CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 11 August 2014, be adopted.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to acknowledge Eidfest which occurred last weekend. It was a wet old Saturday for them, unfortunately, but it was a good event, well attended. Many dignitaries also attended, which was great to see.

On Sunday the Carindale Rotary again hosted the Brisbane Billycart Championships. Commiserations, DEPUTY MAYOR, but it was a good event. It was one which continues to grow. There was probably a bit of speculation this year that it was going to be cancelled, with the wet weather on Saturday, but it went ahead and it was a great day for those that were able to attend.

United Nations World Humanitarian Day is on 19 August, today. It is, of course, a day that is used to increase public awareness about humanitarian assistance activities across the world, and we give thanks to all of those service clubs and other entities, other organisations, not-for-profits, that provide a terrific service in terms of humanitarian aid on an ongoing basis.

I also want to note the Epicurious Garden launched this morning in South Bank. I certainly would invite people to go and have a look at that. Everything in the garden apparently is edible; flowers and all. There are I think some 17 volunteers aged between their mid-20s and mid-70s that are working in that garden. As I say, it is certainly worth recommending to people if they are regular South Bank visitors or not to go and have a look at that particular new offering.

Today I also wanted to announce the site of the Wynnum Library facility. This is the Wynnum Central State School. As councillors would be aware, it was a site that Council purchased some time back, and we are now in a position to announce that we will be constructing a 2,000 square metre library at that site. It will replace the current library which is at a different site, which is just 650 square metres in area. So this will be an exciting new opportunity for Wynnum. It is a vote of confidence on this Council's part in relation to the Wynnum area. The library will feature meeting rooms, a parents' room, a children's area; it will have wi-fi internet, and obviously there will be other facilities there as well.

Part of this development will involve the establishment of a major retail development as a component of that structure. It is a $4.25 million project. It is a self-funding project. As well as that, of course we will be spending some money on doing up the Wynnum Central State School itself. For the main building structure there we will be formally calling for expressions of interest a little later this year so that building can again be re-housed as part of a total redevelopment of the site.

So it is a piece of exciting news for the Wynnum area. It is one where we want to enhance the whole CBD environment down there as well. Again, the beauty of this arrangement is that it will be a self-funding outcome. There has been a lot of work putting together the proposal that delivers real value-for-money for the ratepayers of this city. That will be a proposal that will be taken forward from here.

I also just quickly acknowledge all of those winners of the Spotless Suburbs this morning—Keep Australia Beautiful through the Queensland section of that organisation. They were very helpful in terms of organising the event, but recognition and a thanks and congratulations to all of those people involved, right across Brisbane, who were engaged in keeping our city a beautiful place.

The five items today relate to different aspects—the first three being neighbourhood plans: the City Centre Neighbourhood Plan, the Hemmant-Lytton Neighbourhood Plan, and the Lower Oxley Creek North Neighbourhood Plan. These are the same story as applied last week. This is the remaining three. There are no more to come after these three today. But they are the six neighbourhood plans in total now that relate to that change in the State arrangements.

Item D is a proposed resumption of private land for park purposes. This is located at 41 Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo. It is part of a neighbourhood planning process where we have indicated that we wanted to facilitate some additional corridor linkages, linking up the parkland parcels within the Coorparoo area. So this is, if you like, making good on part of that neighbourhood plan, and making sure that we continue to edge forward in terms of the creating of that corridor of parkland through this particular area. So, a total of 792 square metres in this case. That is there for the consideration of councillors.

There was an objection received in relation to it. I should note that. Councillors would have received the details around that. A response was provided to the property owners in respect of it.

Item E is the Health, Safety and Amenity Amending Local Law. The Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 will be repealed by the Queensland Government, and that will take effect in September of this year. Parts 2A and 3 of that regulation contain provisions that are essential to the operation of Council's waste collection services.

So what we have had to do is to transfer those regulations that were contained within the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 into that of our Health, Safety and Amenity Local Law 2009. This simply means there is no change to the law. There is change to the structure of the law, but no actual changes in terms of the way in which things are done, no changes to the delivery process; it simply means that those responsibilities now get placed within the Health, Safety and Amenity Local Law 2009. So it is an administrative change. It will not reflect in any material change or make any material difference to people out there in the suburbs of Brisbane.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor DICK.

