REPORT

coordination committee meeting

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

The Council Chambers

35 Bloomfield Street

CLEVELAND QLD

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Item                                                           Subject                                                    Page No

 

1......... declaration of opening

2......... Record of Attendance and Leave of Absence

3......... Declaration of Material Personal Interest or conflict of interest on any Items of Business

4......... motion to alter the order of business

5......... portfolio 7 (cr JULIE TALTY)  PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

5.1         community and customer services

5.1.1     MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 8, 16 AND 21 AT BARRO QUARRY, 1513 AND 1515-1521 MOUNT COTTON ROAD AND 163-177 AND 195 GRAMZOW ROAD, MOUNT COTTON

6......... portfolio 2 (mayor karen williams)  (Supported by Deputy Mayor Cr Beard)  economic development, governance, service delivery, regulations and emergency management

6.1         ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES

6.1.1     COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

6.1.2     ADOPTION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN 2013/14

7......... portfolio 4 (cr KIM-MAREE HARDMAN)  COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES (WATER, WASTE, RPAC ETC)

7.1         INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

7.1.1     DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS FROM THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

7.1.2     EXTENSION OF SEWERAGE IN DUNWICH

8......... portfolio 5 (cr LANCE HEWLETT)  OPEN SPACE, SPORT AND RECREATION

8.1         COMMUNITY AND CUSTOMER SERVICES

8.1.1     LIONS BOULEVARD PARK (SANDY BEACH) RUSSELL ISLAND

9......... portfolio 6 (cr MARK EDWARDS)  CORPORATE SERVICES

9.1         OFFICE OF CEO

9.1.1     THIRD QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW 2012/2013.

9.1.2     DECISIONS MADE UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR CATEGORY 1, 2 AND 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

9.1.3     APPEALS LIST - CURRENT AS AT 20 MAY, 2013

10....... portfolio 8 (cr MURRAY ELLIOTT)  INFRASTRUCTURE

10.1       infrastructure and operations

10.1.1   TOONDAH HARBOUR - ADDITIONAL PEAK PARKING AT 233 MIDDLE STREET, CLEVELAND

11....... closed session

portfolio 2 (mayor karen williams) (Supported by Deputy Mayor Cr Beard)  economic development, governance, service delivery, regulations and emergency management

11.1       ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES

11.1.1   SPONSORSHIP APPLICATIONS - 2013 REDFEST

portfolio 7 (cr JULIE TALTY) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

11.2       community & customer services

11.2.1   AUSBUILD – DAPR OWLS PILOT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SOUTH EAST THORNLANDS CENTRAL PRECINCT - Infrastructure Charging Agreement (Prior to Submission of Application)

12....... MEETING CLOSURE

 

 

 

 

The Mayor is the Chair of the Coordination Committee.  Coordination Committee meetings comprise of Portfolios chaired by Council’s nominated spokesperson for that portfolio as follows:

PORTFOLIO

SPOKESPERSON

1.      Community & Environmental Health and Wellbeing; Animal Management; Compliance & Regulatory Services

Cr Wendy Boglary

2.      Economic Development, Governance, Service Delivery, Regulations and Emergency Management

Mayor Karen Williams
supported by the Deputy Mayor Alan Beard

3.      Tourism and CBD Activation

Cr Craig Ogilvie

4.      Commercial Enterprises (Water, Waste, RPAC, etc)

Cr Kim-Maree Hardman

5.      Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Cr Lance Hewlett

6.      Corporate Services

Cr Mark Edwards

7.      Planning and Development

Cr Julie Talty

8.      Infrastructure

Cr Murray Elliott

9.      Environment; Waterways and Foreshores

Cr Paul Gleeson

10.   Arts, Culture and Innovation

Cr Paul Bishop

 

1             declaration of opening

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 11.50am

 

2             Record of Attendance and Leave of Absence

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Cr K Williams                       Mayor

Cr A Beard                            Deputy Mayor & Councillor Division 8

Cr W Boglary                        Councillor Division 1

Cr C Ogilvie                          Councillor Division 2

Cr K Hardman                      Councillor Division 3

Cr L Hewlett                         Councillor Division 4

Cr M Edwards                      Councillor Division 5

Cr J Talty                               Councillor Division 6

Cr M Elliott                            Councillor Division 7

Cr P Gleeson                       Councillor Division 9

Cr P Bishop                          Councillor Division 10

 

EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP:

Mr B Lyon                             Chief Executive Officer

Mr N Clarke                          General Manager Organisational Services

Mrs L Rusan                        General Manager Community & Customer Services

Mr G Soutar                          General Manager Infrastructure & Operations

Mr G Holdway                      Chief Financial Officer

 

MINUTES:

Mrs E Striplin                       Corporate Meetings & Registers Officer

 

3             Declaration of Material Personal Interest or conflict of interest on any Items of Business

Cr Edwards declared a conflict of interest in Item 9.1.1 Material Change of Use for Extractive Industry and Environmentally Relevant Activities 8, 16 and 21 at Barro Quarry, 1513 and 1515-1521 Mount Cotton Road and 163-177 and 195 Gramzow Road, Mount Cotton (see item for details)

 

Mayor Williams declared a conflict of interest in Item 11.2.1 Ausbuild – DAPR OWLS Pilot Project Development within the Southeast Thornlands Central Precinct – Infrastructure Charging Agreement (Prior to Submission of Application) (see item for details)

 

4             motion to alter the order of business

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved by:                Cr W Boglary
Seconded by:          Cr J Talty

That the order of business be altered to discuss Item 9.1.1 (as listed in the Agenda) as Item 5.1.1

CARRIED      11/0

COUNCILLOR ABSENCES DURING MEETING

Cr Edwards left the meeting at 11.51pm (at the beginning of Item 5.1.1) and returned at 12.11pm after Item 5.1.1 was voted on.

Cr Ogilvie left the meeting at 12.22pm (during Item 8.1.1) and returned at 12.25pm (during Item 9.1.2)

Cr Williams left the meeting at 12.28pm (during closed session) and returned at 12.50pm after Item 11.2.1 was voted on.

 

Cr Edwards declared a conflict of interest in the following item, stating that his daughter was involved in the State Approval Process, as a Town Planner. 

 

Cr Edwards chose to leave the meeting and not vote on the matter.

 

5             portfolio 7                                                                             (cr JULIE TALTY)

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

5.1         community and customer services

5.1.1    MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 8, 16 AND 21 AT BARRO QUARRY, 1513 AND 1515-1521 MOUNT COTTON ROAD AND 163-177 AND 195 GRAMZOW ROAD, MOUNT COTTON

Dataworks Filename:                 MCU012421

Attachments:                               Locality Maps and Plans [PDF 1.07MB]
Assessment under Section 314 of SPA
[PDF 10KB]
Summary of Submissions
[PDF 19KB]

Authorising Officer:                    Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\Electronic Signature - Louise_Rusan.JPG
Louise Rusan
General Manager, Community and Customer Services

Responsible Officer:                  Bruce Macnee
Group Manager, Development Assessment

Author:                                           Chris Vize
Senior Planner, Design and Co-ordination

Purpose

Application Type

Impact Assessment

Proposed Use

Extractive Industry and Environmentally Relevant Activities 8, 16 & 21

Property Description

Lot 1 RP 108970, Lot 162 S 31962, Lot 370 S 311071, Lot 17 RP 108970, Lot 238 SP 218968

Location

1513 & 1515-1521 Mount Cotton Road and 163-177 & 195 Gramzow Road, Mount Cotton

Land Area

240.5 hectares

Zoning

Conservation

Environmental Protection

Rural Non-Urban

Designated Community Infrastructure

N/A

Overlays

Bushfire Hazard Overlay

Bushland Habitat Overlay

Extractive Resources Overlay

Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained Land Overlay

Landslide Hazard Overlay

Protection of the Poultry Industry Overlay

Road and Rail Noise Impact Overlay

State Koala Policy Overlay

Water Supply Catchment Overlay

Waterways Wetlands and Moreton Bay Overlay

SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031 - Land Use Category

Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area

No. of Public Submissions

1139 properly made submissions

85 not properly made submissions

Applicant

Barro Group Pty Ltd

Land Owner

Barro Group Pty Ltd

Properly Made Date

02/02/2011

Start Decision Stage

16/12/2012

Statutory Decision Date

06/06/2013

Application Coordinator

Chris Vize

Manager

Bruce Macnee

Officer’s Recommendation

Development Permit Approval

 

This Category 4 application is referred to the Coordination Committee for determination.

The development application involves a large extension of the existing quarrying operations on the site.  The extension is to the south-west of the existing quarry and is proposed to be developed in four stages, which progressively expand in a westerly direction.    The meta-greywacke resource that is proposed to be quarried is identified as being a Key Resource Area in the SPP2/07 – State Planning Policy for Protection of Extractive Resources.

The application demonstrates that the development, subject to conditions and operational restrictions, will meet all policy requirements, including air quality, noise, stormwater management and flooding, land stability, visual amenity and ecological outcomes.

It is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

Background

The applicant identifies that the existing quartzite quarry was established in the 1960’s.  A planning application to extend the quarry, similar to that proposed in the current application, was lodged in 2006.  On 20 November 2007 the application was refused by the Development Assessment Committee.  An appeal against this decision was filed in the Planning and Environment Court by the applicant (Appeal No. 3438 of 2007).  The appeal was struck out on 12 June 2009, as it was determined by the Court that the application was not “properly made”, as it did not contain resource entitlement for use of Gramzow Road, which bisects the site.

Issues

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL & SITE DESCRIPTION

Proposal

The application is for a Material Change of Use for Extractive Industry and Environmentally Relevant Activities 8 (Chemical Storage), 16 (Extractive and Screening Activities) and 21 (Motor Vehicle Workshop Operation).  The proposal is to significantly expand the existing quarrying activities on the site to the south-west of the existing quarry pit.  The new quarry area will extract meta-greywacke resource, which is processed to produce various materials extensively used in the building and construction industries.

The existing quarry pit currently contains the processing plant (crushing, screening and blending operations) and administration buildings.  These components will continue to be used as part of the current extension proposal.  The processing plant will be reconfigured to handle the new meta-greywacke material, and will also be enclosed to improve the function of the plant, by reducing the noise and air quality impacts.  The material extracted from the new quarry area will be sent to a newly proposed crushing and loading plant and then transported to the existing processing plant via a new conveyor line.  The existing processing plant will crush, screen and blend the meta-greywacke resource to produce material of varying sizes.  Material will be stockpiled within the processing plant area in the existing quarry pit, and will be transported from the site via trucks, as need demands.

The quarry will be developed in four stages:

·                Stage 1A – Construction of crushing and loading plant, conveyor line to processing plant, new access road to extraction site and stormwater management features;

·                Stage 1B – First stage of quarry development (producing estimated 10 million tonnes of resource);

·                Stage 2 – Expansion of the new quarry further to the west (producing estimated 7 million tonnes of resource);

·                Stage 3 – Expansion of the new quarry further to the west (producing estimated 12 million tonnes of resource); and

·                Stage 4 – Expansion of the new quarry further to the west (producing estimated 13.5 million tonnes of resource).

At present, approximately 14 hectares of the site are disturbed by the existing quarrying operation.  The proposed quarry will disturb an additional 52 hectares of the site, leaving a balance of approximately 175 hectares of land.

The quarry pit will be developed to a depth of –5mAHD.  The finished base level will be achieved at Stage 1B, with the subsequent stages involving pushing the pit further to the west, using the same base level.

The rate of production will depend on market demand, which is greatly influenced by construction activity; however the application proposes a maximum rate of 1 million tonnes per annum.  The application does identify that the average production rate would likely be closer to 500,000 tonnes per annum, which is the approximate production rate of the existing quarry.  Based on these levels of production, it can be assumed that the proposed quarry will have a total lifespan of approximately 60 to 70 years.

The development also proposes associated works for stormwater management and rehabilitation of the site to offset losses of koala habitat and remnant vegetation within the quarry area.

Subject Site

The subject site comprises five lots and is located on the western side of Mount Cotton Road.  The site is bisected by the unformed road reserve of Gramzow Road, which follows the natural Mount Cotton ridge line.  This ridge line supports the quartzite resource that has been quarried extensively at both the Barro Group and Karreman quarries in the past.

The north-eastern portion of the site contains the existing quarry pit and processing plant.  The balance of the site is predominantly covered by native vegetation, with a cleared area towards the middle and southern part of the site.  This cleared area is currently used for intermittent grazing activities.  Greenhide (California) Creek, which is part of the California Creek catchment and a tributary of the Logan River, runs through the middle of the site, draining to the south.

Surrounding Locality

The locality is predominantly rural in nature with a mixture of rural uses, dwelling houses on conservation lots, extractive industry and rural industry.  Generally the site is adjoined by large rural residential sized lots with extensive vegetation.  The Golden Cockerel poultry processing plant is located approximately 500 metres to the north of the site.  The residential community of Mount Cotton village is located approximately 600 metres to the east of the site.  The Karreman quarry is located approximately 2.5 kilometres to the north-west of the site.

APPLICATION ASSESSMENT

Sustainable Planning Act 2009

The application has been made in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) Chapter 6 – Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) and constitutes an Impact Assessable application for Material Change of Use under the Redlands Planning Scheme.  The assessment is carried out in accordance with Section 314 of SPA, which is reproduced and discussed at Attachment 5.

State Planning Regulatory Provisions

State Planning Policy / Regulatory Provision

Applicability to Application

SEQ Koala Conservation SPRP

The site is within a Priority Koala Assessable Development Area under the SEQ Koala Conservation SPRP. This SPRP is discussed below.

SPRP (Adopted Charges)

The development is subject to infrastructure charges in accordance with the SPRP (adopted charges) and Council’s adopted resolution.  Details of the charges applicable have been provided under the Infrastructure Charges heading of this report.

SEQ Regional Plan SPRP

The development is within the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area.  The proposed use is a ‘Primary Activity’, which is not an ‘Urban Activity’ under the regulations.  Therefore, the development is not assessable under the Regulation.

 

 

SEQ Koala Conservation SPRP

 

The overarching purpose of this SPRP is to achieve a “net benefit” for koala habitat in South East Queensland. This is intended to be achieved by ensuring the retention and protection of existing koala habitat, where practicable, and to offset the loss of any koala habitat through rehabilitation.

The SPRP breaks land up into different designations, which identify the differing koala habitat values of the land.  The Barro land comprises a number of different designations:

·                Non-Assessable (shown in grey) – covers part of the northern edge of the proposed quarry pit.  This designation identifies that the SPRP is not applicable to this portion of the site, and therefore clearing can occur without any need to offset koala habitat loss.

·                Low Value Rehabilitation (shown in very light pink) – covers part of the south-eastern side (Stage 1) of the quarry pit.  This designation does not necessarily require offset planting where existing vegetation is lost.

·                Medium Value Rehabilitation (shown in light pink) – covers part of the south-eastern side (Stage 1) of the quarry pit.  This designation requires offset planting where existing vegetation is lost, and represents areas that logically complement and expand the bushland designations.

·                Medium Value Bushland (shown in light green) – covers a drainage line bisecting part of the proposed quarry.  This designation requires offset planting where existing vegetation is lost, and represents areas that currently play a role in providing koala habitat.

·                High Value Bushland (shown in dark green) – covers the balance of the quarry pit, particularly the northern and western portions (Stages 2, 3 and 4).  This designation requires offset planting where existing vegetation is lost, and represents areas that currently play a role in providing koala habitat.

 

 

Division 5 of the SPRP is applicable to the subject application, as it relates to “Development for Extractive Industry in the Assessable Development Area”.  The following assessment criteria are from Division 5 of the SPRP.

Criteria from SPRP

Comments

Site design must restrict clearing of koala habitat trees to the extent that is necessary for—

a. dredging material from the bed of any waters; or

b. extracting rock, sand, clay, gravel, loam or other material, from a pit or quarry; or

c. screening, washing, grinding, milling, sizing or separating material extracted from a pit or quarry; or

d. work that is the natural and ordinary consequence of extractive work.

The extent of clearing is restricted to the area required to extract the resource, to provide access to the quarry pit and to treat stormwater from the development.

Site design must avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of bushland habitat, high value rehabilitation habitat, and medium value rehabilitation habitat, with any unavoidable clearing minimised and offset in accordance with the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy at a ratio of five new koala habitat trees for every one non-juvenile koala habitat tree removed or an equivalent cash contribution.

The key part of this criterion is the term “unavoidable clearing”.  Linking with the first criterion, it requires that the development be designed to ensure that the only clearing to occur in the high and medium value habitats is clearing necessary to achieve extraction of the resource (and therefore unavoidable).

