on behalf of both Councillor CASSIDY and I, just how much we appreciate the volunteer hours that go into Crime Stoppers. I know that it’s Councillor MARX’s portfolio that supports Crime Stoppers and what they do, and I would just like to encourage—and we did have this conversation on Saturday night—I’d like to encourage every Councillor in the Chamber to get in touch with their local Crime Stoppers community group, because they do do a fantastic job.
We’re going to—I’m going to have a chat with Councillor MARX and Councillor CASSIDY and we’re going to see if we can maybe just do a little bit more to support the wonderful work that they do. So, it was a great evening and I think that it’s worthy of us mentioning that. There is, of course, lots of things happening in our Community, Arts and Nighttime portfolio, but particularly last week, we enjoyed a presentation from our Brisbane Greeters, and I know that Councillor CUMMING and Councillor LANDERS and Councillor TOOMEY and Councillor MACKAY all enjoyed exploring our fantastic city with a Greeters’ walk.
We split up into two groups and the group that I was with ended up at the Brisbane Arcade, which is just an amazing part of the city. While we were there, an elderly gentleman tapped our Greeter on the shoulder and said, see that chap in that photo—which was James Mayne—my father worked with him as a doctor. I think they’re the sorts of things that our Greeters are constantly telling us when they’re out and about, that they have people right across Brisbane coming up and sharing their stories and making sure that particular storytelling aspect of what they do is alive and well.
I know this morning, I think we had the Brisbane Greeters out at the Walter Taylor Bridge. Is that right—through you, Mr Chair—I know Councillor MACKAY was even saying that perhaps we could have the ward office located in there.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HOWARD: So there’s all sorts of things that we might put on the record, but can I just say that it was a fantastic way for the Committee to understand what it is that Brisbane Greeters do, and I just want to commend the report to the Chamber. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor HOWARD.
I know I found an angry Yoda in Burnett Lane, so that was a great Committee presentation.
Any further speakers?
There being none. I’ll now put the report.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE GREETERS
602/2020-21
1. The A/Inclusive Communities Manager, Connected Communities, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to introduce the Committee to Rob and Anne-Marie, two of Brisbane’s Greeters, who provided the information below.
2. The Committee was taken on tours through Brisbane City which visited sites including King George Square, Burnett Lane, George Street and Adelaide Street.
3. The Brisbane Greeters highlighted Brisbane’s signature mix of original and modern buildings that can be seen throughout the city.
4. The Committee was shown an array of public art that features in Brisbane City’s laneways and streets including art pieces by the Blue Art Xinja in Burnett Lane, and Australian animal sculptures on George Street.
5. The Brisbane Greeters also shared with the Committee the rich history of some of the sites visited as part of the tour.
6. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the A/Inclusive Communities Manager and the Brisbane Greeters for their informative presentation.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: We’ll move on to Finance.
Councillor ALLAN.
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE
Councillor Adam ALLAN, Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 9 March 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I did touch upon the Committee presentation in Question Time today, so I won’t delve too much into the presentation itself. However, I did encourage people, particularly if you’re in a location where you’re potentially subject to flooding or potentially bushfire, to prepare an emergency plan. Now, on the Brisbane City Council website, there’s some very good information around emergency kits and, particularly, a checklist to help you determine what goes into your emergency kit.
Potentially even better is an online plan that can be completed on the Get Ready Queensland website, which is at getready..au. As I mentioned, it’s an online tool that can be completed online and then printed off, and I’ll leave further debate to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Further speakers?
There being none, Councillor ALLAN?
I’ll now put the report.
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 – PERSONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN
603/2020-21
1. The Manager, Disaster Management, City Administration and Governance, attended the meeting to provide an update on personal disaster management plans and family emergency kits. He provided the information below.
2. Personal disaster management plans are the individual responsibility of residents to help to prepare themselves, their families, and their homes for the potential threat of a natural disaster in Brisbane. It involves:
- knowing individual risk/s
- having a plan – who to contact, where to go and how to get there
- having an emergency kit.