Councillor DICK: Thanks, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on all items today of the E&C Report.

Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause E, THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND AMENITY AMENDING LOCAL LAW 2014, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

The draft Lower Oxley Creek North Neighbourhood Plan that I was briefed on about this change, over the recess, I know that this one has been I guess a long-time coming. It started back in 2009, I understand, and was placed on hold in 2010 pending the results of the Willawong Air Quality Health Risk Assessment. In late 2013 and late 2014, the preparation was under way, and now we need to go through this process as well.

The Hemmant-Lytton Neighbourhood Plan is, of course, straddling—well, I know both councillors have been consulted on that, the Councillor for Doboy and Councillor Peter CUMMING, and I understand feedback on the draft neighbourhood plan strategy has closed, and it was available for public comment between 12 May and 30 May this year. So I guess it's a bit strange to be asking for approval from the State Government in a formal sense when we've sort of started and that process has been finished, but nonetheless that's the law.

I know I raised some concerns last week about I guess the extra time that this layer puts into our planning process. I guess from my point of view, and Labor councillors, we see it as some of our rights being eroded, particularly given that the cost in time involved with the planning process—not just for this Council but across the whole-of-Queensland—I certainly don't want these changes to have any impact on the timelines. We have seen, for example, item C, that has been bubbling around for a number of years now, some three or four years, and whilst this is a technical item which we will be supporting today, it certainly doesn’t give a blanket support for everything inside those neighbourhood plans.

Item A is the draft City Centre Neighbourhood Plan, and as fallout of the City Centre Master Plan itself, it is anticipated that this neighbourhood plan will also make amendments to the New Farm and Teneriffe Neighbourhood Plan and the Milton Neighbourhood Plan to annexe the Quay Street Precinct, as I read through the documents.

What I would like to know from the LORD MAYOR particularly regarding the draft City Centre Neighbourhood Plan, has there been any discussions or any further advice regarding negotiations with the Australian Government and other relevant stakeholders? I think it was last year that there was a discussion about increasing the height limits from 274 metres—this is the building limit in the CBD. Have there been discussions? Perhaps it is time the LORD MAYOR could give an update.

There were a number of media stories surrounding that. I know the aviation authorities came out against the proposal to lift heights, and the Airport Corporation I think in their submission also gave some strong comments about that as well. So that is just, I guess, in the interests of that issue, if the LORD MAYOR did have any advice to perhaps provide to the Chamber and to the public today. Has there been any further discussion or movement on that issue, which is a significant one? Obviously there are the economic and growth needs for our city, but also the safety issues as well regarding building height limits.

Item D is the proposed resumption of private land for some park purposes located at Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo. I know Councillor ABRAHAMS, as a fierce advocate for open space and particularly parkland, on an ongoing basis will have some comments briefly to make on this, and I know always would be keen to see more parkland, not less parkland, as Councillor BOURKE can attest.

Item E is the Health, Safety and Amenity Amending Local Law. As the LORD MAYOR said, we know that the State is repealing the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 in September 2014. Parts 2A and 3 dealt with the waste collection by local councils. I note the next phase will be 15 business days for a period of public consultation. I certainly hope the LORD MAYOR and/or the Chair will be engaging with the relevant unions and also the workers to make sure that their views are heard as part of this process.

While I know there are no major changes, given that this authority I guess is being handed back to the local government of Brisbane, we want to make sure that it is as smooth ride as possible. I certainly hope in section 9 on page 7, which gives the power to fine contractors $4,600 for 'when a person who is a contracted or employed to empty a waste container must immediately pick up any waste spill when the waste container is emptied and put in the collection vehicle.'

I certainly don't want to see that section enforced incorrectly. The last thing we want to see is huge fines for innocent mistakes. Obviously we need to ensure that our hard-working waste officers are supported. They do a tremendous job servicing the residents and businesses of the city. It is not an easy job. Those frontline workers deserve our support, and I know from meeting with some of them over the years, how hard that job is.