 

As discussed previously, the clearing is in association with the extraction zone, access and stormwater treatment.  In addition, the extraction zone is consistent with the extent of the key resource area (KRA), and therefore can be considered necessary to extract the identified resource.

 

The criterion allows for this “unavoidable clearing” to be offset by additional planting to achieve a net benefit of koala habitat.

 

The applicant has identified that the proposal will involve the removal of approximately 14,801 non-juvenile koala habitat trees.

 

Approximately 10,784 of these trees are located within designations that require offset planting at a rate of 5 new trees to every 1 existing tree lost.  The remaining 4,017 trees do not require offsetting under the SPRP, but do require offsetting in accordance with the Vegetation Management Act relating to regional ecosystem vegetation, which is administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM).  The offset rate applied by DNRM is 3 new trees for every 1 existing tree lost.  The applicant proposes to rehabilitate predominantly cleared areas of the site through assisted natural regeneration.

Site design provides safe koala movement opportunities as appropriate to the development type and habitat connectivity values of the site determined by reference to the factors for consideration in Schedule 2.

Koala movement corridors appear to be compromised by the proposal as the pit, crushing plant and access road cut existing fauna movement paths.

 

The Habitat Management Plan Section 2.2 proposes secure fauna crossing under the access road between the quarry pit and the stock pile area. Future compliance assessment approvals will address the detail of such a crossing. With the exception of the pit the balance of the site will not change the current situation. The vehicle movement along this road will not be high as the main truck movement will be within the pit/crushing plant and out of the stock pile areas.

 

Koala movement through the southern sector of the site will improve as the increase in trees will permit easier progress from tree to tree rather than over extended areas of open grassland.

 

The open water sections of stormwater treatment facility in the south of the property will restrict koala movement but there is easy access around and between the two proposed settlement ponds.

During construction phases and for the life of operational activities:

a. measures are taken in construction and operational practices to not increase the risk of death or injury to koalas; and

b. native vegetation that is cleared and in an area intended to be retained for safe koala movement opportunities is progressively restored and rehabilitated.

The Environmental Management Plan addresses this aspect. Conditions require rehabilitation to occur before vegetation clearing except in Stage 1 where this will occur in parallel. Stage 1 has limited koala habitat with the rehabilitation resulting in a net gain in Stage 1 koala habitat.


Native vegetation clearing is undertaken as sequential clearing and under the guidance of a koala spotter where the native vegetation is a non-juvenile koala habitat tree.

The Habitat Management Plan identifies that the Quarry Manager is responsible for ensuring that a licensed wildlife spotter has assessed any areas where vegetation is to be cleared prior to works commencing. The Habitat Management Plan is approved as part of this decision.

Native vegetation is progressively restored and rehabilitated once extractive operations have ceased on that part of the premises.

A rehabilitation plan will be approved, which identifies rehabilitation to part of the existing quarry, to the batters of the proposed quarry and then a post-extraction rehabilitation to the entire quarry at the end of life.

Landscaping activities provide food, shelter and movement opportunities for koalas consistent with the site design.

The rehabilitation plans achieve this objective, and form part of the approval.

Operational activities are staged in line with operational need.

The quarry is staged in line with operational need.

 

It should be specifically noted that Division 6 of the SPRP, which is usually applicable to development in Redland that is assessable under the SPRP, is not applicable in this circumstance because the development is for extractive industry. Division 6 contains more strict assessment criteria than Division 5; in particular Division 6 states that “site design does not result in the clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of bushland habitat”.  Whereas, Division 5 states that this clearing must be avoided, with any unavoidable clearing minimised and offset.  This is an important distinction to note.

Koala habitat has been addressed and complies with the SPRP.  It is considered that a net increase in koala habitat will result.

SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031

The site is located within the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area in the SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031.  Importantly, it is noted that the Regional Plan, as it currently stands, does not identify any expansion of the urban footprint closer to the quarry site.

State Planning Policies

State Planning Policy / Regulatory Provision

Applicability to Application

SPP 4/10 – Healthy Waters

This policy targets urban stormwater run-off and hence is not applicable to this application. The intent of this policy is being achieved by the water quality control measures proposed.

SPP 5/10 Air, Noise and Hazardous Materials

The ERAs issued by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) address these matters. Further discussion is provided in later sections of this report.

SPP 2/10 – SEQ Koala Conservation

The SPP is used to inform forward planning policy; in particular it forms a tool to identify the direction of future planning schemes and amendments. The SPRP, discussed previously, is the operational document that is used in development assessment.

SPP 2/07 – Protection of Extractive Resources and Guideline

Refer to discussion below.

SPP 1/03 – Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and Landslide

This matter is discussed with regard to the relevant overlay codes in the RPS.

SPP 1/92 – Development and the Conservation of Agricultural Land

The land is not identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land.

 

SPP 2/07 – Protection of Extractive Resources

 

The Barro Quarry is identified as Key Resource Area 71 (KRA 71) in this State Planning Policy (SPP).  The policy outcome for the SPP is:

...to identify those extractive resources of State or regional significance where extractive industry development is appropriate in principle, and protect those resources from developments that might prevent or severely constrain current or future extraction when the need for the resource arises.

The Guidelines attached to this SPP identify the significance of KRA 71, and state the following:

The resource is large and conveniently located to supply the Brisbane, Logan, Redlands and northern Gold Coast markets for many years. The Mount Cotton hardrock resource is also strategically important because of the scarcity of alternative resources in this part of southeast Queensland.

The policy goes on to state that:

...this will be achieved if development—

(a)     in a resource/processing area – is associated with either the extraction or processing of the extractive resource; and

(b)     in the separation area for a resource/processing area—

(i)      does not increase the number of people living in the separation area; and

(ii)     to the greatest extent practicable minimises the potential adverse effects from existing or future extractive industries on people working or congregating in the separation area; and

(iii)    does not compromise the function of the separation area in providing a buffer between extractive/processing operations and any incompatible uses outside the separation area.

The following map shows the extent of the proposed quarry in relation to the KRA layers.

 

The proposed quarry is located almost completely within the resource area of the KRA, and is therefore consistent with point (a), being for the extraction and processing of the resource.  The separation/buffer area covers a number of existing dwelling houses, and therefore the development must mitigate the impacts of the proposed quarry on people living within this separation area in order to achieve point (b) of the policy outcome.

The impacts of the quarry on surrounding properties are primarily a Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) issue, in relation to noise and air quality, with Council’s area of prime jurisdiction being impacts on visual amenity.  These matters are discussed later in this report.

The policy provides a qualifier for assessment, which states:

... development for extractive industry purposes will also need to comply with the State Policy and regional codes for vegetation management under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 to protect native vegetation of environmental significance, including in certain specified Key Resource Areas areas having State or regional biodiversity significance.

The balancing of this policy with the Koala SPRP, SPPs and codes in the planning scheme forms the core of this report.

Redlands Planning Scheme

The application is subject to impact assessment. In this regard, the application is subject to assessment against the entire Redlands Planning Scheme (RPS).  However, it is recognised that the following codes are relevant to the application.  The table indicates compliance or where further discussion is required.

Applicable Codes

Compliance

Zone Code(s)

 

Rural Non-Urban Zone Code

Conservation Zone Code

Refer further discussion below

Refer further discussion below

Use Code

 

Extractive Industry Code

Refer further discussion below

Overlay Code(s)

 

Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code

Refer further discussion below

Extractive Resources Overlay Code

Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained Land Overlay Code

Habitat Protection Overlay Code

Landslide Hazard Overlay Code

Protection of the Poultry Industry Overlay Code

Road and Rail Noise Impact Overlay Code

Water Supply Catchment Overlay Code

Waterway, Wetlands and Moreton Bay Overlay Code

Refer further discussion below

Refer further discussion below

 

Refer further discussion below

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

 

Other Development Code(s)

 

Excavation and Fill Code

ü

General Code(s)

 

Access and Parking Code

ü

Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code

ü

Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code

ü

Infrastructure Works Code

ü

Landscape Code

ü

Stormwater Management Code

Refer further discussion below

 

Rather than address each code separately, which would result in repetition and overlapping, the assessment against the planning scheme will be conducted based on the particular issues, with the relevant codes referenced in this assessment discussion.

Extractive Industry Use Consistency

The majority of the proposed quarry pit and its associated infrastructure are contained within the Rural Non-Urban (RNU) Zone. The parts of the quarry that encroach into the Conservation Zone are those aspects that link the proposed quarry pit with the existing quarry pit and processing plant; that is, the vehicular access road and the elevated conveyor belt transporting crushed rock to the plant. It is noted that a link between the quarry pits is essential for the proposed quarry to operate.

In relation to the portion of the quarry contained within the RNU Zone, Specific Outcome S1.2 of the RNU Zone Code states the following:

Uses and other development include those that -

(a)     promote traditional and emerging rural activities such as -

(i)      agriculture – including horticulture and grazing;

(ii)     intensive agriculture – including poultry and, hydroponics;

(iii)    rural enterprises for value adding and processing of primary produce;

(iv)    small-scale service industries that serve rural activities;

(b)     are compatible with rural uses and are readily able to co-locate within buffers or on land with traditional rural activities;

(c)     encourage enjoyment of the rural landscape including tourist and recreational uses;

(d)     are small-scale traditional cottage industries that are managed and operated by the residents, such as timber work, pottery or similar crafts;

(e)     involve the winning of extractive resources;

(f)      provide for a limited range of residential uses that -

(i)      are in the form of detached dwelling houses on larger lot sizes;

(ii)     do not compromise the operation of bonafide rural activities.

 

This outcome, coupled with other outcomes within the code, identifies that land in the rural non-urban zone may be appropriate for a number of different uses, depending on the characteristics of the land and surrounding land.  It identifies clearly that one of the appropriate uses is “the winning of extractive resources”.  By virtue of the fact that the land is identified as KRA 71 in the SPP, which is in turn reflected in the Extractive Resources Overlay in the RPS, there is clear direction that this land is generally appropriate for quarrying activity.  This, of course, needs to be assessed and balanced against the other codes and State policies in relation to amenity and environmental outcomes.

In relation to the minor portion of the development within the Conservation Zone, the relevant overall and specific outcomes of the Conservation Zone Code identify the following:

·                Low-key development located within the zone;

·                Retain significant vegetation;

·                Revegetate degraded or cleared areas; and

·                Allow relatively unimpeded fauna movement.

The majority of the conservation area (other than the portion affected by the access road and conveyor belt) will remain free of development. This will retain the existing vegetation cover. A rehabilitation plan forms part of the application, which proposes to rehabilitate the existing cleared areas outside of the quarry pit extent. As well as addressing the outcomes in the Conservation Code, this rehabilitation is intended to offset the loss of remnant vegetation and koala habitat trees that are proposed to be removed from the quarry pit area. The koala habitat offsets are in response to the Koala SPRP, and have been discussed in that section, while the remnant vegetation offsets are in response to the Vegetation Management Act requirements administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM). DNRM’s concurrence agency referral response addresses this aspect.  While the DNRM offsets are partly over existing bushland that is not classified as remnant the revegetation will effectively offset the losses in the Conservation Zone and the loss of remnant vegetation in the quarry pit area.

Fauna movement through the Conservation Zone is discussed in a later section. In summary, it is considered that the expansion of the quarry while altering fauna movement will not inhibit movement through the Conservation Zone or the site.

Overlayed on this zoning and identification of the land for extractive resources is the Koala SPRP and the Habitat Protection Overlay.  It is not considered that either the SPRP or the overlay removes the ability to establish a quarry on the site; rather they potentially constrain the development in terms of its extent and operation.  Without repeating the assessment against these instruments, it is considered that while altering fauna movement and habitat extant, the development outcome will still ensure that the site has equivalent conservation values with losses in some sections and significant ecosystem enhancement in other sections.

Demand for the Resource

As a first point, it is noted that the SPP2/07 states that the key resource area covering the proposed development is “strategically important because of the scarcity of alternative resources in this part of southeast Queensland”.  The Policy identifies the importance of the resource in meeting the needs of people within Redland, Logan, Brisbane and northern Gold Coast.  It is noted that Barro states that they supply these Council areas, as well as part of the Ipswich area.

The demand for the resource is influenced by both population growth and the per capita demand for quarry materials.

Population Growth

The Office of Economic and Statistical Research (sitting within Queensland Treasury and Trade) produced a report in 2011 titled ‘Queensland Government Population Projections to 2031 – Local Government Areas’.  This report addresses population figures for the State, and draws from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, where applicable.

The following graph shows Queensland’s estimated population growth to 2056.  Under the medium rate projection, Queensland’s population would grow by 1.9% in the decade to 2021, and then slowing to 1.2% between 2021 and 2056.

South East Queensland, specifically, is predicted to grow from 2.8 million people in 2006 to 4.6 million people in 2031 (using the “medium” prediction model).  This represents an annual average growth rate of approximately 2.0% in the decade to 2021, declining to 1.7% for the decade to 2031.  This is shown diagrammatically in the figure below.

Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Population and Dwelling Profile South East Queensland (SEQ), April 2012.

The five local government areas that Barro services with resource material currently account for approximately 70% of the population in South East Queensland.  For these five areas the following growth predictions are identified:

Government area

Population Increase to 2021

Growth Rate to 2021

Population Increase to 2031

Growth Rate to 2031

Brisbane

124,479

1.1

62,179

0.5

Redland

23,733

1.5

18,864

1.1

Logan

76,433

2.4

86,741

2.1

Gold Coast

133,764

2.2

120,488

1.6

Ipswich

110,961

5.0

175,560

4.6

Source: ABS 3218.0; 2011 edition Queensland Government population projections (medium series)

Under the medium series modelling presented above, the predicted total population within these five local government areas is 3.17 million people in 2031.

Per Capita Demand

The applicant has supplied an Economic Need Assessment, prepared by Leyshon Consulting, dated December 2010.  The applicant also provided a copy of an extractive industries newsletter from Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia (CCAA), which provides further information on the availability, demand and use of aggregate resources in Queensland.

These documents indicate that current and predicted average per capita use of aggregate resources is in the order of 10 to 11 tonnes per person per year.

Based on these figures, the CCAA report predicts that South East Queensland will require approximately 850 million tonnes of aggregate resource between now and 2026.  This report also identifies that there is currently approximately 801 million tonnes of aggregate resource approved to be extracted progressively over time.  Therefore, based on the current approvals the resources would be depleted just before 2026.

There is an additional 855 million tonnes of aggregate resources identified (i.e. through KRA listing), but not currently approved for extraction.

A fundamental issue here is that aggregate material is a high-volume, low-cost product, and transportation costs can significantly impact on the cost of the product.  As the material is predominantly used in the building and construction industry, higher transportation costs can have an impact on housing affordability and infrastructure costs to government and industry.

Taking this information, it is clear that new quarries are required in order to meet the demands of South East Queensland residents (in terms of providing housing, infrastructure, etc).  There is a definite demand for the greywacke resource in the local government areas surrounding the quarry.  There are also undeniable benefits to having the source close to the user.  Reducing the resource’s transportation distance reduces the cost of the resource to the user, reduces the environmental impacts of this transportation and reduces the risk to road users associated with longer hauls.

There are also commercial considerations in this space.  Having local competition for the supply of these aggregate materials assists in keeping prices down, which in turn keeps down the cost of building and infrastructure.

Vegetation Protection and Koala Conservation

There are three key elements to the ecological assessment of this application, which are:

1.    Regional ecosystem vegetation protected under the Vegetation Management Act (DNRM);

2.    Habitat protection; and

3.    Fauna movement corridors.

 

Regional Ecosystem Vegetation

This matter is a state jurisdiction managed and assessed by DNRM. The Department has provided a referral response with conditions. These conditions require revegetation on the site in accordance with the applicant’s submitted vegetation offset management plan to offset the loss of regional ecosystem vegetation within the quarry footprint. The concurrence agency approval will also establish a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) noted on the title of the subject lots. Under the PMAV, the existing retained remnant vegetation will be classified as Area A and the required offset will be Area C. Clearing of remnant vegetation within these areas will not be permitted, other than for fire hazard maintenance under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 or to reduce or remove imminent risk to persons or property.

 

Habitat Protection

This matter relates to protection of valuable habitat for koalas (assessed under the Koala SPRP, the Habitat Protection Overlay Code and the Conservation Zone Code in the RPS) as well as all other native fauna (assessed under the Habitat Protection Overlay Code and the Conservation Zone Code in the RPS).

As previously discussed, the SPRP allows net benefit offsetting to account for any unavoidable vegetation loss from extractive industry.  The proposal achieves the offset requirements under the SPRP through assisted natural regeneration.