3. The Committee was shown an example of a household emergency and evacuation plan.
4. Emergency kits should consist of essential personal items which would be required in the event of evacuation. It is recommended that residents prepare to survive three days in isolation and consider children, pets and special conditions. Disaster Management, City Administration and Governance, provides a display of example emergency kits at engagement events which includes:
- non-perishable food
- a first aid kit
- a tarpaulin
- rope
- batteries
- a torch
- a water bottle
- sunscreen
- sealable, waterproof bags
- gloves.
5. Council’s approach to promoting Brisbane’s disaster preparedness is to:
- target community engagement
- advertise for a broad reach
- utilise Council publication channels.
6. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager, Disaster Management, for his informative presentation.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Deputy Chair: Councillors, are there any petitions?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Yes, I have a petition regarding a proposed dog off-leash area in James Warner Park at Kangaroo Point.
Deputy Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks, Deputy Chair. I have a petition of over 2,200 local residents requesting Council name the new playground on the Sandgate Foreshore Peebo and Dagwood Place.
Deputy Chair: Councillor MACKAY.
Councillor MACKAY: Thanks, Acting Chair. I have another petition requesting Council provide a grove of native trees and name a place in Anzac Park, Toowong, as the National Defence Chaplains Memorial Grove.
Deputy Chair: Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I think I have the same petition as Councillor CUNNINGHAM regarding a dog off-leash area in James Warner Park.
Deputy Chair: Councillor LANDERS, can I have a motion please?
Councillor CUMMING: Sorry.
Deputy Chair: Oh sorry, I didn’t see you behind Councillor SRI there.
Councillor CUMMING: Oh, thank you. I have a petition requesting Council construct a boardwalk with access to water on the Wynnum Manly Esplanade.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor LANDERS?
604/2020-21
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 |
|CA21/280530 |Fiona Cunningham |Requesting Council not construct the proposed dog off-leash area in James |
| | |Warner Park, Kangaroo Point, and install park benches and more plantings. |
|CA21/280435 |Jared Cassidy |Requesting Council name the new playground in Sandgate Foreshores Park at the |
| | |end of Fifth Avenue, Sandgate, as ‘Peebo and Dagwood Place’. |
|CA21/280301 |James Mackay |Requesting Council provide a grove of native trees and name a place in Anzac |
| | |Park, Toowong, as ‘The National Defence Chaplains’ Memorial Grove’. |
|CA21/280530 |Jonathan Sri |Requesting Council not construct the proposed dog off-leash area in James |
| | |Warner Park, Kangaroo Point, and install park benches and more plantings. |
|CA21/280383 |Peter Cumming |Requesting Council construct a boardwalk with access to the water along Royal |
| | |Esplanade, Manly. |
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Deputy Chair: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of—I’ll start again. Councillors, are there any—
Councillor interjecting.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor CUMMING.
Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of the Office of the Independent Assessor or Councillor Ethics Committee order?
There’s no one standing.
Councillors, is there any General Business?
Councillor ADERMANN.
Councillor ADERMANN: Yes, thank you, Chair. I rise to speak about the achievements of the Schrinner Council Administration in the Pullenvale Ward during the past 12 months. In doing so, I want to say it’s an honour and a privilege to be part of a team that is delivering key infrastructure and projects across all of Brisbane during what has been a difficult and challenging 12 months. This Administration understands the importance of delivering key projects, while at the same time being responsible in how it spends ratepayers’ money. It is even more important going forward how we showcase Brisbane to the world ahead of most likely hosting the 2032 Olympic Games.
Before listing highlights from my ward, I want to thank the LORD MAYOR for his favourable consideration of my budget requests. I understand that he has an entire city to consider, but my community appreciates everything that he has done to ensure the western suburbs remain an in-demand, safe place to live and raise a family. My big three ticket items in last year’s budget have all been delivered. The first was an allocation of $2.6 million to address a longstanding Brisbane River erosion problem, impacting properties of residents at Illawong Way, Karana Downs. My concern was that, if this had been delayed for another 12 months, a number of properties would have been lost forever.