So today, through you, Madam Chair, to the LORD MAYOR, it would be great that if, as a Council, we recognise that. Also, I offer my support to their daily work which is important for our city. The last thing we want to see is any further stresses, particularly to those employees, now that we will be controlling this amenity local law, and that it is in our hands. With those remarks, I will leave it at that, and hand over to other councillors.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair, I rise to talk about item C, the draft Lower Oxley Creek North Neighbourhood Plan, and in particular to some of the issues that have been raised in this paper that is going forward to the State Government.

My concern as a representative of part of this area relates to the future use of this site and the future growth of this site. While I am not opposed to economic development for the area, it makes sense certainly to have industry in this area and to look after the environment in this area, we need to also be aware that there are numerous residents who live around this area, and there are roads that will service the Lower Oxley Creek North as it develops, in terms of industry, that run through other areas.

For me, one of the big concerns is the conflict of land use; the tension between industry versus residential land use. With an increasing amount of industry in the area, there is obviously going to be increasing freight using the area, which of course you can understand, which we must then mitigate by ensuring that it stays to routes that are away from residential areas.

I really believe in this particular study that, what needs to be looked at—and it talks about looking at facilitating economic development and delivering integrated infrastructure and land use, that we need to be getting heavy vehicles, particularly off Mortimer Road between Beatty Road and Ballam Road, and off Watson Road. Both of these areas that I have described are actually residential-use areas, but they are currently carrying significant numbers of heavy vehicles. These are heavy vehicles past schools, churches, community centres, sporting fields and residential homes. Obviously it's time that we dealt with this issue, particularly as we develop this plan.

I believe that there can be some sensible outcomes with this, and one of the first outcomes I hope we can achieve is getting B-Doubles off Mortimer Road so that we are getting them away from our residential areas and into our industrial areas. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor ABRAHAMS.

Councillor ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair; very quickly I will talk on items A, B, C and then item D. Just to re-state, this is another tier of administration that is required by legislation for Council to advise the State Government before we undertake a neighbourhood plan and this process is in the process of catch-up, which is what happens with the recent introduction of this requirement and those plans currently under way.

If you review the State Interest table that has been provided on all of these, it is an excellent table; it lists items that we need to assess when we're doing a neighbourhood plan, but it really offers no information except that the CBD probably doesn’t have any biodiversity and natural resources, nor rural land, but every other criteria. The outer edge neighbourhood plans have biodiversity and natural resources and possibly some rural land to consider. So, Madam Chair, my point is, it is such a tick and flick process, one wonders why the State Government believes it is adding any value.

But finally, I would like to speak on item D which is the acquisition of a park in Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo, and it is for what is to be called the Coorparoo Park. It is always distressing when the property owner objects to an acquisition for parkland; but it is parkland that I totally support. I would love a lot more of it to be out of any creek floodplain, but I certainly support this park and the acquisition of this land. Madam Chair, I have spoken previously to this matter, and both times I have said why does Coorparoo get its park so quickly and not South Brisbane or West End, and I say that today with even more passion and determination.

But my other comment is that I do believe that in spite of the time I have been in Council I remain naïve.

I do believe that the park that we are acquiring at 41 Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo will be a green park, a park that people understand: green grass, trees and a park that we identify, not a park that is concrete.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise to speak on item D, the proposed resumption of private land for park purposes at 41 Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo. I note the very interesting response from Council to the objector's concerns. I guess I think it bears reading into the record, because it is quite an extraordinary statement from Council in terms of the explanation of why this land is being purchased, particularly when it is not the same explanation you get for other areas.

From what I can tell, the owners of this land, which is about the size of a residential block—it looks like its being used for sort of light-industrial purposes, I guess, but it's 780 square metres, so it's not very big. They objected to the acquisition of the land and outlined their reasons in a letter to Council. That was, there is other parkland in the area, that there's no evidence Council has sought to talk to the owners about whether the park could be held in private purposes rather than public hands, that they'd like to develop the land ultimately, and there's no evidence that Council is actually intending to resume the land, which I think is probably a bit of a misreading of this process more than anything else.

The thing that is really interesting is the response from Council’s Senior Land Acquisitions officer of Council. I note—and I am going to read some sections of it into the record. They have responded to the concerns of the owner of the property, and this is the explanation that they have given us to why this land is being purchased: “Development of the land will add to the current flooding in this corridor; therefore the most suitable use for this land is parkland. The use of this area as parkland is consistent with the objectives of the Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan.” Now, that might be true. It's the first sentence of this letter that I find interesting.