In relation to the Habitat Protection Overlay Code the site has several designations including Bushland Habitat; Enhancement Corridor; and Enhancement Link. The majority of the disturbance area is placed over the areas designated as Enhancement Link and Corridor with the fringe areas within the Bushland Habitat areas. The applicant estimates that approximately 175 hectares will be maintained for conservation purposes although the proposed habitat linkages within the Habitat Overlay will not be able to be revegetated as this is where the core disturbance will occur. The intent of the Enhancement Corridor will be met with fauna movement being facilitated around the quarry pit through rehabilitation of these areas.

Fauna Movement Corridors

In relation to fauna movement through the Conservation Zone, it is noted that the access road does cross the path of a potential north-south fauna movement corridor between the quarry pits.  While the conveyor belt also crosses this corridor, it will be elevated and will therefore not impede ground dwelling animals.  The conveyor belt is a positive approach, as it does significantly reduce the amount of vehicle movements between the quarry pits, as most of the extracted resource can be carried on the conveyor belt, rather than on trucks.

The fauna report prepared by the applicant’s environmental consultant does identify that there are opportunities to elevate (bridge) parts of the access road that traverses the movement corridor.  This would allow fauna crossings at ground level underneath the road.  No detail of these crossings has been provided.  The applicant proposes to provide appropriate detail at the design stage.  As well as this, the hours of operation for the quarry will restrict truck movements to daylight hours, so that truck movements are not occurring at the times when koalas and many other ground mammals are most active.

The applicant has proposed water treatment ponds in the southern part of the site. A wildlife corridor bisects the two ponds to assist in terrestrial fauna movement.  The ponds will be expected to provide a habitat area for water birds and other aquatic fauna.  These stormwater features are not expected to be a barrier to fauna movement.

Visual Amenity

The applicant has provided a visual amenity impact report for the proposed quarry extension.  The report identifies the views to the quarry from dwelling houses located around the site, with photographs of the existing views and cross sections showing the anticipated post-development views.

In general terms, the quarry is well-shielded to the north and east of the site by the well vegetated ridge lines in these directions.  Therefore those houses that have potential views of the quarry are located to the west and south of the site.  The report identifies these houses with receptors numbers, which are used below.

R1, R2 and R3 – These houses are located to the west of the site, located on lots that extend from West Mount Cotton Road.  The houses perch on high points on the western edge of the catchment.  Therefore the land falls towards the quarry and looks over the top of the subject site.  In this regard, the houses will have some filtered views of the quarry through the existing vegetation.  Revegetation proposed to be undertaken by the applicant on the quarry site will further filter and screen these views to the quarry.

R4 and R5 – These houses are located to the south-west of the quarry.  These houses sit lower in the landscape.  Existing and proposed vegetation is expected to suitably screen the views of the quarry.

R6 and R7 – These houses are located on the southern side of the quarry site.  Parts of the quarry are likely to be visible from these houses.  In particular, there is likely to be filtered views of the tip head.  Scarring of the land is also likely to be visible from these receptors, however the views to the backdrop vegetated escarpment will remain and will therefore soften the overall view.

R8 – The views from this house are more obscured than R6 and R7 due to existing contours, structures and vegetation.  Visibility of the quarry is considered to be minimal.

R9 – The views from this house are substantially obscured by existing vegetation, and therefore visibility of the quarry is considered to be minimal.

R10 and R11 – These houses are located to the south-east of the proposed quarry extension.  A direct view corridor will exist to the tip head, as well as some filtered views of the quarry scar itself.  The direct view of the tip head, which is a result of the existing cleared Energex easement, is considered to impact on the amenity of the receptors.  The applicant proposes a landscaped bund within the easement area to screen this view.

Energex has advised that landscaping and bunding could be provided within the easement area, provided it met their specifications in relation to the vertical distance from electrical wires, the distance from Energex structures and the type of vegetation selected.  It will be a condition of approval that details of the landscaping and bunding must be approved by Energex prior to lodging to Council for compliance assessment approval.

R12 – It is considered that views from this house located to the south-east of the quarry will be screened by existing contours and vegetation.

Air Quality

This matter is within the jurisdiction of the DEHP and assessed as part of their consideration of the ERA permits.  DEHP has approved the ERA permits, subject to conditions.

The air quality report prepared by the applicant’s consultant assesses the predicted particulate matter (total suspended particles (TSP), PM10, PM2.5 and dust deposition) and silica dust caused by the proposed quarry expansion.  For TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 the report uses the criteria in the Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008.  There are currently no criteria for dust deposition and silica content in Queensland’s air quality policies.  For dust deposition, the report uses the criterion that is usually imposed as a condition of approval by DEHP in their ERA permits.  For silica content, the report uses the criterion listed in the environmental management policies of the Victorian Environmental Protection Agency.  The report concludes that, in all cases, the development complies with the identified criteria.

A summary of the modelling outcomes is presented in the table below.  The maximum modelled concentration in the table refers to the highest level of concentration at an off-site sensitive receptor at any stage of the quarry.  For all pollutants, excluding silica, the modelled concentrations include the ambient concentrations.

Pollutant

Policy/ Guideline Criteria (ug/m3)

Maximum modelled concentration (ug/m3)

TSP (annual average)

90

43.1

PM10 (24 hr average) (6th highest occurrence)

50

49.6

PM2.5 (24hr average) (2nd highest occurrence)

25

21.8

PM2.5 (annual average)

8

7.7

Silica (24%) (annual average)

3

0.17

Silica (29%) (annual average)

3

0.20

Dust deposition

120

98.2

 

The original ERA permit received from DEHP included conditions for PM10 that referenced standards that were superseded in 2008.  Council officers raised this concern with the applicant and DEHP.  Subsequently, DEHP issued an amended referral response, referencing the current PM10 criterion.

One issue that Council must consider with regard to the air quality modelling is the cumulative impact on particulate concentrations caused by the approved, but not yet constructed, biomass power plant.  Background level measurements for particulate matter used by the applicant in their air quality modelling do not account for the now approved biomass power plant located only 400 metres to the north of the quarry site.

It is noted that the condition on both the biomass approval and the ERA permit for the Barro quarry limit the particulate matter to 50ug/m3 as measured at any nuisance sensitive or commercial place.  Therefore the condition itself accounts for the cumulative effects of surrounding developments.

Noise Impacts

This matter is within the jurisdiction of the DEHP and assessed as part of their consideration of the ERA permits.  DEHP has approved the ERA permits, subject to conditions.

The outcomes in the planning scheme do predominantly defer the responsibility for noise assessment to DEHP.  Probable solution P3.3 of the Rural Non-Urban Zone Code states:

Noise emissions comply with the following –

(a)  Comply with Table 2 – Noise levels at the boundary of the lot or premises, except for uses that rely on external activities such as agriculture; or

(b)  For an Environmentally Relevant Activity, comply with any approval issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

 

As this development is an ERA and DEHP has issued an approval under the EP Act 1994, this probable solution is complied with.  A similar probable solution exists in the Extractive Industry Code.

Council officers note that the approval by DEHP prescribes a single noise level applied to all boundaries of the subject site for Leq* adj-T of 45 dB(A).  This is despite the fact that there are differing noise levels measured at sensitive receptors around the site.  In general, the background noise level to the east of the site is noticeably higher than the background noise level on the western side of the site.

* Leq is the equivalent continuous level and can be defined as the averaged sound pressure over a specified period of time.

Council’s noise criteria, contained within the planning scheme, recognise a “background +” level (e.g. adopting the background level, plus an additional 8 dB(A), in the case of the Rural Non-Urban Zone Code).

The noise impact report prepared by the applicant’s consultant uses the “background +” criteria and adopts the following noise criteria, based on Leq:

Sensitive Land Uses to West:                               37 dB(A)

Sensitive Land Uses to South:                              41 dB(A)

Sensitive Land Uses to Southeast:                       46 dB(A)

Sensitive Land Uses to East/northeast:               45 dB(A)

 

The noise report demonstrates that the quarry will operate within these adopted noise criteria, and therefore comply with Council’s planning scheme requirements.

The problem in this circumstance is that DEHP’s conditions allow them to operate in excess of these adopted levels, by applying a Leq 45 dB(A) for all boundaries.  This matter has been raised with DEHP.  However, DEHP has advised that they are not willing to amend their conditions.

 

To alleviate this problem, it is recommended that Council condition that the development must meet the adopted noise criteria contained within the noise report.  This will, however, mean that Council will be responsible for enforcing these more stringent noise criteria.  This is not ideal, but is necessary to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

Traffic

All quarry access is via Mount Cotton Road, which is a State-controlled arterial road.  The quarry has an existing slip lane from Mount Cotton Road accessing the quarry, which serves the purpose of preserving traffic flow along the road corridor.  No quarry vehicle access is proposed via Gramzow Road to the south.

The applicant has provided a traffic impact assessment, which identifies that the quarry currently contributes approximately 2.7% of the traffic along West Mount Cotton during the morning peak hour.  This is predicted to increase to approximately 3.1% by 2016, should the proposed expansion be approved.  This represents a 0.4% increase in traffic share attributed to the proposed expansion of the quarry.  A similar percentage share increase is expected for the afternoon peak hour.  This is based on two key assumptions; that is that:

(a)       traffic growth is approximately 3% per annum (based on TMR advice to the applicant); and

(b)       product deliveries will increase from 500,000 tonnes per year to 820,000 tonnes per year within a 10 year horizon.

 

The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) has provided its concurrence agency response and conditions, as it has jurisdiction for Mount Cotton Road and the quarry’s access.  The TMR response approves the quarry access design in principle, with conditions requiring an upgrade of the entrance and a contribution of $400,000 for future maintenance of the roadway.

Stormwater Management and Flooding

Council’s engineer has assessed the stormwater assessment and management plan from the applicant and considers that it demonstrates compliance with the Flood Prone, Storm Tide and Drainage Constrained Land Overlay Code and the Stormwater Management Code. In particular, the assessment demonstrates that the development will not increase the downstream flows from the development. In fact, it demonstrates that the flows will be lessened, as the quarry pit itself will act as a very large storage pit for stormwater, with the water being pumped to the treatment and discharge area at a controlled rate.

Council’s environmental officer has assessed the management plan in relation to the quality of the stormwater being released from the site. The environmental officer considers that the plan demonstrates that the water quality objectives in the Redlands Planning Scheme will be achieved, with the stormwater passing through a number of treatment cycles prior to being discharged from the site.

Bushfire Hazard Management

Bushfire management is detailed in Section 2.10 of the Environmental Management Plan.  While this plan has limited detail the potential for significant impact from bushfire is considered to be limited.  The proposed fire trails and the roads around the site as shown on Figure 6 ensure acceptable buffers to infrastructure and permit ready access for fire fighting purposes.

INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES

Extractive Industry is identified as a ‘Specialised Use’ in the draft State Planning Regulatory Provisions (adopted charges).  The SPRP and Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (amendment 1.1) November 2011 identify that infrastructure charges are determined by the Council on a case-by-case basis at the time of assessment, and therefore do not specific a contribution rate for this use category.

It is noted that, based on the type of development and its location, the only relevant potential infrastructure contributions are in relation to transport and water supply.  Advice has been sought from Council’s City Infrastructure Group for calculation of the contribution.

Transport

Extractive Industry demand generation rate applied.

5 trips per day per 100m2 of total use area x Mt Cotton zone trip rate ($1,430 per trip in 12/13 dollars)

= 5 x (2,297/100m2) x $1,430

= $164,235.50

 

Note:  the 2,297m2 total use area is based on that part of the site identified for manufacturing/processing/depot/administration rather than applying the ratio to the whole quarrying operations which would result in an unreasonable impost on the applicant.

 

Water Supply

 

The application identifies that the only use of mains water supply will be for potable supplies and ablution facilities.  All other water usage will be from on-site water storage dams.  This arrangement is proposed as a condition of approval.  The applicant has been advised of this proposed condition, and agrees to its imposition.  On this basis, it would be appropriate to use the GFA of the office and workshop and an industrial contribution rate to determine the water supply contribution.  The total GFA of the office and workshop is approximately 500m2.  The water supply contribution is therefore calculated as follows:

Industry demand (ET) per 100m2 GFA x Mt Cotton zone rate ($2390 per ET for 2012/13)

= 0.1 x (500 / 100m2) x $2390

= $1195

 

The total Redland City Council infrastructure charge applicable to this development is $165,430.50.

 

 

REFERRAL AGENCIES

The application was referred to the following State agencies, representing the following jurisdictions:

Referral Agency

Jurisdiction

Type

Response

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP)

Environmentally Relevant Activities

Concurrence

Amended referral response received 19/02/13. Conditions apply.

Contaminated Land

Concurrence

Amended referral response received 19/02/13. No comments.

Land in or near a Wetland

Advice

Amended referral response received 19/02/13. No comments.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM)

Clearing Vegetation

Concurrence

Amended referral response received 15/02/13. Conditions apply.

Department of Transport and Main Roads

State-controlled Road

Concurrence

Response received 20/04/11. Conditions apply.

Energex

Electricity infrastructure

Advice

Response received 23/06/11. The response “approves” the application, with conditions being applied. However, being an advice agency, conditions are not relevant.

 

The application was also referred to the Federal Government for consideration under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.  On 13 May 2013, the Government issued notification that the development not a controlled action, and therefore does not require further assessment under the EPBC Act.

Strategic Implications

Legislative Requirements

Attachment 5 of this report outlines the legislative requirements under the Sustainable Planning Act.

Risk Management

The standard development application risks apply.  The applicant may appeal to the Planning and Environment Court against Council’s refusal or a condition of an approval.  A submitter may appeal against an approval of the application.

Financial

A Court appeal against Council’s decision would have financial implications.

People

N/A

Environmental

Refer Issues section of this report.

Social

Refer Issues section of this report.

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

Refer Issues section of this report.

Consultation

Internal Consultation

 

The Planning Assessment Team has consulted with other assessment teams where appropriate.  Advice has been received from the relevant officers within these teams and forms part of the assessment of the application.  A copy of the original proposal was provided to former Councillor Toni Bowler of Division 6 and the current divisional Councillor, Julie Talty, has been informed of the application through a briefing note.

 

Public Consultation

 

The proposed development is Impact assessable and required public notification.  The application was publicly notified for thirty-three (33) business days from 25 May 2012 to 11 July 2012.  A notice of compliance for public notification was received on 12 July 2012.

 

Submissions

 

There were approximately 1139 properly made submissions received in relation to the application during the notification period.  There were also approximately 85 not properly made submissions received (5 of these were received during the notification period but did not contain all mandatory information and 80 were received after the notification period).  All properly made and not properly made submissions were considered and the matters raised within these submissions are outlined in Attachment 6.  It is noted that all submissions received were objections to the proposal, with no submissions received in support of the application.

 

Options

The application has been assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme and relevant State planning instruments.  The development is considered to comply with the instruments and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

 

Council’s options are to either:

1.    Adopt the Officer’s Recommendation to approve the application, subject to conditions; or

2.    Resolve to approve the application, subject to different or amended conditions; or

3.    Resolve to refuse the application.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve that a Development Permit approval be issued for the Material Change of Use application for Extractive Industry and associated Environmentally Relevant Activities 8, 16 and 21 on land described as Lots 1 & 17 on RP108970, Lot 162 on S31962, Lot 370 on S311071 and Lot 238 SP 218968 and situated at 1513 & 1515-1521 Mount Cotton Road and 163-177 & 195 Gramzow Road, Mount Cotton subject to the following conditions:

ASSESSMENT MANAGER CONDITIONS

TIMING

 

 

1.         Comply with all conditions of this approval, at no cost to Council, at the timing periods specified in the right-hand column.  Where the column indicates that the condition is an ongoing condition, that condition must be complied with for the life of the development.

 

 

 

Approved Plans and Documents

 

 

 

2.         Undertake the development generally in accordance with the approved plans and documents referred to in Table 1, subject to the conditions of this approval and any notations by Council on the plans.

 

 

Prior to the use of each stage commencing, where relevant.

 

Ongoing condition.