The second was the implementation of a trial personalised public transport service for Bellbowrie and Moggill residents, and third was the commitment of more than half a million dollars to address the worst section of the very busy Kenmore Road. There is still more to go, but this was a very good start. Probably the most popular has been the delivery of the learn-to-ride bike facility at Kangaroo Gully Road Park. The new facilities at Considen Place Park have not been far behind. More than $5 million were spent on enhancements at Mt Coot-tha and the Botanic Gardens.
I committed $150,000 from my Suburban Enhancement Fund to progress our election commitment to deliver a new skate bowl at Booker Place Park, Bellbowrie. A further $150,000 was spent on the delivery of new kerbing and channelling and parking to help improve safety around the Pullenvale State School. While on the subject of road safety, and in conjunction with my colleague, Councillor MACKAY, we listened to our shared community and delivered a speed reduction to 50 kilometres per hour on Chapel Hill Road. More than $2.2 million has been spent on resurfacing 25 local roads in the Pullenvale Ward.
The community garden and composting hub at Karana Downs, to which I committed $50,000, will be officially opened next month, much to the delight of that community. Lighting has been installed at the Bellbowrie dog off-leash park this month, while users at the Merri Merri DOLA (dog off-leash area) appreciate their new modern shelter. I know the Moggill Girl Guides are overjoyed with the work Council has undertaken to repair their hut and fix drainage issues there, and more than $90,000 in the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 grant funding was approved for 11 local community and sporting groups at a time when they needed it the most.
Council continued to support events and the facilities of the Brookfield Showground during the year, which is the perfect segue to remind the Chamber that the best little show in Brisbane returns bigger and better in 2021. The 110th Brookfield Show will be held from 16 May, and I encourage all Councillors to come along and experience this unique event. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor ADERMANN.
Are there further speakers?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. I rise today to commend the work this Council has done to deliver some incredible projects for the northside and in Marchant Ward in the 2021 financial year. This financial year has been a year of delivery for Brisbane. We have seen significant improvements in our parks, our roads, footpaths, and importantly, a continued commitment to support our local community groups, who we all know we’ve worked so closely with, notwithstanding the State Labor Government’s attempt to try and limit the support that we provide to these hardworking volunteers in all of our communities.
The 2021 year saw the completion and delivery of some of the most sought-after infrastructure improvements, in not just the Marchant Ward, but for the whole of the northside. The Marchant and Ellison Road intersection upgrade was an enormous Council project that has cleared up what was one of the most choked and congested roundabouts on the northside. Now, commuters have a clear run through that is much safer and faster, but it doesn’t just benefit drivers. Like so many of our infrastructure projects in Brisbane, this upgrade has been praised by cyclists and pedestrians, who now have more access to this major arterial route and are able to safely navigate the intersection, due to the inclusion of bike lanes and pedestrian crossings, which did not exist before.
As many of you will know, I fought hard with my fellow Councillor, Councillor WINES, for the upgrade of the Raymont-Grange Road intersection, and most recently, the Lutwyche Road and Maygar Street intersection upgrade. These were both vital projects to ensure that locals can get home to their families and friends quicker and safer. But Chair, the people of Brisbane already know that the Schrinner Administration builds better roads and that we are investing and creating more greenspace and more accessible and with much better amenities.
Now, today certainly isn’t the first time and definitely—sorry to the Chamber—will not be the last time that I speak about the incredible work that Brisbane City Council and this Administration is doing in Bradbury Park, right in the middle of Marchant Ward. The Magic Forest and the scooter park that were built in Stage 1 have been a massive hit with the community, and has turned out what used to be a once-barren space into a draw card for residents on the northside.