“Development of the land will add to current flooding in this corridor; therefore the most suitable use for this land is parkland.” I am delighted that Council is setting a new precedent here because I can say now that if this is the basis for acquiring land, then this Council should be buying back land across the city because it is not appropriate for development purposes. That is the very submission that I have made to this Council in response to the flooding incidences that we've had.

It is interesting that Council now appears to be taking that point of view, or is it just it's a convenient argument for this particular piece of land? I don't know. I don't see evidence of that statement being borne out in either the planning regime of this Council or the broader buy-back regime of this Council—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, this is not about the broader buy-back regime of the Council; it's about a particular piece of land. Please confine your comments to the item.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —which we are acquiring as part of the broader Council planning regime, which is the neighbourhood plan, which is part of the City Plan, Madam Chairman. So this is the context in which I am speaking.

It is interesting in my view that we have this statement made in the response to the objector's concerns. It goes on to say when they again raise this issue—and this is another quote from Council: “The land is subject to flooding and overland flow, and therefore the most suitable area for the provision of parkland.” Again, this Council is making a statement that the reason they are buying back this land is because it floods and is subject to overland flows.

If this is the position that Council has come to, it is incumbent upon this Council to do this in all instances where there is land that is not suitable for development purposes. It is very interesting that it is being done to expedite a park in a particular area for a neighbourhood plan, yet where these issues are raised elsewhere in the city, they are ignored.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak to item E, the Health, Safety and Amenity Amending Local Law 2014. I would like to thank Councillor DICK for his words of support for the hard-working workers that are involved in rubbish collection and management in this city. I do believe he spoke more words in his contribution to the debate on this item than he has at any time since I have heard him speak in this place about waste management, and it is pleasing that he has finally realised that this is one of the most important elements of the services we can provide in this city.

To the beat-up points that he was attempting to make about the changes that are occurring as a consequence of this amendment, I can only reiterate the facts that this is the wording that is currently contained in the State legislation that is being transferred across to a Council regulation, so there has been no change at all to the words. There is no need for him to engage in his attempt at scaremongering about the implications of item 9, the standards for servicing waste containers. They were there before; they are there now. The contractors and their staff are well aware of that. In fact, it is contained within their contracts and their award.

So these are matters that are well known to all involved in our Waste Collection Services which, I remind the Chamber, sees some 32 million bins lifted each year in this city. They make a fantastic contribution to our city, and our city wouldn’t be able to develop as it has without the contribution that is made by our Waste Collection Services. I reiterate, and sit down on this point, that the regulations here are necessary because the regulations will no longer be contained in State legislation. Instead, they come across and sit under the Council's local laws, and they are exactly the same as were contained in the State legislation.

Chairman: Further debate; Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise on item D. There has been a bit of confusion, and seeing we are going to play, ‘let's read things into the record' today, I just want to read paragraphs 26 and 27 from the E&C Report that we have before us: “In 2011 Council introduced the Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan which upgrades town planning provisions for parts of Coorparoo. The neighbourhood plan will see an increase in housing density”—I will read that again, “an increase in housing density with new developments ranging from three to 25 storeys. The resultant increase in population will require increases in public parkland in Coorparoo in the vicinity of Coorparoo Creek.

Over time, much of Coorparoo Creek has been piped and filled but still suffers from regular flooding. The proposed construction of the Coorparoo Creek Park provides an opportunity to restore parts of Coorparoo Creek to a more natural state, reduce flooding, and ensure the community needs for public park infrastructure are met into the future.”

Madam Chairman, our policy hasn’t changed. We continue to implement the neighbourhood plan that we've introduced and the consultation that we did with the community around the Coorparoo Creek Park planning, as well as facilitating development and helping to reduce flooding and improving the drainage for the residents of Coorparoo with the provision of item D today.

Chairman: Further debate; LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I thank councillors for their contribution. Again, I just want to, in relation to item E, assure people that it won't mean any change. I am certainly happy to make sure that we do have an engagement with our employees and I am happy to have an engagement with the representative unions there as well, making sure that they understand that it won't mean any changes relative to the workforce, and more specifically, it won't mean any changes relative to the people that we serve here, the ratepayers of Brisbane, and the residents of Brisbane, and for that matter, the businesses in Brisbane as well that would be dependent upon those services.