 

 

 

Plan/Document Title

Reference Number

Prepared By

Date

Schematic of Proposed Plant Layout

DA2 001 (987.142)

Groundwork Plus

7 July 2010

Quarry Development Plan – Stage 1A

DA2 002 (987.143)

Groundwork Plus

7 July 2010

Quarry Development Plan – Stage 1B

DA2 003

(987.144)

Groundwork Plus

7 July 2010

Quarry Development Plan – Stage 2

DA2 004

(987.145)

Groundwork Plus

9 June 2010

Quarry Development Plan – Stage 3

DA2 005

(987.146)

Groundwork Plus

9 June 2010

Quarry Development Plan – Stage 4

DA2 006

(987.147)

Groundwork Plus

9 June 2010

Figure 3 – Site Layout and Topography

987.310.003

Groundwork Plus

24 November 2010

Conceptual Plant Layout

987.310.023

Groundwork Plus

27 January 2011

Mount Cotton Quarry Site Environmental Management Plan

987_232 V3

Groundwork Plus

19 November 2010

Geotechnical Report – Mt Cotton Quarry Extension

987_233

Groundwork Plus

20 December 2010

Land Use and Vegetation Management Plan

987.193

Groundwork Plus

16 August 2011

Habitat Management Plan

0241-006 V2

BAAM Pty Ltd

8 March 2013

Noise Impact Assessment

Job No:    09-129

MWA Environmental

December 2010

Acoustic Screen Plan

09-129-3NIA

MWA Environmental

29 September 2010

Table 1:       Approved Plans and Documents

 

 

Operational Restrictions

 

 

3.         Operate the quarry with a rate of production that does not exceed one (1) million tonnes per annum.

 

Upon request by a duly authorised Council officer, provide to Council, within 10 business days of the request being made, details of the tonnage amounts for the period(s) specified by the Council officer.  Maintain suitable records of tonnage amounts that enable this information to be provided.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

4.         Operate the use, including truck movements associated with the use, only between the following hours, unless otherwise approved in writing by Council,:

 

(a)   Monday to Friday – 6:30am to 6:00pm;

(b)   Saturday – 6:30am to 4:00pm.

 

Do not operate the use on Sundays and public holidays, excluding Exhibition Day.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

5.         Undertake blasting activities only between the following hours:

 

(a)   Monday to Friday – 9:00am to 5:00pm

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

6.         Comply with the obligations of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the life of the development.  Where there is a conflict between the EMP and conditions of approval, the conditions of approval take precedence.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

7.         Operate the development to comply with the Adopted Noise Criteria listed on Page 6 of the acoustic assessment titled Noise Impact Assessment, Mount Cotton Quarry Extension, Barro Group Pty Ltd prepared by MWA Environmental, dated December 2010.  These adopted noise criteria are represented as Leq noise levels.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

8.         Undertake excavation and stabilisation works for the quarry generally in accordance with the recommendations of the approved geotechnical report.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

 

9.         Enter and depart the quarry site via Mount Cotton Road only, excluding emergency vehicles and vehicles associated with rehabilitation of the land.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

 

10.       Use external reticulated water supply for potable use and ablution facilities only.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

Compliance Assessment

 

 

11.       Apply to Council and gain approval for Compliance Assessment for the documents and works listed in Table 2 below.

 

 

Prior to works commencing in relation to that specific document or works item.

 


 

Document or Works Item

Compliance Assessor

Assessment Criteria

Community Engagement Strategy

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 12 – Social and Economic Impact Assessment

 

Landscape Plan

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 5 Division 7 – Habitat Protection Overlay Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 8 Division 8 – Landscape Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 9 Schedule 9 – Street Trees

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 9 Schedule 10 – Vegetation Species List

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 9 Schedule 12 – Weed Species List

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 3 Chapter 3 – Landscaping and Chapter 6 – Security Bonding

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions, Chapter 10 – Parks and Open Space and Chapter 11 – Landscaping

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 16 – Safer by Design

 

Declared Area Management Plan

Redland City Council

·         South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provision

 

Civil Works Plans for Stormwater Management

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 8 Division 9 – Stormwater Management Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 3 Chapter 6 – Security Bonding

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions and Chapter 6 – Stormwater Management

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 9 Schedule 11 – Water Quality Objectives

·         Queensland Urban Drainage Manual

·         Australian Standard 3500.3:2003 – Plumbing and Drainage – Stormwater Drainage

 

Access and Parking Plans

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions and Chapter 15 – Access and Parking

·         Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 – Parking Facilities – Off-street car parking

·         Redland Planning Scheme Part 5 Division 7 – Habitat Protection Overlay

 

Sediment and Erosion Control Plans

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 8 Division 6 – Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions and Chapter 4 – Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control

·         International Erosion Control Association Guidelines

 

Earthworks Plans

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 7 Division 6 – Excavation and Fill Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 8 Division 5 – Development Near Underground Infrastructure Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions, Chapter 12 – Excavation and Fill and Chapter 13 – Development Near Underground Infrastructure

·         Australian Standard 4678:2002 – Earth-retaining Structures

·         Australian Standard 3798:2007 – Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development

·         Redland Planning Scheme Part 5 Division 7 – Habitat Protection Overlay

 

Construction Management Plan

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions

 

Electricity Reticulation Plan

Redland City  Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 8 Division 7 – Infrastructure Works Code

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 9 Chapter 2 – Documentation and General Conditions and Chapter 9 – Electrical Reticulation and Street Lighting

 

Acoustic Barriers Plan

Redland City  Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 11 Policy 5 – Environmental Emissions

 

Table 2:       Compliance Assessment #1

 

 

 

12.       Apply to Council and gain approval for Compliance Assessment for the documents and works listed in Table 3 below.

 

 

Prior to lodging an application for building works.

 

 

 

Document or Works Item

Compliance Assessor

Assessment Criteria

Floor Plans and Elevations

Redland City Council

·         Redlands Planning Scheme Part 4 Division 21 – Rural Non-Urban Zone Code – Specific Outcomes S2.1 and S2.2

 

Table 3:       Compliance Assessment #2

 

 

Design

 

 

13.       Submit to Council for approval floor plans and elevations of all proposed buildings associated with the quarry, as listed in Table 3: Compliance Assessment #2. The heights of the buildings must be generally in accordance with the reduced levels (RLs) identified on the approved plan titled, Conceptual Plant Layout. The submitted plans must indicate the finished floor levels referenced to Australian Height Datum, must be to scale and be fully dimensioned.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

 

 

14.       Locate, design and install outdoor lighting, where required, to minimise the potential for light spillage to cause nuisance to neighbours.

 

 

Prior to the use commencing.

 

Ongoing condition.

 

 

Community Engagement

 

 

15.       Submit to Council a post-approval Community Engagement Strategy in accordance with Table 2: Compliance Assessment #1 and including the following information:

 

·         Details on how, when and where the community will be advised of the details of the development approval by the operator.  This must include, as a minimum, an initial engagement prior to works being carried out under this approval and then periodic engagement prior to the commencement of each approved stage of the development.

·         Details on the formulation of a Community Reference Group, as required by conditions of this approval.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

 

 

16.       Establish a Community Reference Group to facilitate the effective management of the social and environmental issues associated with the development.  The Group must:

 

·         be chaired by the Quarry Manager (or appropriate delegate);

·         include up to 8 representatives, including 2 representatives from the Operator; and

·         Representatives will be invitees from Redland City Council, interested community groups and individual surrounding land owners and will be nominated by Council.

 

 

The later of the following:

 

Prior to the use commencing; or

 

Upon Council determining the representatives to the Group

 

 

17.       Provide to Council details of the Community Reference Group, including the:

 

·         list of members in the Group;

·         Terms of Reference for the Group that is founded on accuracy and transparency and clearly identifies the purposes and objectives of the Group; and

·         proposed meeting schedule for the Group, including terms for dissolution.

 

 

Within 3 months of the establishment of the Group

 

 

Stormwater Management

 

 

18.       Submit to Council, and receive Compliance Assessment approval for, a stormwater assessment that is generally in accordance with the Stormwater Assessment and Management Plan, prepared by Gilbert and Sutherland Pty Ltd, dated November 2010 and addresses both quality and quantity in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme Policy 9 Chapter 6 – Stormwater Management, and include the following:

 

·         Details of the surface water diversions for the external catchment of the quarry pit according to the expected flows, protected with appropriated lining to reduce erosion and sediment run-off and details of the energy dissipater discharging to the existing natural flow;

·         Details of the immunity for flooding to the water treatment pond, gravel filter and sedge filters in a 100 Year ARI event (1% AEP);

·         Details of the sedimentation basin, water treatment pond, gravel filter, sedge filters and the pump out system to manage the stormwater run-off from the quarry pit; and

·         Details of stormwater quality controls for the internal roadways, product blending and storage area.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

 

19.       Manage stormwater discharge from the site in accordance with the Redlands Planning Scheme Policy 9 Chapter 6 – Stormwater Management, so as to not cause an actionable nuisance to adjoining properties. Comply with the Management of Potential Impacts included in the stormwater management plan in relation to sediment and erosion control, maintenance of clean water diversion drains, maintenance of treatment measures, construction phase surface water drainage quality and operational phase surface controls.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

Infrastructure and Utility Services

 

 

 

20.       Pay the cost of any alterations to existing public utility mains, services or installations due to building and works in relation to the proposed development, or any works required by conditions of this approval.  Any cost incurred by Council must be paid at the time the works occur in accordance with the terms of any cost estimate provided to perform the works.

 

 

At the time of works occurring.

 

Fauna Crossings

 

 

 

21.       Submit plans for earthworks and access works that identify fauna crossings over or under the new access road between the processing plant area and the new quarry pit.  The plans must detail the designs of the crossings and any directional fencing proposed to give the crossings full effect for fauna usage.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

Noise Management

 

 

 

22.       Construct a 6 metre and a 4 metre high acoustic barrier as follows:

 

·         Minimum 6 metre high acoustic screen along the southern edge of the extraction area; and

·         Minimum 4 metre high acoustic screen along the southern part of the eastern edge of the extraction area.

 

Construct the acoustic barrier to achieve a minimum standard that attains a superficial mass of not less than 12.5kg/m2 and total leakage of less than 1% of the total area.  Guidance on the design of the barriers is provided in figure 3 of the acoustic assessment titled Noise Impact Assessment, Mount Cotton Quarry Extension, Barro Group Pty Ltd prepared by MWA Environmental, dated December 2010.

 

The barriers must be a fence/mound combination and constructed in accordance with Diagrams 3/4/5 – of Redland Planning Scheme Policy 5 - Environmental Emissions.

 

 

Prior to the use commencing.

 

 

23.       Provide plans and specifications detailing the design and construction of the noise barriers. Ensure this is certified by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant indicating that the noise barrier achieves the requirements of this decision notice, Noise Impact Assessment, Mount Cotton Quarry Extension, Barro Group Pty Ltd prepared by MWA Environmental, dated December 2010 and Redland Planning Scheme Policy 5 - Environmental Emissions.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

 

24.       Submit post construction certification for the acoustic barrier to Council prior to the commencement of use. The certification must be provided by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant and must demonstrate that the conditions of this development approval relating to noise are achieved and (where not otherwise specified) confirm that the predicted noise levels in the Noise Impact Assessment, Mount Cotton Quarry Extension, Barro Group Pty Ltd prepared by MWA Environmental, dated December 2010 have been achieved.

 

 

Prior to the use commencing.

 

Rehabilitation and Landscaping

 

 

 

25.       Submit landscape plans to Council for Compliance Assessment in accordance with the assessment criteria listed in Table 2: Compliance Assessment #1 of this approval.  Include the following items:

 

·        Planting details and plant schedules for planting the area identified as ‘Enhancement Corridor’ in the Habitat Protection Overlay in the Redlands Planning Scheme.  The location of the enhancement corridor must be ground-truthed to align with the general location of the drainage line in this area.  The Enhancement Corridor planting compliance must be included in the Stage 1a works with completion of planting prior to the commencement of Stage 1b works.

 

·        Details of the amenity screen/bunds identified on the approved plans. Provide Council with a copy of Energex approval for the proposed landscaping and bund works within the Energex easement.

 

·        A maintenance plan for the entire landscaping component of the development that appropriately manages the landscaping to maturity.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

Koala Offset Vegetation

 

 

 

26.       Have the koala offset areas declared as areas of high nature conservation value under Section 19E of the Vegetation Management Act.

 

Prior to the use commencing.

 

 

 

27.       Provide to Council for compliance assessment the proposed declared area management plan under Section 19E of the Vegetation Management Act and have this approved by Council prior to providing this plan as part of the written notice to the Chief Executive responsible for administering the Vegetation Management Act.

 

 

As part of request for compliance assessment.

 

 

 

28.       Provide to Council a Current Title Search showing the Vegetation Management Act notation on the Title that demonstrates that the declaration has been made and written notice provided to the registrar of titles in accordance with Section 19K of the Vegetation Management Act.

 

 

Prior to the use commencing.

 

 

29.       Undertake monitoring and maintenance to the koala offset areas generally in accordance with Sections 3.6 and 5.0 of the approved Habitat Management Plan, unless otherwise varied by the declared area management plan.

 

 

At the time periods specified in the Habitat Management Plan.

 

 

 

30.       Submit to Council, within 10 business days of a request by a duly authorised Council officer, copies of the outcomes of monitoring conducted in accordance with Section 3.6 and 5.0 of the approved Habitat Management Plan, unless otherwise varied by the declared area management plan.  Maintain suitable records of the monitoring programs that enable this information to be provided.

 

 

Ongoing condition.

 

 

31.       Establish a minimum total of 65,971 non-juvenile koala habitat trees* within the koala offset areas identified on Drawing No. 987.193, Land Use and Vegetation Management Plan, prepared by Groundwork Plus, dated 16 August 2011.

 

Conduct stratified random quadrat sampling within the koala offset areas demonstrating compliance with this requirement.  Provide the results of this sampling to Council.  The sampling is to be conducted using a methodology similar to that used in Section 1: Koala Tree Survey Report of the Integrated Koala and Koala Habitat Report, prepared by Biodiversity Assessment and Management, dated 18 November 2011.

 

* Non-juvenile koala habitat tree has the meaning given to it in the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provision.

 

 

Within 10 years of this approval taking effect.

 

 

Survey Data

 

 

 

32.       Submit to Council the electronic data for the survey points which define the entire approved extent of the quarry pit.  These survey points must be generally in accordance with the quarry extent shown on the approved plans.

 

 

Prior to the use commencing.

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLIANCE PERMITS

 

 

 

The following further Development Permits and/or Compliance Permits are necessary to allow the development to be carried out.  Please be aware that details of any further approvals, other than a Development Permit or Compliance Permit, are provided in the ‘Advice’ section of this decision.

 

·                Building Works approval.

 

·                Building works – demolition:

 

-      Provide evidence to Council that a Demolition Permit has been issued for structures that are required to be removed and/or demolished from the site in association with this development.  Referral Agency Assessment through Redland City Council is required to undertake the removal works.

 

 

 

REFERRAL AGENCY CONDITIONS

 

 

 

·                Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR)

Refer to the attached correspondence from the DTMR dated 19 April 2011 (DTMR reference 500/958 (L6948 METRO-401)).

 

 

 

·                Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP)

Refer to the attached correspondence from the DEHP dated 18 February 2013 (DEHP permit number: SPCE01725511).

 

 

 

 

·                Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM)

Refer to the attached correspondence from the DNRM dated 15 February 2013 (DNRM Permit number: Elvas 2011/001693. Plan number: RARP 2011/001693 Sheets 1 to 11).

 

 

 

ASSESSMENT MANAGER ADVICE

 

 

 

·                Infrastructure Charges

Infrastructure charges apply to the development in accordance with the State Planning Regulatory Provisions (adopted charges) levied by way of an Infrastructure Charges Notice.  The infrastructure charges are contained in the attached Redland City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice.

 

 

 

 

·                Live Connections

Redland Water is responsible for all live water and wastewater connections.  It is recommended that contact be made with Redland Water to arrange live works associated with the development.

 

Further information can be obtained from Redland Water on 1300 015 561.

 

 

 

 

·                Other Approvals

Please be aware that other approvals may be required for your development.  This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

 

-       Plumbing and drainage works.

-       Compliance assessment as per Tables 2 and 3 in the conditions.

-       Road Opening Permit – for any works proposed within an existing road reserve.

 

 

 

 

·                Hours of Construction

Please be aware that you are required to comply with the Environmental Protection Act in regards to noise standards and hours of construction.

 

 

 

 

·                Survey and As-constructed Information

Upon request, the following information can be supplied by Council to assist survey and engineering consultants to meet the survey requirements:

 

a)     A map detailing coordinated and/or levelled PSMs adjacent to the site.

b)    A listing of Council (RCC) coordinates for some adjacent coordinated PSMs.

c)     An extract from Department of Natural Resources and Mines SCDM database for each PSM.

d)    Permanent Survey Mark sketch plan copies.

 

This information can be supplied without charge once Council received a signed declaration from the consultant agreeing to Council’s terms and conditions in relation to the use of the supplied information.