We’re not stopping there. Stage 2 will see one of the most incredible new play spaces in Brisbane, with plenty of space for our kids to play on and climb over, as well as the improved barbecue facilities and new toilet block. My local communities have been asking for this project or a project like this in our park for some years, and I’m so excited that this Administration is able to deliver such incredible amenities in our suburbs, so that families not only want to come, but want to stay here.
That’s not where we’re stopping. I was really excited that, in this financial year, we were able to deliver a much-needed toilet block at Bradshaw Park in Lutwyche. This is not only a vital piece of infrastructure in Lutwyche for park users, but it’s also in the immediate proximity to the Kedron Brook dog off-leash area and the Kedron Brook Bikeway, and is very exciting for a new park on the northside which I spoke about last week, the Chalk Street Park. After my speech last week, I’ve had many phone calls from my residents who are delighted that they switched on to give me some suggestions for the name.
This year has not been just about delivering big, flashy projects. It’s been working with the local community to deliver small but necessary projects in the ward, and have gone on to benefit the public amenity in our suburbs. This financial year, the Administration has delivered footpaths in Bramcote Street, Swan Street, Broughton Road, Dandaloo Street, Ashworth Street, Barokee Street, Wilgarning Street, Curwen Terrace, as well as a safer path for seniors in the Rode service road. We have also completed many road resurfacings across the ward, too, a massive commitment in our community and our local suburbs.
I was also really excited that we’ve improved safety by introducing a new school zone with Councillor DAVIS at Queen of Apostles, so that our local schools can get to school safer. I was also proud to deliver a small park bench at the top of the stairs at Caratel Street, Stafford Heights. For those of you—when I was very, very fit, I used to run up these stairs, but residents have asked for many years to have a breathing space, a chair put up at the top of a very steep flight of stairs, and I’m delighted that this has been installed.
Chair, this financial year has been about delivery, and I’m so proud to be part of this Administration, who believes in investing in our suburbs like never before. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND.
Are there further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I rise to speak really briefly about living on the river, and I thought I’d do this because it’s perhaps a point of interest to some Councillors, but also, I wanted to draw attention to what I think is an important part of Brisbane culture, and arguably history, and make visible this group of residents who have been a part of the city for a long time, but perhaps don’t get a lot of attention. I’m particularly conscious of this in a context where there’s the possibility that the new Kangaroo Point Bridge might end up displacing some river residents, and also in a context where we’re seeing more pressure from perhaps wealthier residents who live in riverfront properties who have concerns about people living on the river itself.
So, for the benefit of the Chamber, I’d estimate at the moment that there are probably about 400 to 500 residents living on the river in one form or another at one location or another. It’s actually really difficult to get any accurate data on this. River dwellers aren’t counted easily in censuses and tend to move around a lot, but when you add up the various marinas, people who are free-anchoring in the various creeks, people who are free-anchoring in the river itself, and then the registered moorings, it’s several hundred people who are living in boats and barges, et cetera. That’s not an insignificant part of the city, and in fact, people have been living on the river for decades, if not since the early years of the invasion.
Most people who live on the river are very mindful of sustainability and their environmental impacts. Owners will talk to you with a lot of pride about the various systems they have for compost toilets and making sure sewage doesn’t end up in the waterway and all that sort of stuff. It’s interesting, actually, because the river residents in some senses are a bit critical of residents who live on land because, for most residents who live on land, at some point or another, their sewerage ends up in the waterway because Brisbane’s sewage treatment plants tend to overflow a bit during very heavy rains, whereas actually, the sewage treatment plant systems or the waste systems on boats tend to be a bit more secure than that.
As someone who lives on a boat myself, I live off rainwater which means that during dry periods, we have to be very, very careful about how much water we use. I think last estimate, we’re each using about 10 litres a day, which means very, very short showers, but it also makes you much more aware of the impact you’re having on resources in the city. We live off solar power. Most boat residents these days are living off a mixture of solar power and some might have generators that they use occasionally, but there’s a really strong community of people who live on the river, who look out for each other, who watch people’s vessels when they go away, who make sure vessels are tied down and secured if they don’t look safe.
I think that community of mutual support and aid is something that’s quite special about river life, and that perhaps a lot of residents who live in other contexts maybe miss out on. The sense of community and camaraderie among river residents is really, really strong, and I think is something special that perhaps deserves to be celebrated a little bit. During severe disasters like the floods, the response from that community of river dwellers is very strong. Some people just rise and fall with the water. They remain anchored in place or tied in place, and just watch as the waters rise and fall beneath them, while other residents might relocate to safer waterways or even out to the bay.
The overwhelming sense of camaraderie, though, I think is something that for me, I really enjoy while living on the river, and something that I hope can be a little bit contagious in the city and that other people can get to experience from time to time. When you’re on the river, you’re certainly much more aware of the cycles of the tide and the cycles of the natural environment, and particularly of the river life. We’re very lucky in Brisbane that our river, compared to some cities, is in reasonably good health, but is certainly a lot dirtier than it could be.
It would be nice to see Council, for example, doing a little bit more to control the amount of erosion and sediment run-off from construction sites that ends up in the river, and same goes for the State Government and other stakeholders. It would also be nice to see a little bit more energy and attention paid to the sewerage outflows that sometimes occur from Queensland Urban Utilities and other stakeholders, where partially treated or untreated sewerage ends up washing into the river, which is a great shame.
On the stretch of the waterway that I live on, we see blue kingfishers, we see a wide range of herons and egrets and fishing birds. We see ducks and further up, someone even keeps a couple of geese that go for a swim along the water at times. Our boat, we’ve had possums, both brushtails and ringtails, visit the boat fairly regularly, which is a big frustration for me because I’m trying to grow veggies on the rooftop and they keep coming and eating my basil. We had a carpet python visit the other day and I had to very carefully encourage it to leave. We have also had quite a few birds that come and nest their and raise their chicks in a nest on the roof of the boat.
It’s quite a joy and a pleasure to be able to live so close to nature, but again, it makes me really wired and frustrated when we see so much pressure in terms of development and new projects that take away mangroves, that take away those safe fish habitats and those vegetated corridors along the river where birds and reptiles nest. We’ve seen a couple of native water rats moving along the water’s edge at time to time. The kuril is the local Aboriginal name, and that’s where the place name Kurilpa comes from.
It’s really amazing to see those native water rats in their native habitat and to see them darting around, chasing small fish and chasing mud crabs in the shallows, but again, their habitat is under threat because we continue to see so much clearing and destruction of mangroves and other riverside vegetation. I really just wanted the Administration and Councillors in this place to understand that people do live on the river and that it’s actually more common than you might realise. Some people have been living on the river for 30 or 40 years in the same vessel, in more or less the same location.
While there might be a little bit of resentment sometimes towards some river dwellers, it’s important to understand that they have made a choice, but it also comes with a lot of responsibilities. Living on the river, you have to obviously invest a lot in the vessel to begin with and then also in maintaining it. It’s quite a lot of work, and so people who spend that time and energy, although they might not be spending as much money as you might spend on a house, there’s still a significant cost involved.
So when decision-makers might decide, for example, that we’re going to make a policy change or introduce a project that displaces some river residents, that decision should be made with the same gravity and seriousness that we would make about displacing people from land-based homes. People who live on the river are often just as permanent in their housing situation and have just as much a right to live there long-term as people in other housing situations, and I think that’s particularly important to remain mindful of when there are so many major projects happening around our area.
I’ve extended this offer before, but if anyone’s really keen, I might be willing to invite you round for a cuppa sometime to my place, but depending on the tide, you perhaps would get your feet wet because when it’s high tide, you kind of have to wade through it at knee depth to get onto the boat. That’s really your only option, unless you feel like jumping into a kayak. Even getting into the kayak’s a bit hard without getting muddy, I must say. So I’ll leave that offer open and maybe I’ll see you on the river sometime. Thanks.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor.
Are there any further speakers?
Councillor DAVIS.
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Deputy Chair. I rise to share with the Chamber some of the fantastic upgrades and investments in new infrastructure delivered by the Schrinner Administration over the past 12 months in the McDowall Ward. This is an Administration that listens to residents and delivers for our community, and to that end, I’m pleased that, as a result of resident feedback and support, a suite of new footpaths have been installed in the McDowall Ward. The new footpath locations include along Pie and Dugald Streets in Aspley, missing links along Albany Creek Road, Majestic Street and Leong Street in Bridgeman Downs, Boulting Street in McDowall, Stellmach Street in Everton Park, and Matthews and Sheehy Streets in Stafford.
Construction will also shortly commence on a new pedestrian culvert over Cabbage Tree Creek and Idonia Street in Bridgeman Downs, which will connect to the extensive footpath network in Coolabah Crescent Park and beyond to McDowall, Aspley and the Chermside Hills Reserve. Works had been completed on the replacement bridge projects for Shelgate Street bridge in Chermside West and the Tallowwood Place bridge in Bridgeman Downs, which delivered safer, wider crossings across Downfall Creek and Cabbage Tree Creek, respectively.
We are continuing to invest in upgrading our playgrounds for local families to enjoy our wonderful outdoor greenspaces even more. New toddler equipment has been installed in Ben Lomond Street Park. The play equipment in Flametree Street Park has been upgraded, and a new shade structure has been installed over Margaret Street Park. The basketball court in Teralba Park has been upgraded and a new barbecue and shelter has been installed in Melaleuca Green Park in Chermside West.
There are further enhancements to come soon in Dr Valentine Park, Flockton Street Park, Solar Park, and Beckett Road Park. We’ve also made sure that we’re working to keep children and families safe with a new school zone at Queen of Apostles Primary School in Stafford, and I was delighted to work with Councillor HAMMOND and the school community on this very important project. More recently, new permanent speed awareness monitors have been installed in McDowall State School on busy Rode Road.
Four-legged family members haven’t been forgotten, either, with upgraded lighting in Teralba Park and the upcoming installation of lights at Grey Gum Park dog off-leash area to enhance these well-loved spaces. I’m excited that the upgrade to the Milne Hill Point lookout is underway and planning on the new Everton Park Library will continue to progress. Despite everything that our city has endured in the past year, the Schrinner Administration will continue to work hard to make the Brisbane of tomorrow even better than the Brisbane of today, and I look forward to working alongside the residents of McDowall Ward to make our wonderful part of Brisbane an even better place to live, work and raise a family.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor.
Are there any further items of General Business? No?
Can I thank the Councillors on the Opposition benches, Councillor STRUNK and Councillor SRI, for holding the fort?
I declare the meeting closed.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 11 March 2021
Q1. Please list all open footpath maintenance works (identified but not yet completed), including the total length of footpath in that street:
|STREET |SUBURB |TOTAL LENGTH OF FOOTPATH |WARD |
| | | | |
Q2. Please provide a cost estimate for the completion of all open footpath maintenance works (identified but not yet completed)?
Q3. Please provide the total number of Council employees, with a breakdown of the number of female employees and male employees?
|FEMALE EMPLOYEES |MALE EMPLOYEES |TOTAL |
| | | |
Q4. Please provide the total number of Council employees, with a breakdown of the number of male employees and female employees by Council Division?
|COUNCIL DIVISION |FEMALE EMPLOYEES |MALE EMPLOYEES |TOTAL |
|Brisbane Infrastructure | | | |
|City Administration and | | | |
|Governance | | | |
|City Planning and | | | |
|Sustainability | | | |
|Lifestyle and Community | | | |
|Services | | | |
|Organisational Services | | | |
|Transport for Brisbane | | | |
Q5. Please provide the average annual earnings of Council employees, with a breakdown of the number of female employees and male employees?
|FEMALE EMPLOYEES |MALE EMPLOYEES |TOTAL |
| | | |
Q6. Please provide the annual average earnings of Council employees, with a breakdown of the number of male employees and female employees by Council Division?
|COUNCIL DIVISION |FEMALE EMPLOYEES |MALE EMPLOYEES |TOTAL |
|Brisbane Infrastructure | | | |
|City Administration and | | | |
|Governance | | | |
|City Planning and | | | |
|Sustainability | | | |
|Lifestyle and Community | | | |
|Services | | | |
|Organisational Services | | | |
|Transport for Brisbane | | | |
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 March 2021)
Q1. What are the costs incurred by Brisbane City Council in establishing a new property within the general rates program?
A1. There is no average cost associated with establishing a new property within Council’s general rates.
Costs are incurred through the following tasks in establishing a new rates account:
• Creating the location in Council’s Coreland system
• Adding the location and real property description
• Defining a lot – including widths, areas, frontages
• Linking a lot to part of a subdivision and cancelling lots
• Attaching the ownership once confirmed with the Department of Resources
• Creating the Revenue Information Management System account
• Requesting values from the Department of Resources
• Applying values to the account
• Apply ownership changes and other attributes to the lot
• Undertaking inspections if required
• Preparing the Rate bill
• Applying eligible rebates – such as Pensioner Rebate, First Home Owner Rebate
• Applying eligible exemptions – such as Rates Account and Services Establishment Fee if applicable.
Q2. What are the costs incurred by Brisbane City Council in transferring an owner from one property to another property?
A2. The Rates Account and Services Establishment Fee covers the cost of establishing a new rate account for a transferred property. While some property transfers are more complex, a fixed fee of $195.20 represents the average cost to Council.
Q3. How long does the task take for a Brisbane City Council staff member to change the owner of a property to another property in the rates system?
A3. The time required to perform these activities varies considerably depending on the complexity of the transfer.
Q4. Does the Brisbane City Council computer system automatically detect a new property owner in the system or is this information manually entered by a staff member?
A4. Council receives data files from the Department of Resources on a daily basis containing details of property transfers that have occurred within Brisbane City. While this information is received electronically, a staff member must verify each record and perform all required actions for each transfer to manually update the rate account into the new owner’s name. This is because an ownership transfer can apply to a person or an organisation and be applied as a full or part transfer. Each combination requires a different action to accurately maintain the rate account.
Q5. Please provide the average annual rates bill and average percentage increases for Category 1 – Residential Owner Occupied properties for each of the following years, excluding water and sewerage charges:-
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES BILL |AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE (%) |
|2004/05 | | |
|2005/06 | | |
|2006/07 | | |
|2007/08 | | |
|2008/09 | | |
|2009/10 | | |
A5.
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES BILL |AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE (%) |
|2004/05 |$993.16 |1.5% |
|2005/06 |$1,035.64 |4.3% |
|2006/07 |$1,071.18 |3.4% |
|2007/08 |$1,097.38 |2.5% |
|2008/09 |$1,228.88 |5.4%* |
|2009/10 |$1,285.41 |4.6% |
*Please note, on 1 January 2009, Category 10 – Owner-occupied residential (Community Title Scheme) was introduced, which resulted in some properties being moved from Category 1 to Category 10. The calculation for the 2008/09 Average Annual Increase (%) has been calculated to include these Category 10 properties.
RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.17pm.
PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED
CHAIR
Council officers in attendance:
Victor Tan (Council and Committee Coordinator)
Katie Loader (A/Council and Committee Officer)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
-----------------------
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- table of common cardiac medications
- mbti table of personality types
- time table of examination 2019
- complete table of values calculator
- table of values equation calculator
- table of values generator
- graph table of values calculator
- linear equation table of values
- table of standard scores and percentiles
- table of derivatives pdf
- table of integrals exponential functions
- table of exponential integrals