In relation to the issue around the City Centre Master Plan, we are continuing engagement around the issue of heights in Brisbane. I have made no secret of the fact that I want to see opportunity of an increased height in our CBD. The reality is we've had no great pressure up until now in relation to those heights, but the reality is that will change in the future, and we do always have to serve this city in the interests of what is coming, not just today, but what is coming in the years ahead. I will continue to advocate and be engaged in that advocacy towards creating a greater flexibility within our CBD in terms of building height.

Chairman: I will put the motion for items A, B, C and D.

A DRAFT CITY CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

152/160/516/389

77/2014-15

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

2. On 14 March 2014, Council adopted the Brisbane City Centre Master Plan 2014 (the Master Plan), after undertaking extensive community engagement during 2013. As part of the implementation of the Master Plan, a draft new City Centre Neighbourhood Plan (draft Neighbourhood Plan) is proposed.
3. It is proposed to amend the Brisbane City Plan 2014 to include the draft Neighbourhood Plan and to make consequential amendments, including amendments to the New Farm and Teneriffe Neighbourhood Plan (to annex the Howard Smith Wharves precinct) and the Milton Neighbourhood Plan (to annex the Quay Street precinct). A map depicting these proposed boundary changes is included in Attachment C, submitted on file.
4. The planning scheme commenced on 30 June 2014. The inclusion of the draft Neighbourhood Plan will be a major amendment to the planning scheme. Statutory Guideline 02/14 (the Guideline) sets out the process for making a major amendment.
5. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to provide the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning with the following:

- a copy of the Council decision;

- a written statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment B submitted on file, which includes an indicative map of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area, as set out in Attachment C, submitted on file, and;

- a written statement of the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (the Regional Plan) and the State Planning Policy (SPP) that Council considers relevant and how those state interests are integrated within the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment D, submitted on file.

6. Extensive community engagement was undertaken in 2013 to inform the Master Plan and subsequent preparation of the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Statutory consultation with the community is anticipated in late 2014 following the state interest review.
7. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
8. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A

Draft Resolution
TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE DRAFT CITY CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE THAT
1. Council decides, pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 02/1: Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 to include the draft new City Centre Neighbourhood Plan (proposed amendment) and to make consequential amendments.
2. Council directs, pursuant to Step 1.4 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the Minister be provided with:

(a) A written statement advising of this decision;

(b) A copy of Attachment B, as submitted on file, and Attachment C, as submitted on file, which set out the nature and details of the proposed amendments; and
(c) A copy of Attachment D, as submitted on file, which sets out the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 and the State Planning Policy (July 2014) which Council considers relevant and how Council proposes to integrate those in the proposed amendments.

ADOPTED

B DRAFT HEMMANT LYTTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

152/160/516/390

78/2014-15

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

10. It is proposed to amend the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the draft Hemmant Lytton Neighbourhood Plan (draft Neighbourhood Plan). The draft Neighbourhood Plan will supersede parts of the Australia Trade Coast Neighbourhood Plan and the Wynnum Manly Neighbourhood Plan.
11. The planning scheme commenced on 30 June 2014. The inclusion of the draft Neighbourhood Plan is a major amendment to the planning scheme. Statutory Guideline 02/14 (the Guideline) sets out the process for making a major amendment.
12. Amendments will also be required to be made to the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) in Part 4 of the planning scheme. Recent amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 deem the PIP to be the local government infrastructure plan (LGIP).
13. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to provide the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning with the following:

- a copy of the Council decision;

- a written statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment B submitted on file, which includes an indicative map of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area, as set out in Attachment C, submitted on file, and;

- a written statement of the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (the Regional Plan) and the State Planning Policy that Council considers relevant and how those state interests are integrated within the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment D, submitted on file.