 

Where specific areas within a lot are being set aside for a special purpose, such as building sites or environmental areas, these areas should be defined by covenants.  Covenants are registered against the title as per Division 4A of the Land Title Act 1994.

 

 

 

 

·                Services Installation

It is recommended that where the installation of services and infrastructure will impact on the location of existing vegetation identified for retention, an experienced and qualified arborist that is a member of the Australian Arborist Association or equivalent association, be commissioned to provide impact reports and on site supervision for these works.

 

 

 

 

·                Fire Ants

Areas within Redland City have been identified as having an infestation of the Red Imported Fire Ant (RIFA).  It is recommended that you seek advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) RIFA Movement Controls in regards to the movement of extracted or waste soil, retaining soil, turf, pot plants, plant material, baled hay/straw, mulch or green waste/fuel into, within and/or out of the City from a property inside a restricted area.  Further information can be obtained from the DAFF website www.daff.qld.gov.au

 

 

 

 

·                Cultural Heritage

Should any aboriginal, archaeological or historic sites, items or places be identified, located or exposed during the course or construction or operation of the development, the Aboriginal and Cultural Heritage Act 2003 requires all activities to cease.  For indigenous cultural heritage, contact the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

 

 

 

 

·                Fauna Protection

It is recommended an accurate inspection of all potential wildlife habitats be undertaken prior to removal of any vegetation on site. Wildlife habitat includes trees (canopies and lower trunk) whether living or dead, other living vegetation, piles of discarded vegetation, boulders, disturbed ground surfaces, etc. It is recommended that you seek advice from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service if evidence of wildlife is found.

 

 

 

 

·                Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

Under the Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (the EPBC Act), a person must not take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance without Commonwealth approval.  Please be aware that the listing of the Koala as vulnerable under this Act may affect your proposal.  Penalties for taking such an action without approval are significant.  If you think your proposal may have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance, or if you are unsure, please contact Environment Australia on 1800 803 772.  Further information is available from Environment Australia’s website at www.ea.gov.au/epbc

 

 

                     

 

DEEMED APPROVAL UNDER s331

This application has not been deemed approved under Section 331 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

 

Moved by:                  Cr J Talty

Seconded by:           Cr P Bishop

That Council resolve to refuse the application based on the following grounds:

1.               The proposed extension is actually a new quarry, extracting new material from a different location on the site, with a significantly greater scale than the existing quarry. 

2.               The proposed development is not consistent with the reasonable expectations of the local community, because the proposal is for a completely separate quarry which is of a significant scale and will operate in close proximity to adjoining rural residential properties.

3.               The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the new quarry can be constructed and operated in such a manner as to protect the amenity of the surrounding sensitive receptors.

4.               The applicant has failed to adequately define and apply suitable noise criteria to assess protection of amenity for the surrounding sensitive receptors.

5.               The proposal will not maintain or enhance the rural residential amenity of the surrounding area through the minimisation of environmental nuisance occurring through the operation and construction of the quarry.

6.               The proposal adversely impacts on and limits the future enhancement of the surrounding economic tourism opportunities.

7.               A large number of submissions have been received objecting to the proposal, which raise valid planning grounds.

8.               The proposed development is in conflict with the following provisions of the Redlands Planning Scheme:

a.    Part 3.1.4, Desired Environmental Outcome No. 3 – Community Health and Wellbeing;

b.    Part 3.1.7, Desired Environmental Outcome No. 6 – Economic Development;

c.    Overall Outcomes 2(a)(i) and 2(c) for the Rural Non-Urban Zone;

d.    Overall Outcome 2(a)(iv) for the Extractive Industry Code; and

e.    Specific Outcomes S2.1 to S2.4 of the Extractive Industry Code.

9.               There are not sufficient grounds to warrant approval of the proposed development having regarding to the nature and extent of the conflict with the Redlands Planning Scheme.

10.            That the development proposal be immediately referred to the relevant State Minister to assess the proposal, in particular the decisions of the State agencies, under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

CARRIED      9/1

 

Cr Elliott voted against the recommendation.

Cr Edwards returned to the meeting at 12.11pm.

6             portfolio 2                                                        (mayor karen williams)
                                                                                  
 (Supported by Deputy Mayor Cr Beard)

economic development, governance, service delivery, regulations and emergency management

6.1         ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES

6.1.1    COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Dataworks Filename:                             GOV Complaints

Attachments:                                           POL-3037 Complaints Management Process [PDF 46KB]
GL 3037-001 Complaints Management Process [PDF 102KB]

Description: Nick-Clarke-signature.jpg

Responsible/Authorising Officer:         

Nick Clarke
General Manager Organisational Services

Author:                                                      Siggy Covill
Group Manager Internal Audit

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek approval for recommended changes to Council’s Complaints Management Process Policy - POL-3037; and note the proposed changes to the supporting Complaints Management Process Guideline - GL-3037-001.

Background

As a result of the recent changes to the Local Government Act 2009 (the Act) and the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) and an audit performed by the Queensland Ombudsman on Council’s current complaints management process for administrative action complaints, the Complaints Management Process Policy and Complaints Management Process Guideline were revised to incorporate any changes and recommendations made.

The revised policy and guideline also reflect the recent organisational restructure in which the management of the complaints function has been moved from the Internal Audit Group to the General Counsel Group.

Issues

Minor changes have been made to the Complaints Management Process Policy, however, the Complaints Management Process Guideline has been completely revised to enable a simpler process and understanding of the six steps of the process: receiving, recording and acknowledging, assessing, investigating, resolving and reporting on a complaint.

 

Key amendments to the guideline include:

·                Several methods to make a complaint

·                Administrative Action Complaint Form as an appendix and online

·                Requirement for assistance to be provided to a complainant where necessary

·                Timeframes when dealing with complaints

·                Table to outline the complaint type and how it is generally assessed and actioned

·                Guidance on the investigation of complaints and content required in investigation reports

·                Remedy options to be considered for a complaint

Further key changes include:

·                Delegating responsibility for the assessment and referral of complaints for investigation to include general managers and General Counsel in addition to the CEO (with the exception of matters to be reported to the Crime and Misconduct Commission, which remain solely the responsibility of the CEO);

·                Expanding the section relating to circumstances where Council will not investigate complaints; and

·                Changing responsibility for management of administrative action complaints from the Internal Audit Group to the General Counsel Group.

The current policy and guideline for complaints management were both approved by Council.  It is usual for Council to approve policy documents and for the CEO or relevant general manager to approve guidelines (which relate to operational matters).  This recommendation seeks to bring the general complaints management process into line with general practice.

The current policy and guideline relating to complaints against councillors will be reviewed in due course to bring this in line with the revised complaints management process and general practice.

Strategic Implications

Legislative Requirements

Requirements from the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012 have been taken into account during the preparation of this report.

Risk Management

The changes proposed to the policy and guideline will assist Council to ensure that complaints are handled fairly and risks associated with the handling of complaints are managed in an effective manner, whilst continuing to provide a high level of service to complainants and others who are involved in the complaints process.

Financial

Whilst there are no quantifiable financial savings at this time, the streamlining of the processes for handling complaints is expected to cut red tape and enable matters to be dealt with more efficiently.

People

There are positive impacts for both complainants and staff resulting from these changes, specifically as most complaints should be able to be dealt with more quickly. 

Environmental

There are no environmental implications resulting from this report.

Social

There are no social implications as a result of this report.

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

Relationship to Corporate Plan: 8. Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals

8.5  Be transparent and consistent in the way we manage the organisation, its risks and obligations and ensure we are delivering against our priorities.

Consultation

Internal consultation was undertaken with the following officers:

·         General Managers

·         General Counsel

 

External consultation was undertaken with the auditor for the Queensland Ombudsman, Fraser Boyle.

Options

1.    That Council accept this report, which summarises the changes to the revised Complaints Management Process policy and guideline.

2.    That Council defers consideration of this matter.

3.    That Council not accept this report and requests further changes.

4.    Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr A Beard

Seconded by:           Cr M Elliott

That Council resolve to:

1.         Approve the changes to the Complaints Management Process Policy (POL-3037) as attached; and

2.         Note the changes to the Complaints Management Process Guideline (GL‑3037-001) as attached.

CARRIED      11/0

6.1.2    ADOPTION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN 2013/14

Dataworks Filename:                 GOV Operational Plan 2013/14

Attachment:                                  Operational Plan 2013/14 [PDF 445KB]

Authorising Officer:                   
Description: Nick-Clarke-signature.jpg
Nick Clarke
General Manager Organisational Services

Responsible Officer:                  Luke Wallace
Manager Corporate Governance

Author:                                           Jo Jones
Services Manager Corporate Planning and Performance

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend the adoption of the Operational Plan 2013/14.

Background

The Local Government Act 2009 (LG Act) requires Council to adopt an Operational Plan each year, outlining plans for the coming financial year to deliver the Corporate Plan.  Council’s current Corporate Plan was adopted in 2010 so the Operational Plan is the fourth of five Operational Plans in the life of the current Corporate Plan.  The draft Operational Plan 2013/14 is attached as Appendix A. It has been developed in consultation with officers and Councillors and was discussed at a Councillor workshop on 14 May 2013.

The draft Operational Plan is structured to reflect the Redlands 2030 Community Plan and the Corporate Plan 2010-2015.  It includes high level projects to be delivered in 2013/14 which directly contribute to the delivery of our Corporate and Community Plans.

Issues

The Operational Plan 2013/14 forms an important part of council’s strategic planning and sets out the work we plan to deliver towards achievement of the Corporate Plan 2010-2015.  Development of the annual operational plan is closely linked to the budget development process.

Council adopted its Community Plan, Redlands 2030, in 2010 which sets out the long term vision of the community and outlines eight outcome areas.  Council’s Corporate Plan explains what Council will do in the next five years to advance the delivery of the Community Plan.  Each year, an Operational Plan must be adopted which includes details of what action council will take towards delivery of the Corporate Plan.

 

Strategic Implications

Council’s Operational Plan 2013/14 is an important statutory document which sets out how Council intends to implement the Corporate Plan 2010-2015 and achieve the vision and goals of Redlands 2030 Community Plan.  The Operational Plan 2013/14 includes a wide range of projects which directly contribute to the delivery of Council’s agreed outcomes.

Legislative Requirements

The Local Government Act requires Council to adopt an annual operational plan.  The Local Government Regulation 2012 (section 174) states that “the chief executive officer must present a written assessment of the local government’s progress towards implementing the annual operational plan at meetings of the local government held at regular intervals not more than 3 months”.  Under the same section of the regulation, Council may amend the plan at any time before the end of the financial year.

Risk Management

The risk of not delivering against Council’s operational plan is that Council does not achieve the commitments set out in the longer term corporate and community plans.  Each project would have associated risks which would be managed by the relevant area of Council.

Financial

The Operational Plan 2013/14 will be funded from the annual budget.  Capital projects are not included in the Operational Plan and are reported separately.

People

Projects within the Operational Plan 2013/14 are managed by the appropriate area of Council.  The delivery of the plan is dependent on staff resources and some projects relate to staff and people issues.  The lead group is identified for each project.

Environmental

Some projects within the Operational Plan 2013/14 directly contribute to Council’s environment commitments, in particular those related to the outcome ‘Healthy Natural Environment.’

Social

Some projects within the Operational Plan 2013/14 directly contribute to Council’s social agenda, in particular those related to Council’s outcome ‘Strong and Vibrant Communities.’  Almost all projects would have some degree of social impact.

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

Council’s Operational Plan 2013/14 outlines planned activities and projects against the nine outcomes within the Corporate Plan 2010-2015.  Therefore, it is a key planning document and consistent with both the Corporate Plan 2010-2015 and the Redlands 2030 Community Plan.

Consultation

The draft Operational Plan 2013/14 has been developed in consultation with officers and Councillors.  It was discussed in detail at a Councillor Workshop on 14 May 2013.

Options

1.    That Council adopts the Operational Plan 2013/14.

2.    That Council adopts the Operational Plan, subject to amendments agreed at the Co-ordination Committee.

3.    That Council defers consideration of the Operational Plan until its next meeting on 19 June.

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr A Beard

Seconded by:           Cr M Elliott

That Council resolve to adopt the Operational Plan 2013/14.

CARRIED      11/0

 

7              portfolio 4                                                          (cr KIM-MAREE HARDMAN)

COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES (WATER, WASTE, RPAC ETC)

7.1         INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

7.1.1    DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS FROM THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\gary.jpgDataworks Filename:                          WM Tendering RWW T-1621-12/13

Responsible/Authorising Officer:   

                                                                  Gary Soutar
General Manager Infrastructure & Operations

Author:                                                    Sonja Toft
Senior Process Engineer Redland Water

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council resolution to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer, under Section 257(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2009, to accept the tender (T-1621-12/13-RWW) and to make, vary and discharge a contract with a value of over $500,000 (excluding GST); and to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign and amend all relevant documentation for the collection and disposal of biosolids from wastewater treatment plants.

Background

The current arrangement for the removal and disposal of biosolids from the 5 mainland wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is with Remondis Australia Pty Ltd & Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Ltd (‘Remondis and Arkwood’) and is due to expire on 9 July 2013.

In line with sections 173(3), 175 and 177 of the Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010, Council invited tenders which closed on 19 April 2013.

Tender documentation was developed in accordance with section 104 Financial Management Systems subsection (3) Sound Contracting Principles of the Local Government Act 2009 with the objective of obtaining submissions from suitable individuals or entities who could demonstrate the ability to provide value for money and adequate capacity and capability to collect and dispose of biosolids from Council’s WWTPs.  A mandatory site inspection at the 5 mainland WWTPs was included within the tender period on 26 March 2013.

Issues

The timing of this delegation is critical due to a number of reasons, including:

1.    The tender needs to be awarded to the successful contractor late May 2013 in order for contract mobilisation to be completed as the existing contract is due to expire on 9 July 2013;

2.    The closing date for tender submissions was 19 April 2013 with evaluations nearing completion and as such, delegation to the CEO is required to expedite award of the contract;  and

3.    If a delay in contract award is encountered, provision will need to be made to ensure the mainland WWTPs remain fully operational.

Strategic Implications

Legislative Requirements

The following legislation is relevant to this project:

·                South-east Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009

·                Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008

·                Sustainable Planning Act 2009

·                Environmental Protection Act 1994

·                Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009

·                Water Act 2000

·                Local Government Act 2009

Risk Management

Biosolids collection and disposal from the wastewater treatment plants needs to be undertaken by a contractor with relevant previous experience and demonstrated success.  The transportation of the biosolids needs to be well-managed to minimise any odour or transportation issues, which could reflect negatively on RCC.

The reliability of the transporter is paramount as biosolids removal needs to be continual with minimal disruptions to wastewater operations.

Financial

This contract has been budgeted for in the 2013/2014 financial year operational program.

People

Contract management resources within RCC will be required to manage the contract.

Environmental

The removal and disposal of biosolids to be undertaken by this contract seeks to achieve the most environmentally sustainable treatment of the biosolids produced by the WWTPs.  The main environmental impacts of the removal and disposal of biosolids will be transportation impacts (green house gases) and odour.  Significant environmental benefits of the contract will include the high beneficial reuse of the biosolids via land application on farm land.

Social

There is a positive social impact associated with this contract due to the high beneficial reuse associated with the land application of biosolids.

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

The proposed contract will align with Council’s strategic priority to manage resources in an efficient and effective way and ensure the long term financial viability of the Council.

Consultation

No consultation was necessary.

Options

That Council resolve to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer under section 257(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2009 to:

1.    Accept the tender and award a contract with a value over $500,000 (excluding GST) for the removal and disposal of biosolids from the 5 mainland wastewater treatment plants as contract T-1621-12/13-RWW;

2.    Make, vary and discharge the contract in accordance with the agreed contract terms and conditions;  and

3.    Sign and amend all relevant documentation.

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr K Hardman

Seconded by:           Cr P Gleeson

That Council resolve to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer under section 257(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2009 to:

1.    Accept the tender and award a contract with a value over $500,000 (excluding GST) for the removal and disposal of biosolids from the 5 mainland wastewater treatment plants as contract T-1621-12/13-RWW;

2.    Make, vary and discharge the contract in accordance with the agreed contract terms and conditions;  and

3.    Sign and amend all relevant documentation.

CARRIED      11/0

7.1.2    EXTENSION OF SEWERAGE IN DUNWICH

Dataworks Filename:                               WW Planning – Dunwich sewerage

Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\gary.jpgAttachment:                                                Dunwich Sewerage Extension [PDF 72KB]

Responsible/Authorising Officer:        

                                                                       Gary Soutar
General Manager Infrastructure & Operations

Author:                                                         Tilake Weerasekara
Principal Engineer - Wastewater Reticulation

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek:

1.    Approval for initiating inflow/infiltration control works in Dunwich followed by the extension of sewerage connections to Priority Area 1 (73 properties) and Priority Area 2 (92 properties) severely affected by poor soakage of septic tank effluents;  and

2.    Allocation of funds for the above, spread over 2 years starting with the next (13/14) financial year.

Background

The Dunwich gravity sewerage network was initially constructed by Consolidated Rutile Ltd (CRL) to service 61 properties.

In 2002, Redland Water extended the sewerage network to an additional 67 properties.

Currently, there are 128 properties connected to the sewerage network, which is approximately a third of the existing 382 residential properties in Dunwich.

The existing sewerage treatment plant was installed in 2002 and has a capacity to service about 1000 equivalent persons (EP) or 373 properties (assuming 2.7 EP per property).

The capacity of the treatment plant should be sufficient to service nearly all of the current total population, including those that are on septic tanks (subject to fixing issues stated in the next section).

Issues

A third of the properties in Dunwich depend largely on septic tanks for sewage treatment and disposal.  The effluent from these is discharged to soakage trenches.

Nearly 80% of the properties with septic tanks do not have favourable geological conditions for disposing septic tank effluents via soakage trenches.  This is due to poor soakage rates of the receiving soils.  Excessive land slopes, with underlying rock formations at shallow depths are the main reasons for poor soakage rates.  The available receiving area within each property is also a concern, particularly for wet season discharges.  A risk assessment has segmented Dunwich into 3 priority areas (refer to the attached figure for priority areas).

Some residents irrigate their lawns with grey water to reduce the loads on the septic tanks.  The Queensland Plumbing and Wastewater Code allows this re-use provided the grey water has undergone further treatment and kitchen waters are not included.  However, it is illegal in all other Australian states.

It is suspected that some property owners discharge grey water into street gutters, which is illegal.

The above situation poses a health risk to the community and a threat to the environment.  It is proposed that these properties in the affected areas are provided with an alternative to the current practice.

It is proposed that Council’s sewerage network be extended to the affected properties to remedy the situation in Priority Areas 1 & 2 over 2 years.  Properties that are in very sandy soil areas such as Rainbow Crescent (Priority Area 3) are not currently proposed to be connected as it is understood that their septic tank systems are operating efficiently.

Dunwich treatment plant has sufficient theoretical design capacity to accommodate the proposed increase in sewerage connections.  However, Dunwich WWTP currently experiences excessive flow loads from inflow/irrigation in the existing gravity sewers and this has caused overflow at the plant.  The sewers constructed by CRL have been identified as high inflow/infiltration sources.  Action is needed to address this issue to restore the treatment plant’s capacity before additional connections can be made.

Strategic Implications

Legislative Requirements

The following Acts apply:

1.    South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009;

2.    Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008;

3.    Sustainable Planning Act 2009;

4.    Environmental Protection Act 1994;

5.    Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (subordinate to Environmental Protection Act 1994);

6.    Water Act 2000;

7.    Local Government Act 2009.

Risk Management

The proximity of the rock layer and its strength poses the risk of higher costs in providing gravity sewerage than currently estimated.  Strategic potholing will need to be undertaken first to assess the degree to which the rock can be excavated with standard equipment.

The other risk involves the degree of success that can be achieved with inflow/infiltration abatement work on the existing (CRL) sewers.  If traditional lining of the sewers or spot repairs do not solve the problem, complete relaying of the old sewers may be needed.  This can impact on the cost of providing the service.

Financial

Estimated cost of inflow/infiltration control works based on full renewal of old CRL sewers is $468,000.

Estimated cost of providing new gravity sewers to service Priority Area 1 consisting of 73 of the worst affected properties is $1,130,000.

Estimated cost of providing new gravity sewers to service Priority Area 2 consisting of 92 affected properties is $1,131,000.

People

Consultants will be engaged for all investigation and design works and construction will be done by engaging contractors.

There are sufficient project management resources within Redland Water to undertake the project.

Environmental

The works proposed in this report are aimed at prevention of pollution of the environment by septic effluent overflows and ensuring health and safety of the community.

During construction activities there will be some disturbance to the environment which is unavoidable.  However, the end result will be a better environment than what currently exists.

Social

The social impact will be a positive one as the environment will shift from property-based septic tank sewage treatment to safer central sewage treatment.

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

The proposed works align with council’s policy of making the city a safer place to live.

Consultation

Consultation has taken place with:

·                General Manager Infrastructure & Operations;  and

·                Group Manager Infrastructure & Planning

The Division 2 councillor has also been consulted in regard to the proposed project.

Options

1.         Council resolve to first repair/replace the leaking sewer lines and connections and, as a priority, extend the gravity sewerage network to approximately 73 properties affected by poor septic tank effluent disposal conditions in Priority Area 1 and then over 2 years complete extensions to Priority Area 2 (92 properties).

2.         Council resolve not to undertake the proposed extension of sewerage services.

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr K Hardman

Seconded by:           Cr L Hewlett

That Council resolve to:

1.         Authorise the repair/replacement of leaking sewers at an estimated cost of $468,000 and this will be the subject of a funding request in Q1 of the 13/14 budget; and

2.         Approve the proposed extension of the gravity sewerage network to 73 properties in Priority Area 1 and 92 properties in Priority Area 2 to be funded over 2 years.

CARRIED      11/0

 

8             portfolio 5                                                                    (cr LANCE HEWLETT)

OPEN SPACE, SPORT AND RECREATION

8.1         COMMUNITY AND CUSTOMER SERVICES

8.1.1    LIONS BOULEVARD PARK (SANDY BEACH) RUSSELL ISLAND

Dataworks Filename:                        P&R Planning – Division 5 Planning – Redland Bay/Bay Islands

Attachments:                                      Attach 1 Lions Boulevard Park RI presentation [PDF 4.18MB]
Attach 2 Risk Assessment Russell Island camping ground [PDF 105KB]
Attach 3 Camping and Moreton Bay [PDF 70KB]

Authorising Officer:                           Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\Electronic Signature - Louise_Rusan.JPG
Louise Rusan
General Manager Community & Customer Services

Responsible                                        Gary Photinos
Group Manager City Planning and Environment

Author:                                                  Angela Wright
Principal Advisor Open Space Planning

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the possibility of allowing camping in Lions Boulevard Park on Russell Island.

The report will examine the town planning and local law expectations and provisions as well as risk, budget and resource and outdoor recreation planning and management matters.

Background

Council resolved at its General Meeting 19 December 2012 that the Chief Executive Officer prepare a report for Council on the options for a proposed camping ground at Sandy Beach, Russell Island:

1.         That the proposal is for a basic facility only catering for kayakers, cyclists and hikers with a maximum 3 day stay. The intention would be for a local community group to run the camping ground on behalf of Council; and

2.         That the report should consider planning scheme, local laws, risks and budget considerations.

 

Issues

Lions Boulevard Park Russell Island

Lions Boulevard Park is a neighbourhood park situated on the waterfront (Sandy Beach) on The Boulevard Russell Island.  The park is on the south eastern tip of the island.  The Council freehold land is zoned Open Space and Conservation.  The park is made up of 15 separate lots, 11 of which have been developed for parks purposes. The total land area of the 15 lots is approximately 1.01ha.

The northern part of the park is used as an informal boat ramp.  Approx 2500sqm of the park is a cleared area suitable for kicking a ball and probably camping.

The park functions includes a kick about area, toddler and primary play area, dog off leash foreshore area, access to Moreton Bay for swimming and boating via sandy beach. 

Facilities at the park include power, water, tables and seat combinations, 1 large shelter and 2 small shelters, 2 wood burning barbeques, 2 electric barbeques, play equipment, wheelie bins, public toilet block and bollards.

The public toilet is a single cubicle unisex, disable compliant, Clivus Multram composting unit.  The toilet has limited capacity to 25 uses per day, has no lights and has performed well for its low usage measured on 13 toilet rolls per week.

Facilities required to Accommodate Camping.

The facilities required to accommodate camping will vary depending on the level agreed to by Council.  The following additional facilities would support camping making it a safe and enjoyable experience;

At a minimum

·                Signage – dealing compliance, interpretive, safety, local information, emergency

·                Hot water supply (possible)

·                Drinking water supply

·                Hand washing facilities

·                Internal or external shower facilities

·                Designated camping area

·                Designated number of camping sites

·                Directional signage including a map of the island with information about local services, including emergency services, map of the area(include other islands and NSI) including outdoor recreation activities, walking trails

·                Fire wood to the wood BBQs

·                Fire pit with regular provision of fire wood

·                Night lighting – low level e.g. solar attached to toilet block

·                Fire fighting equipment

If demand requires:

·                Primary playground

·                Additional large shelter for larger picnic groups with table and chair combinations

·                Additional larger BBQ for camping area

·                An upgrade of the public toilet (e.g. another toilet could be configured in the existing building) and a second holding tank could be attached) thus doubling its capacity to 50 uses per day.

Community Ownership of the Park

Feedback during the consultation process for the Redland Open Space Strategy indicated that Lions Boulevard Park is a highly valued and used neighbourhood park and greatly loved and enjoyed by Russell Islanders.

Increased use of the public toilets over weekends and holiday periods confirms this popularity.

The idea of camping in a loved and valued neighbourhood park needs to be carefully considered in terms of the number of camp sites, the length of stay and the time and frequency of camp site booking.

What the Redland Planning Scheme Allows

The planning advice is that the low level camping proposed for Lions Boulevard Park on Russell Island is a very minor use and does not trigger the Redlands Planning Scheme.

However, intensification of use beyond what is proposed may trigger as a Tourist Park (tents and cabins) development.  The use under these circumstances would be “Impact Assessable” unless it is located on Open Space zoned land in the ownership or control of the local government and on North Stradbroke Island.

What the Local Laws Allow

Camping is controlled under Local Law No 7 Camping Grounds or Local Law 15 Parks and Reserves.

Local Law 7 Camping Grounds defines a commercial camping ground or land approved by the local government for camping.  A commercial camping ground means land that is made available, on a commercial basis, for camping but does not include a caravan park. 

If Council was to set up and run a camp ground on public open space as a commercial enterprise then Local Law 7 would apply.  Council would have to prepare a plan and provide details of all required facilities

Council or the Council’s operator would be required to be compliant with a range of conditions including:

·                The provision of water for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene

·                Adequate toilets and showering facilities

·                Waste disposal

·                The keeping of a register of the name, address, site booking details including site hire dates

·                Not overbooking the camp ground

·                The good working order of onsite facilities

·                Management of open fires

·                The cleanliness of the camp ground which is also a responsibility of the campers

Camping is also regulated under Local Law No. 15 Parks and Reserves whereby a  person must not camp or sleep overnight in a park or reserve, or otherwise use a park or reserve as a place of abode (whether temporary or permanent), without a permit granted by the Council.

Site Management Issues

The following site management issues need to be factored into Council’s operational budgets if camping is to be permitted in Lions Boulevard Park including:

·                The management of over staying campers. These are people who set up and stay for longer their booking allows or those who have no booking and have set up camp for extended periods of time (e.g. school holidays). This could particularly be the case if they have arrived by car and can drive in and out for supplies.

·                Management of unacceptably rowdy campers

·                Alcohol consumption in a public park

·                Mosquitoes, sandflies and biting midges are present all times of the year. Extra sprays at peak (biting) season would be required to support sustainable camping in this location.

·                Preventing camp fires outside the provided fire pit

·                Increased cleaning of the public toilet and provision of toilet paper, overflowing public toilet

·                Removal of increased amounts of litter / rubbish / rotting food

·                Repair to vandalised infrastructure

·                It should be noted that there is no provision for an onsite caretaker to manage bookings, over stayers or rowdy campers

Commercial or Community Opportunities

·                There may be on island commercial opportunities for ancillary services to support or manage camping on Russell Island

·                If any number of other SMBI Council owned facilities and venues are grouped together and offered to a community services and facility based group or company then a camp ground could be incorporated into this arrangement

·                The provision of “camper” packs sold to individuals and groups could be developed as a commercial opportunity. For example a pre-ordered pack of fire wood, toilet paper, mosquito prevention, food hampers, even to the extent of tents and other equipment, could be hired to campers who arrive by kayak or boat and are delivered to the site, for a price. The price might also include a clean up or rubbish removal. So, if you have pre-ordered this service then you may be exempt from having to pay a bond, take your rubbish with you, carrying extra and heavy gear.  This arrangement may assist group bookings in particular and also tourists who arrive with none of this gear.

·                The use of an island bus service could be offered to individuals and groups who would like to explore the island or access shops, meals and other attractions. This would be off interest particularly to people who have arrived by boat and during periods when the mosquitoes and midges are very bad.

·                Examples include - Stradbroke Island 4WD Tours & Camping Holidays who set up camper trailers on site and provide all camping requirements at a really reasonable rate.

·                Also on NSI another business delivers ice to campers (with the exception of Main Beach) and Hey Gelati Man operates during holiday periods

·                On NSI fire wood can be purchased by roadside stalls

·                Already Bayside Camper Trailers at Redland Bay offer a hire pick up service at reasonable rates.

·                There is one residence in the vicinity of Lions Park.

Local Laws Accredited Officers on Russell Island

·                Council has Local Law 7 (Camp Grounds - commercial) but no officer delegated to enforce this local law

·                Previously, when Council managed the NSI Camp Grounds the Council Camp Ground staff were delegated under Local Law 7 and were on the spot to educate, advise and enforce when necessary

·                Currently one Council Local Laws officer, with other delegations, attends to NSI and SMBI with time spread between the Islands.

·                On average this officer will attend NSI twice per fortnight and one visit per fortnight is planned for the other Islands, however this may vary if the demand for increased visits is required.

·                Council will need to train an officer to be delegated to enforce Local Law 7 if Council wishes to proceed with allowing camping in its public open spaces in the future

·                Such a delegated officer might be one who is already based on the island so they can respond quickly if need be

·                Such a delegated officer could be given a list of bookings each week and check weekly or fortnightly or as requested, the park for overstayers and people camping without a booking

·                If camping is permitted it could also be regulated under Local Law 15.

·                A Parks and Conservation Office, based on SMBI are delegated under Local Law 15.

Risk Management Issues

·                Matters that would need Police intervention and assistance could include:

·           Drunken disorderly behaviour

·           Violence towards self, other campers, members of the public, local residents

·           Vandalism or theft of public or private property

·           Hooning in vehicles

·           Emergencies

·           Accidents

·                Matters that would require RCC intervention and assistance:

·           Vandalism to RCC property

·           Overstaying a camp booking

·           Camping without a permit

·           Littering

·           Activities in the park causing harm or potential harm to other park users (Local Law 15 & 7)

·           Flooding, storm surge, Storm damage

·           Emergency response, signage, road closures etc

Options for Camping in Lions Boulevard Park

1. Small group camping

·                Lions Boulevard Park could be only offered as an overnight camping spot for organised outdoor education, outdoor recreation, eco-tourism groups travelling by kayak, canoe, sailing dingy or motor boat

·                These small groups could include scouts, sea scouts, cadets, guides, canoe clubs, church groups, schools, green corp., back packers or any organised group

·                Benefits of limited group camping

·           Treat the camping “event” as a parks booking

·           Limit the size of the group

·           Limited times of the year (e.g. 12 times per year)

·           Highly managed “events”

·           Booking required

·           Conditions can be issued including the requirement for extra toilets – porta-loos to be provided

·           Payment of a bond

·           Clean up required

·           Details are collected of group organisers

·           The community can be advised and plan around these “events”

·           The community e.g. Lions Club could get involved in the camping “event” e.g. sausage sizzle, activities, bus shuttle, tour guiding

·           Will involve the hiring of portaloos and extra rubbish bins

2. Free or user pay camping with a booking

·                Limit the camping sites to a small number, within the current capacity of the public toilets, e.g. 2 sites, max 4 people at each site

·                Allow camping at anytime, thus spreading the load and impact over a great period of time

·                Require campers to have a booking (date of arrival and departure) thus gathering data on usage, size of groups, location from where people are travelling from and perhaps issue them with information (compliance and tourist). This would prevent over use of the site and the public toilet. This is in keeping with the requirements of LL7

·                Commence this as a trial for 6 months and promote as a water based trail camping ground that requires at booking and camping permit

·                Prepare a report at the end of the trial to examine the full range of issues experienced. Either continue as a free / user pay camping area or move it to a group camping area only and limit the number and duration of events each year.

3. A combination of both – group events and free / user pay camping

·                Limit the number of group “event” bookings available each year

·                Make the park available at all other times for camping with a permit at a very small number of sites (e.g. 2 site, max 4 people each site)

The suitability of the park for camping

·                Apart from the mosquito problem and the limited number of uses that the public toilet can cope with, Lions Boulevard Park is a great place to allow very low key camping.

·                There is good access from the bay, the park is flat and dry and beautifully maintained. The facilities such as a toilet, BBQs, power, light, water, bins and picnic facilities are already in place, thanks to the Lions Community and Council.

·                It is a challenging paddle from Jacobs Well, the Gold Coast or Redland Bay to arrive at this destination but once onsite in the park,  staying over- night and waiting to the tide to turn to take you back to where you came from is a good idea.

·                There are limited camping opportunities in the southern part of Moreton Bay and even the addition of two more sites (eight more “places”) will add to the diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities for people

·                The location is even a challenging day paddle for SMBI paddlers who may very well enjoy arriving at this destination and staying over- night perhaps meeting friends there for a BBQ and sing-a-long.

·                People travelling in the small vessels have the opportunity to take their dog that can, at certain times of the year run on Sandy Beach.

·                Slowly introducing camping to the SMBI through a Council run trial might facilitate over time new small businesses on the SMBI.

·                The activity however requires excellent communication tools, high levels of compliance consistency and increased levels of maintenance in order to sustain the park to the current standards both for campers and the local community who love and use the park regularly.

A Bigger Picture

An alternate strategy could be as follows:

·                Develop a canoe trail around the islands first, mapping the entry/exit points of the best locations for arriving and departing

·                Promote the canoe trail and other on island accommodation and services first

·                Examine some of the canoe trail sites for the capacity to be developed over time as ancillary camping areas to support the canoe trail, particularly focus on areas that have good access to facilities and services so as to maintain safety, sustain good management and promote eco-tourism and the islands businesses (shops, cafes etc)

·                Trial a small number of these camping areas e.g. a remote location with few / limited facilities and larger area with basic facilities

·                Put the management in place as part of the trial and monitor the trial for management issues, usage, community acceptance and economic benefit.

Strategic Implications

Setting precedence for camping in public open space in the absence of a strategic framework (e.g. outdoor recreation or tourism strategy for camping in the Redlands) other then Local Law 7 or Local Law 15.

Legislative Requirements

Insofar that a permit will be issued in accordance with Local Law 7, it has been determined that no planning approval is required at this point in time for the proposal as it stands.

Risk Management

A Risk Management Assessment has been undertaken and is attached.

Financial

By allowing camping in Lions Boulevard Park a number of resource implications will have an effect on Council’s budget and service delivery including the cost of;

·                Training an officer (preferably one based on the SMBI) to be delegated to enforce Local Law 7 and Local Law 15

·                Additional visits to the park by Parks and Local Laws officers

·                Additional maintenance of park

·                Additional public toilet maintenance and pumping

·                Additional waste removal and BBQ cleaning

·                Cost of power and water to site

·                Cost of officers time in problem solving issues

·                Cost of setting up the site in the parks booking system

·                Taking and handling the bookings and conditions of camping

·                Communication tools, marketing and promotion

·                Minor capital or operational works to comply with theLocal Law conditions including signage, lighting, outdoor shower, hand washing basin, improved access to drinking water and maybe access to hot water

·                Future capital and operational works to cater for growing demand and to maintain a quality outdoor recreation experience

It is unknown what these additional costs might be until a trial is undertaken and monitored and an impact report prepared for future operational budget planning.

Revenue

It is recommended that a small fee (e.g. $10 per booking) be charged to encourage people to value the camping experience and the increased level of service that Council would have to provide (toilet paper, firewood, rubbish removal, monitoring of the park for overstayers). They payment would be done online along with the booking.

People

Increased tasks including:

·                Park and facility management and maintenance

·                Camp site bookings

·                Camp site inspections and responding to requests and complaints

·                Support to emerging business on the SMBI to support growth in tourism and visitations

Environmental

Potential increase in the following:

·                Litter (land, water)

·                Noise nuisance

·                Unwanted fire pits

·                Damage to trees (if fire wood not available)

·                Impact on foreshore – mangroves, sand, erosion at informal boat ramp

·                Communication, education and information will be the key to success

Social

The activity will mostly be beneficial but may occasionally give rise to other issues:

·                Increased use of a popular community park – intensification of use

·                Benefits of social and cultural interaction between campers and the SMBI Community

·                Health and wellbeing benefits to people and families from being together in the outdoors

·                Conflict of use between campers and the community, including local residents

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

Aligned and supported by:

·                Redland Open Space Strategy 2026

·                Local Law No 7 Camping Grounds

·                Local Law 15 Parks and Reserves

Consultation

·                Notice of Motion put forward by Councillor Division 5

·                Discussions with Councillor Division 5 and Councillor for Portfolio 5

·                Community support for a canoe trail and camping site was received during the community consultation on the draft open Space Strategy– 10 submissions where made supporting or requesting increased camping on the SMBI

·                Sustainable Assessment Officers – providing advice and information

·                Community Standards Officers – providing advice and information

·                City Planning and Environment Officers – providing advice and information

·                City Spaces Officers - providing advice and information

·                Risk and Liability Officers - providing advice and information and risk assessment

·                Building and Facilities Officer - providing advice, data and information

·                CEO Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation Dr Donna Little – providing advice and information

·                Ben Tidey, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Senior Conservation Office, National Parks and Wildlife Service Moreton Bay

Options

Option 1

·                Agree in principal that camping in Lions Boulevard Park, 34-50 The Boulevard Russell Island should be perused as a recreation activity in this location

·                Undertake Community consultation with adjoining land owners and residents

·                Issue a permit to operate a commercial camping ground on council owned public open space under Local Law 7 and Local Law 15.

·                The permit application would be for approval for 2 camp sites with a max 4 people at each site; this is within the current capacity of the existing public toilets. This limit is to apply at all times including peak holiday periods.

·                Apply for camping to allowed at anytime, thus spreading the load and impact over a great period of time

·                Apply for the maximum amount of time for each booking will be for 3 nights

·                Campers will be required to make a site booking stating their name, address of each camper, vehicle registration, date of arrival and departure

·                Prepare a budget submission for the 2013/2014 financial year for the cost of meeting the Local Law conditions

·                Commence a twelve month trial of limited user pay camping at Lions Boulevard Park Russell Island

·                Set a suitable and market based fee for each night’s booking ($n per site per night)

·                Promote the camping experience as a water based trail destination and camping ground

·                Prepare a report for presentation to Council at the end of the trial.

Option 2

·                Develop a canoe trail around the SMBI, mapping the entry/exit points of the best locations for arriving and departing

·                Promote the SMBI canoe trail and SMBI accommodation first

·                Examine some of the canoe trail sites for their capacity to be developed over time as ancillary camping areas to support the canoe trail, particularly focus on areas that have good access to facilities and services so as to maintain safety, sustain good management and promote eco-tourism and the islands businesses (shops, cafes etc)

·                Trial a small number of these camping area e.g. a remote location with few / limited facilities and larger area with basic facilities

·                Put the camp site management in place as part of the trial and monitor the trial for management issues, usage, community acceptance and economic benefit.

 

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr M Edwards

Seconded by:           Cr J Talty

That Council resolve to:

1.         Agree in principle that camping in Lions Boulevard Park, 34-50 The Boulevard Russell Island should be pursued as a recreation activity in this location;

2.         Undertake Community consultation by notifying adjoining land owners and residents;

3.         Issue a permit to operate a commercial camping ground on council owned public open space under Local Law 7 and Local Law 15 subject to the following conditions:

·                That the camping at Lions Boulevard Park Russell Island be approved as a trial only of limited user pay for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of commencement;

·                The approval would be for 2 camp sites with a max 4 people at each site; this is within the current capacity of the existing public toilets. This limit is to apply at all times including peak holiday periods;

·                Camping to allowed at anytime, thus spreading the load and impact over a great period of time; and

·                The maximum amount of time for each booking will be for 3 nights;

4.         Prepare a budget submission for the cost of meeting the establishing a camping area;

5.         Set a suitable and market based fee for each night’s booking as part of Council’s fee and charges schedule;

6.         Promote the camping experience as a water based trail destination and camping ground; and

7.         Prepare a report for presentation to Council at the end of the trial.

 

CARRIED      10/0

 

Cr Ogilvie was not present when the motion was put.

9             portfolio 6                                                                     (cr MARK EDWARDS)

CORPORATE SERVICES

9.1         OFFICE OF CEO

9.1.1    THIRD QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW 2012/2013

Dataworks Filename:                 FM Budget Review Committee Reports

Attachments:                               Q3 Financial Statements [PDF 1.18MB]
Q3 Summary of Movements [PDF 295KB]

Authorising Officer:                   
Description: G:\Governance\OfficeOfCEO\Data\CEO Office Directory\CEO Sig\CEO-Signature-Bill-Lyon.JPG

Bill Lyon
Chief Executive Officer

Responsible Officer:                  Gavin Holdway
Chief Financial Officer

Author:                                           Katharine McCarthy
Budget and Systems Accountant

Purpose

This report outlines the budgeted financial position as at 31 March 2013 following the third quarter of 2012/13 service delivery.  The report also provides an overview of required and/or requested budget submissions to Council’s 2012/13 revised budget.

Attached to this report are the following details:

·                Revised 2012/2013 Budgeted Statement of Cash Flows,

·                Revised 2012/2013 Budgeted Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet),

·                Revised 2012/2013 Operating Statements, Capital Funding and Other Items,

·                Revised Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for 2012/2013,

·                An attachment outlining the major movements surrounding this budget review (Refer Attachment - ‘Q3 Summary of Movements’).

It is proposed that Council resolve to adopt the revised budget for 2012/13 at Redland City Council (RCC) consolidated level.  In addition to this and in accordance with the Local Government Regulation 2012, it is proposed that Council resolve to adopt the Redland Water and RedWaste financial statement that is presented in the attached documentation.  The relevant pages are outlined within the Officer’s Recommendation in this report.

Additionally this proposed review seeks to address known budget expectations, significant forecast variances, consider budget review submissions and identify capital program expenditure to be carried over to the 2013/14 financial year.

Background

This report presents a review of the 2012/2013 revised budget as at 31 March 2013.  As part of Council’s financial management framework, comprehensive quarterly budget reviews are undertaken across all groups within each department.  

The third quarter budget review builds on the previous review of the budget and amends previous forecasts usually focuses on making any final corrections to adopted budget figures and incorporating any final new or changed programmes or priorities for the financial year. 

Council last revised the 2012/13 budget in February 2013 as per item 7.1.2 from the General Meeting held Wednesday 27th February 2013.

Issues

As per attachment 1, the material proposed variations to the 2012/13 budget are outlined by the Department.

Strategic Implications

Legislative Requirements

This proposed budget review is in alignment with the Local Government Act and regulations of 2012.

Risk Management

Nil

Financial

This recommendation requires a change to the current year’s revised budget and the accompanying attachments outline the major movements surrounding this review as well as the projected financial statements forecast to 30th June 2013.

This proposed budget review forecast will decrease the cash holding position for the year ending 30th June 2013 by $7.144m, which is influenced by a number of movements including a forecast reduction in Council’s level of dependence on loan borrowings of approximately $8m. 

Note, this proposed budget review indicates that Council’s forecast deficit will increase from ($9.335m) to ($10.004m) for the financial year ending 2012/13.  Importantly, this unfavourable movement is influenced by several “one-off” movements that will not influence reporting periods beyond this financial year, these include:

·                $2.2m – Accelerated depreciation for Holiday Parks

·                $2.3m – Additional Depreciation – Water (revaluation)

·                $4.6m  – One-off type expense including redundancy payments, debt write-offs, clean up costs following weather events and exiting from School Aged Care and Holiday Parks businesses.

The above “one-off” impacts to the deficit forecast position for 2012/13 amount to $5.567m and if these did not occur, this budget review would have seen Council reduce the deficit forecast for 2012/13 to approximately $0.860m.

People

Nil

Environmental

Nil

Social

Nil

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

9. An efficient and effective organisation

Council is well respected and seen as an excellent organisation which manages resources in an efficient and effective way

9.5       Ensure robust long term financial planning is in place to protect the financial sustainability of Council

9.7       Develop our procurement practices to increase value for money within an effective governance framework

Consultation

Group managers in consultation with the Executive Leadership Group (ELG) undertook the development of this budget review.  Councillors reviewed the budget submissions with ELG in a workshop held on Thursday 16 May 2013.

Options

1.      Adopt the Revised Budget for 2012/13 at Redland City Council consolidated level which refers to the following (refer attachment – ‘Q3 Financial Statements’):

a)    RCC Budgeted Statement of Cash flows – page 1;

b)    RCC Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) – page 2;

c)    RCC Operating and Capital Funding Statement – page 1; and

To meet the requirements of the Local Government Regulation 2012, adopt the RedWaste and Redland Water Operating and Capital Funding Statements (page 6).

2.      Not adopt the revised budget for 2012/13 as presented in the Officer’s Recommendation.

 

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr M Edwards

Seconded by:           Cr A Beard

That Council resolve to:

1.      Adopt the Revised Budget for 2012/13 at Redland City Council consolidated level which refers to the following (refer attachment – ‘Q3 Financial Statements’):

a)        RCC Budgeted Statement of Cash flows – page 1;

b)        RCC Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet) – page 2;

c)        RCC Operating and Capital Funding Statement – page 3; and

2.      Meet the requirements of the Local Government Regulation 2012, adopt the RedWaste and Redland Water Operating and Capital Funding Statements (page 6).

CARRIED      10/0

 

Cr Ogilvie was not present when the motion was put.

 

9.1.2    DECISIONS MADE UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR CATEGORY 1, 2 AND 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Dataworks Filename:                 Reports to Coordination Committee – Portfolio 7 Planning and Development

Authorising Officer:                    Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\Electronic Signature - Louise_Rusan.JPG
Louise Rusan
General Manager
Community and Customer Services

Responsible Officer:                  Bruce Macnee
Group Manager Sustainable Assessment

Author:                                           Kerri Lee
Business Support Officer, Sustainable Assessment

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to note that the decisions listed below were made under delegated authority for Category 1, 2 and 3 development applications.

 

This information is provided for public interest.

 

Background

At the General Meeting of 27 July, 2011, Council resolved that development assessments be classified into the following four Categories:

 

Category 1 – Minor Complying Code Assessments & associated administrative matters, including correspondence associated with the routine management of all development applications;

Category 2 – Complying Code Assessments & Minor Impact Assessments;

Category 3 – Moderately Complex Code & Impact Assessments; and

Category 4 – Major and Significant Assessments.

 

The applications detailed in this report have been assessed under:

 

·                Category 1 criteria - defined as complying code assessable applications, including building works assessable against the planning scheme, and other applications of a minor nature.

·                Category 2 criteria - defined as complying code assessable and compliance assessable applications, including operational works, and Impact Assessable applications without submissions of objection.  Also includes a number of process related delegations, including issuing planning certificates, approval of works on and off maintenance and the release of bonds, and all other delegations not otherwise listed.

 

·                Category 3 criteria that are defined as applications of a moderately complex nature, generally mainstream impact assessable applications and code assessable applications of a higher level of complexity.  Impact applications may involve submissions objecting to the proposal readily addressable by reasonable and relevant conditions.  Both may have minor level aspects outside a stated policy position that are subject to discretionary provisions of the Planning Scheme.  Applications seeking approval of a plan of survey are included in this category.  Applications can be referred to Development and Community Standards Committee for a decision.

Category 1

1.    Development Permit issued on 9 May, 2013 for a material change of use for a dwelling house at 1 Springbrook Drive, Capalaba.  Plantation Homes.  (MCU013059)

2.    Development Permit issued on 8 May, 2013 for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding at 2-4 Guyana Court, Capalaba.  Mr D.H Kirk.  (BWP001731)

3.    Development Permit issued on 2 May, 2013 for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding at 30 Silkwood Street, Capalaba.  Mr B.M. Sinn and Ms L.J. Heselwood.  (BWP001728)

4.    Development Permit issued on 2 May, 2013 for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding at 5 Cook Street, Amity.  Mr A.K. Ritchie and Mrs A. Ritchie.  (BWP001721)

5.    Development Permit issued on 30 April, 2013 for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for a domestic outbuilding at 4 Megan Court, Thornlands.  Mr P.A. Eder and Mrs J.M. Eder.  (BWP001729)

6.    Development Permit issued on 6 May, 2013 for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for domestic additions at 427-443 Schoeck Road, Sheldon.  Mr S.R. Ellis-Butler.  (BWP001724)

7.    Development Permit issued on 2 May, 2013 for building works approval assessed against the Redlands Planning Scheme for domestic additions at 21 Yarrong Road, Point Lookout.  Mr T.L. Harmer.  (BWP001682)

8.    Development Permit issued on 14 May, 2013 for reconfiguration of lots at 275 Fitzroy Street, Cleveland.  Mr Z.M. Chalakov.  (ROL005654)

9.    Concurrence Agency Response issued on 15 May, 2013 for domestic additions at 22A Beatty Road, Thorneside.  Strickland Certification Pty Ltd.  (BWP001757)

10. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 20 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 11 Bouquet Street, Mount Cotton.  Lindon Homes Pty Ltd.  (BWP001739)

11. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 15 May, 2013 for a domestic outbuilding at 27 Korsman Drive, Thornlands.  Mr John P. Dillon and Mrs Catherine F. Dillon.  (BWP001747)

12. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 14 May, 2013 for a domestic outbuilding at 31 Marina Street, Alexandra Hills.  Mr Roger D. Shipston.  (BWP001744)

13. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 14 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 56 Unwin Road, Redland Bay.  Bartley Burns Certifiers and Planners.  (BWP001732)

14. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 8 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 31-39A King Street, Thornlands.  Mrs Joanne D. Middleton.  (BWP001742)

15. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 13 May, 2013 for a domestic outbuilding at 2 Darren Close, Victoria Point.  Adept Building Approvals.  (BWP001748)

16. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 13 May, 2013 for design and siting for a retaining wall / fence height at 35A Larbonya Crescent, Capalaba.  Mr Craig L. Beveridge.  (BWP001737)

17. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 10 May, 2013 for a domestic outbuilding at 76 Hilliards Park Drive, Wellington Point.  Mr Paul A. Weston.  (BWP001745)

18. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 10 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 52 Waterville Drive, Thornlands.  Building Code Approval Group Pty Ltd.  (BWP001746)

19. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 8 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 31-39A King Street, Thornlands.  Mrs Joanne D. Middleton.  (BWP001743)

20. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 3 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 2 Leopard Place, Redland Bay.  Platinum Building Approvals.  (BWP001736)

21. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 1 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 8 Cleveland Terrace, Ormiston.  Imperial Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd.  (BWP001735)

22. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 1 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 14 Agnola Court, Birkdale.  Building Code Approval Group Pty Ltd.  (BWP001734)

23. Concurrence Agency Response issued on 8 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 31-39A King Street, Thornlands.  Mrs Joanne D. Middleton.  (BWP001741)

24. Development Permit issued on 14 May, 2013 for operational works for reconfiguring a lot (one into three lots) at 24-26 Creek Road, Birkdale.  Mr M. Lombard.  (OPW001390)

25. Development Permit issued on 7 May, 2013 for operational works for reconfiguring a lot (one into four lots) at 59-61 Hardy Road, Wellington Point.  DEQ Consulting Engineers.  (OPW001431)

26. Development Permit issued on 2 May, 2013 for operational works for reconfiguring a lot at 71C McMillan Road, Alexandra Hills.  Ampflo Pty Ltd.  (OPW001460)

27. Compliance Permit issued on 15 May, 2013 in association with landscaping works for a dual occupancy at 56 Rose Street, Ormiston.  Mrs Maria J. Anthony and Mr Theo J Anthony.  (OPW001472)

28. Compliance Permit issued on 16 May, 2013 in association with landscaping works for a multiple dwelling (x 43) at 95-97 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba.  Bindor Development Pty Ltd.  (OPW001445)

29. A Notice agreeing to a change of approval was issued on 14 May, 2013 for a domestic outbuilding at 27 Arlington Street, Cleveland.  The Certifier Pty Ltd.  (BWP001575)

Category 2

1.    Development Permit issued on 10 May, 2013 for a material change of use for a dwelling house at 7 Springbrook Drive, Capalaba.  Approveit Building Certification Pty Ltd.  (MCU013050)

2.    Development Permit issued on 29 April, 2013 for a material change of use for a dwelling house at 27 Wirralee Street, Macleay Island.  Bay Island Designs.  (MCU013054)

3.    Development Permit issued on 16 May, 2013 for a material change of use for a small lot house at 401-451 Redland Bay Road, Capalaba.  Approveit Building Certification Pty Ltd.  (MC011643)

4.    Development Permit issued on 6 May, 2013 for a material change of use to construct a multiple dwelling (x 5) at 38 Wentworth Drive, Capalaba.  The Certifier Pty Ltd.  (MCU013040)

5.    Development Permit issued on 29 April, 2013 for a material change of use to establish a mixed use development (stages 5A and B – commercial office, apartment building and tourist accommodation over two stages) at 219-221 Bloomfield Street, Cleveland.  Ponda Developments Pty Ltd.  (MCU012779)

6.    Compliance Permit issued on 10 May, 2013 for internal and external civil works in association with operational works for a multi-unit development (4 units) at 8 Oaklands Street, Alexandra Hills.  Reiner De Haan Thomson and Irene Ann Reay.  (OPW001411)

7.    A Notice agreeing to a change of approval was issued on 16 May, 2013 for a reconfiguration of lots at 31-37 Moreton Road, Thornlands.  Werdor Pty Ltd As Trustee.  (ROL005517)

8.    A Notice agreeing to a change of approval was issued on 15 May, 2013 for a reconfiguration of lots at 33 Queen Street, Redland Bay.  Mr P.W. Clibbon.  (ROL005582)

9.    A Notice agreeing to a change of approval was issued on 14 May, 2013 for a small lot house at 5 Spink Street, Wellington Point.  Mr J.A. Pangrazio.  (MC012189)

10. A Notice agreeing to a change of approval was issued on 10 May, 2013 for a dwelling house at 278-286 High Central Road, Macleay Island.  Bay Island Designs.  (MC08932)

11. Negotiated Decision Notice issued on 29 April, 2013 to vary an existing development approval for an aged persons and special needs housing and child care centre at 258, 260 and 264 Old Cleveland Road East, 6 Fort Street and 3-5 Brewer Street, Capalaba.  McKenzie Aged Care Group Pty Ltd.  (MC011764)

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr J Talty

Seconded by:           Cr A Beard

That Council resolve to note the report.

CARRIED      11/0

9.1.3    APPEALS LIST - CURRENT AS AT 20 MAY, 2013

Dataworks Filename:                 Reports to Coordination Committee – Portfolio 7 Planning and Development

Authorising Officer:                    Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\Electronic Signature - Louise_Rusan.JPG
Louise Rusan
General Manager Community and Customer Service

Responsible Officer:                  Bruce Macnee
Manager Sustainable Assessment

Author:                                           Daniel Zilli
Service Manager, Design and Co-ordination

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to note the current appeals.

Background

Information on appeals may be found as follows:

 

1.         Planning and Environment Court

 

a)        Information on current appeals and declarations with the Planning and Environment Court involving Redland City Council can be found at the District Court web site using the “Search civil files (eCourts) Party Search” service: http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearching/party.asp

 

b)        Judgements of the Planning and Environment Court can be viewed via the Supreme Court of Queensland Library web site under the Planning and Environment Court link http://www.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/

 

2.         Redland City Council

 

The lodgement of an appeal is acknowledged with the Application details on the Councils “Planning and Development On Line - Development - Application Inquiry” site.  Some Appeal documents will also be available (note: legal privilege applies to some documents). All judgements and settlements will be reflected in the Council Decision Notice documents:     http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/PlanningandBuilding/PDOnline/Pages/default.aspx

 

3.         Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (SDIP)

 

The DSDIP provides a Database of Appeals (http://services.dip.qld.gov.au/appeals/) that may be searched for past appeals and declarations heard by the Planning and Environment Court.

 

 

The database contains:

 

·                A consolidated list of all appeals and declarations lodged in the Planning and Environment Courts across Queensland of which the Chief Executive has been notified.

·                Information about the appeal or declaration, including the appeal number, name and year, the site address and local government.

 

Issues

1.   

File Number:

Appeal 1880 of 2008

(SB004758.1A SB004758.1B MC007588)

Applicant:

Heritage Properties P/L

Application Details:

Material Change of Use (residential development) and Reconfiguring a Lot (1 into 35 lots (1A)) and Preliminary Approval affecting a Planning Instrument

268, 278, 296, 310, 332 & 344 Cleveland-Redland Bay Road, Thornlands

Appeal Details:

Applicant appeal against deemed refusal.

Current Status:

Conditions are being reviewed by appellants and Infrastructure Agreements are being finalised.

Hearing Date:

Listed for 23 May 2013 for review.

 

2.   

File Number:

Appeal 1963 of 2009

(MC010715)

Applicant:

JT George Nominees P/L

Application Details:

Preliminary Approval for MCU for neighbourhood centre, open space and residential uses (concept master plan).

Cnr Taylor Rd & Woodlands Dve, Thornlands.

Appeal Details:

Applicant Appeal against refusal.

Hearing Date:

Adjourned for further review 7 August 2013.

 

3.   

File Number:

Appeal 2675 of 2009.

(MC010624)

Applicant:

L M Wigan

Application Details:

Material Change of Use for residential development (Res A & Res B) and preliminary approval for operational works

84-122 Taylor Road, Thornlands

Appeal Details:

Applicant Appeal against refusal.

Current Status:

Directions Order 1 March 2013 sets out dates for mediation and disclosure of documents.

Hearing Date:

Listed for review 7 August 2013.

 

4.   

File Number:

Appeal 246 of 2013

(MCU012617)

Applicant:

Lipoma Pty Ltd

Application Details:

Material Change of Use for extension to Shopping Centre (Shop and Refreshment Establishment)

2-34 Bunker Road, Victoria Point

Appeal Details:

Applicant appeal against negotiated adopted infrastructure charges notice.

Current Status:

Without prejudice meeting held with appellant.

Hearing Date:

No date set.

 

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr J Talty

Seconded by:           Cr M Edwards

That Council resolve to note the report.

CARRIED      11/0

 

 

10          portfolio 8                                                                   (cr MURRAY ELLIOTT)

INFRASTRUCTURE

10.1      infrastructure and operations

10.1.1 TOONDAH HARBOUR - ADDITIONAL PEAK PARKING AT 233 MIDDLE STREET, CLEVELAND

Dataworks Filename:                      RTT Planning: Redevelopment of Toondah Precinct

Attachment:                                       Location of Overflow Parking Toondah Harbour [PDF 165KB]

 

 

Responsible/Approval Officer:    
Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\gary.jpg


                                                              Gary Soutar
General Manager Infrastructure and Operations

 

Author:                                               Len Purdie
Principal Adviser Roads & Drainage

Purpose

The report is provided in response to a resolution of Council at the General Meeting of 25 July 2012, Item No. 13.2.3 Toondah Harbour Business Centre:

2. That an investigation of the potential of the site to cater for overflow parking commence, and that this investigation be completed so that any findings can be implemented for the Christmas Holidays.

Background

Council owns 233 Middle Street, Cleveland (Lot 19 on SP115544), located behind the formalised parking for Toondah Harbour (refer to Attachment 1). To provide additional parking during peak holiday periods when existing parking numbers are exceeded, a section of 233 Middle Street could be developed into an overflow park to manage the parking shortage, with access from the formalised carpark (refer to Attachment 1).

 

This area could be utilised during the peaks and closed at off-peak times. It is estimated that the area will contain 75 car spaces.

 

Following the Resolution, the site was inspected with Councillor Craig Ogilvie to assess the extent of works for the additional parking. The matter was also discussed with Sustainable Assessment to determine any requirements they may have in relation to a temporary carpark. It was determined that the proposed use will require a development application and this made the project undeliverable prior to Christmas.

 

The Councillor was advised of this at the time. Fencing and civil works are required with estimated value of $62,000 if the car park remains as gravel. Sealing the car park will add significant cost to the project if required by the development approval.

Issues

Under the provision of the Redlands Planning Scheme, the proposed overflow carpark at Toondah Harbour will require approval through a development application.

Strategic Implications

Legislative Requirements

Not Applicable.

Risk Management

There are no risk implications

Financial

It is estimated that the total cost for the overflow parking is $72,000. This includes $10,000 for the lodgement of a development application and $62,000 for the civil works. The cost of the civil works could increase if it is required that the overflow parking has to be sealed. This amount will need to be approved within the 2013/14 budget.

People

Implications to staff will be the management of the development application and the construction of the facility.

Environmental

There is no environmental implication.

Social

There is no social implication.

Alignment with Council's Policy and Plans

Not Applicable.

Consultation

The Sustainable Assessment Group was consulted and a development application under the Redland Planning Scheme is required.

Options

1.    That Council consider with its 2013/14 budget development for an overflow carpark at 233 Middle Street, Cleveland and allocate a budget of $72,000.

2.    That the overflow carpark is not approved

Endstrip - This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to consider with its 2013/14 budget development support for an overflow carpark at 233 Middle Street, Cleveland and allocate a budget of $72,000.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION – 27 March 2013

 

Moved by:                    Cr M Elliott

Seconded by:             Cr A Beard

That the matter lie on the table pending further information.

CARRIED      11/0

In accordance with Council’s Meeting Policy and Standing Orders, s.28(3), a procedural motion, “that the matter be taken from the table” is required prior to further discussion on this matter.

 

11          closed session

portfolio 2 (mayor karen williams) (Supported by Deputy Mayor Cr Beard)

economic development, governance, service delivery, regulations and emergency management

11.1      ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES

11.1.1 SPONSORSHIP APPLICATIONS - 2013 REDFEST

Dataworks Filename:                          CR - Sponsorship - Outgoing

Responsible/Authorising Officer:   

Nick Clarke
General Manager Organisational Services

Author:                                                    Tracey Walker
Group Manager Communications

Executive Summary

A confidential report from General Manager Organisational Services was presented to Committee for consideration.

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr M Elliott

Seconded by:           Cr J Talty

That Council resolve as follows:

1.         To accept the assessment panel’s Option 1; and

2.         That this report remains confidential pending advice to the applicant.

CARRIED      11/0

 

MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING AT 12.28PM

Moved by:                    Cr P Gleeson
Seconded by:             Cr J Talty

That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to Section 72 (1) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010, to discuss the following items:

11.2.1 Ausbuild – DAPR OWLS Pilot Project Development within the Southeast Thornlands Central District Precinct – Infrastructure Charging Agreement (Prior to Submission of Application)

The reason that this is applicable in this instance is as follows:

 (g) Any action to be taken by the local government under the Sustainable Planning Act, including deciding applications made to it under that Act."

CARRIED      7/4

 

Crs Bishop, Elliott, Boglary and Ogilvie voted against the motion to close the meeting.

 

MOTION TO REOPEN MEETING AT 12.50PM

 

Moved by:                    Cr M Elliott
Seconded by:             Cr L Hewlett

That the meeting be again opened to the public.

CARRIED 9/1

Cr Bishop voted against the motion.       
Cr Williams was not present when the motion was put.

 

 

Cr Williams declared a conflict of interest in the following item, stating that the applicant was a contributor to her Mayoralty Campaign.

 

Cr Williams chose to leave the meeting and not vote on the matter.

 

Cr Beard (Deputy Mayor) assumed the Chair.

 

portfolio 7 (cr JULIE TALTY)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

11.2      community & customer services

11.2.1 AUSBUILD – DAPR OWLS PILOT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SOUTH EAST THORNLANDS CENTRAL PRECINCT - Infrastructure Charging Agreement (Prior to Submission of Application)

Dataworks Filename:                             LUP - Ausbuild South East Thornlands Central Precinct

Authorising/Responsible Officer:       Description: C:\Documents and Settings\joycep\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\Y5MQ92EQ\Electronic Signature - Louise_Rusan.JPG
Louise Rusan
General Manager Community & Customer Services

Author:                                                      Janice Worland
Senior Planner Development Assessment

Executive Summary

A confidential report from General Manager Community and Customer Services was discussed in closed forum.

Officer’s/COMMITTEE Recommendation

Moved by:                  Cr J Talty

Seconded by:           Cr K Hardman

That Council resolve as follows:

1.    To adopt the Officer's Recommendation of Option 1; and

2.    That this report remains confidential until a decision is made on the development application.

CARRIED      5/5 on the casting vote of the Acting Chair

Crs Bishop, Gleeson, Elliott, Ogilvie and Boglary voted against the committee recommendation.

 

Cr Williams returned to the meeting at 12.50pm and resumed the Chair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12          MEETING CLOSURE

 

There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting closed at 12.52pm.

 

 

Signature of Chairperson:

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

 

Confirmation date:

__________________________