14. The Guideline introduces a new process for amending a planning scheme for a LGIP. Council is required to decide to make an amendment to the LGIP.
15. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
16. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A

Draft Resolution
TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE DRAFT HEMMANT LYTTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE THAT
1. Council decides to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014:

(a) Pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 02/14 (the Guideline) under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, to include the draft Hemmant Lytton Neighbourhood Plan and to make consequential amendments; and

(b) pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of the Guideline to make an interim local government infrastructure plan amendment to the local government infrastructure plan in Part 4 of the Brisbane City Plan 2014.
2. Council directs, pursuant to Step 1.4 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the Minister be provided with:

(a) A written statement advising of this decision;

(b) A copy of Attachment B, as submitted on file, and Attachment C, as submitted on file, which set out the nature and details of the proposed amendments; and
(c) A copy of Attachment D, as submitted on file, which sets out the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 and the State Planning Policy which Council considers relevant and how Council proposes to integrate those in the proposed amendments.

ADOPTED

C DRAFT LOWER OXLEY CREEK NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

152/160/516/387

79/2014-15

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

18. It is proposed to amend the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the Lower Oxley Creek North Neighbourhood Plan (draft Neighbourhood Plan) and to make consequential amendments.
19. The planning scheme commenced on 30 June 2014. The inclusion of the draft Neighbourhood Plan is a major amendment to the planning scheme. Statutory Guideline 02/14 (the Guideline) sets out the process for making a major amendment.
20. Amendments will also be required to be made to the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) in Part 4 of the planning scheme. Recent amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 deem the PIP to be the local government infrastructure plan (LGIP).
21. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to provide the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning with the following:

- a copy of the Council decision;

- a written statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file, which includes an indicative map of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area, as set out in Attachment C, submitted on file, and;

- a written statement of the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (the Regional Plan) and the State Planning Policy that Council considers relevant and how those state interests are integrated within the proposed amendment, as set out in Attachment D, submitted on file.

22. The Guideline also introduces a new process for amending a planning scheme for a LGIP. Council is required to decide to make an amendment to the LGIP.
23. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
24. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A

Draft Resolution
TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE DRAFT LOWER OXLEY CREEK NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE THAT
1. Council decides to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014:

(a) Pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 02/14 (the Guideline) under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, to include the draft Lower Oxley Creek North Neighbourhood Plan and to make consequential amendments; and

(b) pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of the Guideline to make an interim local government infrastructure plan amendment to the local government infrastructure plan in Part 4 of the Brisbane City Plan 2014.
2. Council directs, pursuant to Step 1.4 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the Minister be provided with:

(a) A written statement advising of this decision;

(b) A copy of Attachment B, as submitted on file, and Attachment C, as submitted on file, which set out the nature and details of the proposed amendments; and
(c) A copy of Attachment D, as submitted on file, which sets out the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 and the State Planning Policy (July 2014) which Council considers relevant and how Council proposes to integrate those in the proposed amendments.

ADOPTED

D PROPOSED RESUMPTION OF PRIVATE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES, LOCATED AT 41 LACKEY AVENUE, COORPAROO

112/20/439/389

80/2014-15

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

26. In 2011 Council introduced the Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan), which upgrades town planning provisions for parts of Coorparoo. The Neighbourhood Plan will see an increase in housing density with new development ranging from three to
25 storeys. The resultant increased population will require an increase in public parkland in Coorparoo in the vicinity of Coorparoo Creek.
27. Over time, much of Coorparoo Creek has been piped and filled but still suffers from regular flooding. The proposed construction of Coorparoo Creek Park provides an opportunity to restore parts of Coorparoo Creek to a more natural state, reduce flooding and ensure that future community needs for public park infrastructure are met. The proposed park will play an important role in meeting the informal recreation needs of residents, workers and visitors in this growth area of the city.
28. To facilitate the proposed park it is necessary to acquire private land located at 41 Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo. On 20 December 2013, the Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability Division, gave authority to the issue of a Notice of Intention to Resume in respect of the land listed in the Property Description Schedule at Attachment B, submitted hereunder. Council issued the Notice of Intention to Resume to the affected property owner and all registered parties on 10 January 2014.
29. An objection was received from the property owner in response to the notice. The owner did not request to be heard in support of their objection. On 13 June 2014, Council provided a response to the objection and no further submissions were received from the objector. The objection is set out in Attachment C, submitted on file, and Council’s response of 13 June 2014 is set out in Attachment D, submitted on file.
30. Upon the completion of the formal resumption process, the owner’s interests in the resumed land are converted into a claim for compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. Negotiations concerning compensation will continue concurrently with the formal resumption process.
31. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
32. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A

Draft Resolution
THE PROPOSED RESUMPTION OF PRIVATE LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES, LOCATED AT 41 LACKEY AVENUE, COORPAROO
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE
1. As:

(a) on 10 January 2014, Council in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 issued a Notice of Intention to Resume the privately owned land set out and identified in Attachment B hereunder, to this recommendation;

(b) an objection in writing was received to that Notice as set out in Attachment C, submitted on file; and
(c) Council has considered the objection and made recommendations for the treatment of the objection as set out in Attachment D, submitted on file;
then Council is of the opinion, having regard to the objection that:

1. 
   the land described in Attachment B, hereunder, is required for park and recreation grounds purposes; and
   

2. 
   it is necessary to take that land.
   

2. As Council is of the opinion specified in paragraph 1, Council direct that application be made to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 for park purposes.

3. That Council authorise the removal of all improvements.
Attachment B

Property Description Schedule

OWNER	LOCATION	REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION	AREA REQUIRED FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES M2
QS & LTN Dang	41 Lackey Avenue, Coorparoo	Lot 8 on RP69511	792

ADOPTED

E THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND AMENITY AMENDING LOCAL LAW 2014

155/455/468/3

81/2014-15

33. The Acting Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, provided the information below.

34. The Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 (Regulation) will be repealed by the Queensland Government in September 2014. Parts 2A and 3 of this Regulation contain provisions that are essential to the operation of Council’s waste collection service.
35. The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) has advised Council that as these provisions relate solely to local government waste operations they should be managed by local governments through a local law. Council’s Waste Services Branch, in consultation with Brisbane City Legal Practice and the Compliance and Regulatory Services Branch, has determined which provisions of the Regulation should be added to the existing waste provisions in the Health, Safety and Amenity Local Law 2009 (Local Law) to provide for the continued efficient operation of Council’s waste collection services after the repeal of the Regulation.
36. The provisions to be transferred to the Local Law address matters such as keeping bins clean, covered and within property boundaries, as well as Council’s power to give directions and notices to property occupiers about where bins should be placed for collection. Other provisions in the Regulation requiring people to obey directions and notices at Council waste disposal facilities have also been included.
37. The transfer of the provisions will be affected by the amendments contained in the proposed Health, Safety and Amenity Amending Local Law 2014, as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file. The amendments are designed to replicate the current regulations and have created no new powers. Changes have only been made where necessary to reflect current industry practices and terminology.
38. If Council resolves to propose to make the amending local law it will undergo a 15-business day period of public consultation. During that time it will also be sent to relevant State agencies for a State interest check.
Implications of proposal
39. The proposed amendments to the Health, Safety and Amenity Local Law 2009 replicate provisions currently contained within the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 in Part 2A. The provisions have simply been transferred with contemporary wording to the proposed local law. There are no new policy initiatives involved with these amendments.
40. The Acting Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agrees.
41. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A

Draft Resolution
TO PROPOSE TO MAKE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND AMENITY AMENDING LOCAL LAW 2014
THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT
a). COUNCIL PROPOSES TO MAKE the HEALTH, SAFETY AND AMENITY AMENDING LOCAL LAW 2014 as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file, using the procedures specified in Chapter 3 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and Council’s Local Law Making Procedures; and
b). COUNCIL DETERMINES that the proposed HEALTH, SAFETY AND AMENITY AMENDING LOCAL LAW 2014 does not contain any possible anti-competitive provisions within the meaning of section 12 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012.

ADOPTED

Directory: sites -> default -> files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations
files -> Nstructions for Acquiring Excess Equipment online, through the 1033 Program
files -> Occupational health and safety
files -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten Point Program
files -> International programs roel profile
files -> Fermi Questions a guide for Teachers, Students, and Event Supervisors Lloyd Abrams, Ph. D. DuPont Company, cr&D/ccas experimental Station Wilmington, de 19880
files -> Personal Information Name: Maha Al-Ammari Nationality: Saudi Relationship Status

Download 454.02 Kb.

Share with your friends: