The 4514 Meeting of the Brisbane City Council

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4514 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 6 December 2016 at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison Office Chief Executive’s Office Office of the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4514 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 6 DECEMBER 2016 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS______i PRESENT:______1 OPENING OF MEETING:______1 MOTION OF APPRECIATION:______2 MINUTES:______11 QUESTION TIME:______11 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:______22 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE______22 A LEASE OF PREMISES FOR THE GARDEN CITY LIBRARY______43 B LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN______45 C MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES______47 D BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL EP031 OFFSETS POLICY______48 E FUNDING AGREEMENT AND OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE NEW KOALA RESEARCH CENTRE_49 F FERNY GROVE-UPPER KEDRON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN______50 G ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AMENDMENT 2016______51 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special report)______53 A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE INNER CITY BYPASS UPGRADE______59 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special report)______68 A TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 05/16 – PROTECTION OF CHARACTER BUILDINGS__68 PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE______69 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – USE OF BANANA BARS ON THE BIKEWAY NETWORK______72 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE______72 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CBD PEDESTRIAN SAFETY______76 B PETITIONS – REQUESTING A SPEED LIMIT REVIEW ON SUMNERS ROAD, RIVERHILLS______77 C PETITION – REQUESTING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON RAILWAY PARADE, NORMAN PARK______79 D PETITION – REQUESTING IMPROVED SAFETY AND REDUCED CONGESTION AT ROYAL PARADE, BANYO______81 E PETITION – REQUESTING EIGHT PARKING BAYS ON REYNOLDS STREET, CARINDALE______84 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE______85 A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 (SPA) – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR MEDIUM IMPACT INDUSTRY AND A HOTEL – 15 PALOMAR ROAD, YEERONGPILLY – G BOON HOLDINGS PTY LTD______89 ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE______91 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LORD MAYOR’S COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS PROGRAM______92 FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE______93 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE BOTANIC GARDENS MT COOT-THA EDUCATION PROGRAM______94 LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE______95 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE FESTIVAL 2016______96 FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______97 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CHRISTMAS IN THE CITY______99

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 28 OCTOBER 2016______100 C COMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, RATES, INVENTORY, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2016____100 PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:______100 GENERAL BUSINESS:______101 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______103 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______103

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

PRESENT:

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP The Chairman of Council, Councillor Angela OWEN (Calamvale Ward) – LNP

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards) Krista ADAMS (Holland Park) Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) (The Leader of Adam ALLAN (Northgate) the Opposition) Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree) Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (Deputy Leader of the Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge) Opposition) Vicki HOWARD (Central) (Deputy Chairman of Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) Council) Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake) Steven HUANG (Macgregor) Shayne SUTTON (Morningside) Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn) Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward) Peter MATIC (Paddington) Jonathan SRI (The Gabba) Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo) David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) Ryan MURPHY (Doboy) Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale) Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor) Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Andrew WINES (Enoggera) Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

OPENING OF MEETING:

The Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.

Chairman: Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Under section 11 of the Meetings Local Law 2001, I’d like to move an amendment to the agenda. I’d like to move that our agenda includes an item called Acknowledgement of Country that states the following: We humbly acknowledge that we are meeting on— Chairman: Councillor SRI, under section 11 of the Meetings Local Law, the order in which Council proceeds with the business for a particular meeting may be altered by the LORD MAYOR or a resolution of Council or the Chairman. If you are moving a motion, you need to move a motion appropriately. You have not done that as an appropriate motion. Are there any apologies? Councillor SRI: Point of order— Chairman: I’ve called for apologies, Councillor SRI. Are there any apologies? There being no apologies— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 2 -

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: I am seeking to move this motion in accordance with section 11(3) which says that, if the agenda is sought to be amended by motion, the motion may be moved without notice. Chairman: As there being no seconder for your motion— Councillor SRI: Well, I haven’t moved it yet. Chairman: You have indicated what your motion is, Councillor SRI. There is no seconder. Councillor SRI: Okay, well, I will read the motion that I am moving. So, I move: that our agenda includes an item called Acknowledgement of Country that states the following, “We humbly acknowledge that we are meeting on stolen Aboriginal land and that sovereignty was never ceded. We pay our respects to the various clans who claim ownership over Brisbane and to their elders past and present. We acknowledge that sovereignty was never ceded and that many wrongs against the first nation’s people of this country are yet to be compensated or rectified.” Chairman: There being no seconder, I cannot proceed with your motion. The motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Chairman: Councillors, I draw to your attention the motion of appreciation at item 2 on the agenda. LORD MAYOR, would you please move the motion?

MOTION OF APPRECIATION: 288/2016-17 The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK moved, seconded by Councillor Peter CUMMING, the following motion of appreciation

“ That as this is the last Council meeting of the year, Council notes and acknowledges the hard work and dedication of Council officers and the contribution they have made during 2016 to help make our City an even better place to live.”

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. As we come to the final Council meeting for this year, it is appropriate that we who are elected representatives in this place extend our appreciation to the officers of the Brisbane City Council for their efforts over the last year. They have a term, a value statement, I suppose, which is that they are dedicated to a better Brisbane. I wish today to extend my thanks to the CEO, to the executive team, to all the officers of the Council and to all of our white and blue collar workforce. You all, in your individual ways, perform critical functions to make our city the best that it possibly can be. I have the privilege during the course of the year as LORD MAYOR to attend ceremonies where we celebrate long service that is provided by some of our Council employees. They can be from all areas of Council—from bus drivers right through to Field Services operational personnel, people that have been in this organisation for up to 50 years in some cases. Regardless of whether people are new to the Council or have been here for a lifetime, we extend our sincere thanks to them for their loyalty to Brisbane and for the service that they provide. There are other people who I know wish to speak today, so I just simply want to extend my thanks to all of our Council employees. I want to wish them a peaceful Christmas, a relaxing Christmas if they can get it. There will be obviously some of our staff who will be on call. We are an operation that never

closes down. But I wish also to them and their families good health, happiness and the prosperity that I hope 2017 brings to them. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair; I am happy to second this resolution. We have good quality staff, great quality staff in the City of Brisbane, and they work hard and they are very dedicated to the cause. It doesn’t matter what Administration is in office, the staff at the grass roots level do a great job for our city. Council is a good employer, too, so I think it is a two-way street. If you pay people appropriately and give them good conditions and everything, you can expect a great effort to be put in by those staff, and that is what Brisbane City Council stands for. I am happy to endorse the LORD MAYOR’s remarks. In my local area, where I was dealing with the parks people, of course we have probably more dealings with parks people these days since we’ve had that budget to allocate around the ward. I don’t think they got any extra staff. They seem to be doing a great job without getting extra staff to do it, and they are doing very well. Our roads and drainage people have always been good. You’re not going to obviously get everything you want, but my dealings with staff, as long as they can give you a good reason for saying no—we’ve all got to cop a no every now and then, and quite regularly. But if the staff are reasonable and give you a reasonable response, an understanding of what the issue was, and why it is not possible, then we are happy to pass that on and back up the Council staff’s views in making their decision. We’ve had traffic staff who seem to turn over regularly in my area. Perhaps it is because of the volume of issues they get sent. It is a very demanding area. I know the amount of work they have to get through is tremendous, but they do get a lot done. With little bits and piece here and there, they do get a lot done, and people are satisfied with the result. Every now and again, it’s got to be a no. Likewise with the arborists, I think it is more no, than yes for the arborists, but again they are very hard working people and they do a good job. They are very knowledgeable. They are very good at coming out and having a chat to local residents. People can put up their reasons and get a response. CARS (Compliance and Regulatory Services) branch do a tremendous job. In my area they have had some great successes this calendar year. We have found a number of landowners running container parks who had no authority whatsoever to do so. There have been two of them closed down. One of them had been there for about 10 years and named a street after themselves, which wasn’t a legal street, either. That was a funny old thing. I am still waiting for the CARS branch to sort out the builder building the illegal duplexes, LORD MAYOR, so you’ve got correspondence from me on that recently. Hopefully we can get that one down in 2017. Of course, Council staff are quite often dealing with the public. We had that tragic incident with the bus driver this year, and that just shows the terrible risks that people can be faced with when they run across people who are basically violent people and people that act in a tragic and terrible manner towards our staff. That was a shocking incident, and hopefully we won’t see anything like that again. But there is always the risk of it happening. We are very satisfied with the staff generally. They work hard; they do a good job, and we are very happy to wish them a very happy and enjoyable Christmas and New Year, and we will see them all back again next year. Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CUMMING. Further debate? Councillor KING. Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to join this debate in support and I would like to thank the clerks here for their long hours on Tuesday nights and their patience

sitting through this Council Chamber. So thank you very much. Also a big thank you of course to the CEO and the CEO’s office for all the assistance that they give us throughout the year, especially to Allyson and to Darren. They help out our office and give us advice constantly throughout the years that I have been in this place. So thank you very much to Allyson and Darren. Of course, I believe that the northside of Brisbane or the northside of the river is the best place to live, so I would like to thank the northside Council officers— Lex, Ted, Wayne, Allan, Graham, Megan, and all the call centre staff, because I am lucky enough to have my office right next door to the Chermside call centre. Those staff members are always extremely pleasant. They fill me up to date with what’s happening around the area, and I would like to thank them—because it is a difficult job to be in our call centre, and we truly are blessed to have an award- winning call centre in Brisbane City Council. To all the compliance officers, because they have a difficult time, as most of us would appreciate, going out and fining people for illegal parking. They are really the core face of Council, and they probably have one of the toughest jobs in Council. To our Transport Planning and Strategy (TP&S) staff, to our local Asset Services, to our bus drivers, and a very big thank you to our construction workers who go out there in this heat that we have experienced over the last couple of weeks, pouring the concrete, doing the bitumen for our roads, filling our potholes, doing all that core work that is every day Brisbane City Council work. So thank you so much to all our officers in Council. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I rise to enter the debate, and add my congratulations and thanks to Council staff. As I was just jotting some things down here, I realised this list is getting quite long because there is such breadth and depth of talent and the number of staff that we have in Council. But I would just like to place on record our thanks to the clerks here in City Hall as well as the other support staff that organise things for us as Councillors here in City Hall throughout the week and on Tuesdays particularly. To Councillor support, Allyson and Darren, as Councillor KING has just mentioned; all those IT support staff as well that are here and the call centre of course as well and those library staff. For me, as well, I would just echo what Councillor KING has just said on the northside of Brisbane, absolutely the best part of Brisbane. We have some fantastic staff out there, whether that is in parks headed up by Ted Krosman, of course; roads and drainage with Rudy and Peter; the CARS team who I know do have a difficult job at times as well in interfacing between us as Council and the public around what is appropriate and what is not. Steve Thompson out there does a fantastic job. The arborists team with Graham Bridge and Mick Maher, of course; the leopard wood tree hornet’s nest has been stirred up in Brisbane now, and we are getting an awful lot of those, and working with that team and with local residents is very important to come up with strategies to deal with problem trees, so I would like to thank them. The Development Assessment team—Trish Jensen on the northside, a particularly busy area of Council, with a lot of development happening in some of my suburbs, so I would like to put on record my thanks to her and her team in the prompt way that they get back to us with information. TP&S, of course, Chris McCahon, Kiran Sreedharan, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability branch, our fantastic Habitat Brisbane officers that work with the local community to make our local areas fantastic places to live and play. Of course, 2016 is a milestone year in which we have celebrated 20 years of both the call centre and CityCats, of course, two great Labor initiatives which have been supported going forward by, of course, both sides of politics. Particularly with the CityCats, LORD MAYOR, it is great to see you are 100% on board with them now.

Again, I would just like to thank everyone, from the CEO right down throughout the entire organisation, for the hard work that they do in making Brisbane the very best city in this country to live. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor HUANG. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to enter the debate and to express my appreciation to the Council officers who have helped the southside Councillors over the past year. In this year, which is about to pass, we have been through a number of challenges on the southside, especially with the severe weather events recently. We have seen lots of changes to our water and drainage systems and also a challenge to our road network. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to those officers who have helped us. Because we had the opportunity to work with some of our State Government colleagues, we can tell what a difference between the Council officers and also the State public service. I must say we are a much, much more efficient and effective service in comparison. On behalf of the southside Councillors, at least on this side, I would like to express our appreciation to the following officers. I would like to thank Adrian Patterson, the South Regional Manager, Assets Services, and also to our parks team, Glen Diskin, Kyle Box, Dean Middleton, Frank Griffin and Rob Mollison, and also for our Habitat Brisbane, Andrew Wallace, and to our arborist team which is a tough job coming to this summer season. There are always issues with trees, which is a common issue during the summer time. I would like to thank Cameron Carey, Debbie Grimsey, Dave Ballesteros and Jason Henderson. They have been out there dealing with most of our tree issues recently, and I am sure there will be more for them to come. I hope they will enjoy this summer as much as all of us do. I would also like to thank Richard Welch, Justin Wells, Mark Reimers, Cameron Wilson and Dayne Harkness from roads and drainage. As I said, traffic and also the drainage system has been a challenge for southside in this past year. I wish them all the best, because they have spent a fair bit—not just a fair bit, but a lot of effort in making sure that we’ve got good quality roads and also a smooth flow of drainage coming to this summer season. I would also like to thank Keith Rose, Paul Caruana and Ian Hoey from contracts, and also Wendy Lucey, Neil Wood from facilities, and also Shirley Amps from community grants. When it comes to CARS, I would like to thank Michael Phillips, Sean Hodgson and Tiffany Moriarty, Eddy Denman and also from TPS, I would like to thank Taelor Jorgensen, Simon McDermott, Kevin Chen, Charlie Johnson, Deb Sketchley. Personally I would also like to thank both Chris McCahon and Brett Turville in dealing with some of the tough traffic issues in my ward, Macgregor Ward. Also I would like to thank of course from the CEO down, Colin Jensen and also the Council clerks who are here today; thank you for putting up with us for all these Council meetings. Also to Ed who is the IT guy; every time I have a problem with IT, I always go to Ed and also James who has looked after the ward office IT. Finally, I would like to thank all the ward staff from our offices. I think without these helpful ward staff, we wouldn’t be able to provide the service as well as we are. So, I would like to conclude by wishing all of you a merry Christmas and also a safe Christmas, and we look forward to serving the residents of our area in the coming year. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you very much, Madam Chair; I just rise to support the motion of appreciation that is in front of us today. It has become my long-serving practice that, on the last Council meeting of the year, given that we don’t have Committee meetings, I visit various floors in Brisbane Square and deliver chocolates to all those Council officers who I worked most closely with over the

years. So I took a moment this morning to go and visit those floors. I started with Allyson Reid and Darren Schumaker, who are part of Councillor support, and worked my way down from there. I want to say a special thank you to those people in community facilities and community leasing. One of my favourite parts of this job is getting to work with all of our local community organisations and sporting organisations. Without their support, I wouldn’t be able to do some of the things that I do in the local community on behalf of Brisbane City Council. So I would like to thank those officers. I would also like to thank the tremendous team of staff in Asset Services. It was a bit sad earlier this year to farewell long-term staff member David Angell who was the team leader out in East, but he has been adequately succeeded by Michael Hinz who has done a terrific job with all of our parks and asset services guys, covering the full branch of work that Asset Services do. I also dropped by Development Assessment and Planning Services, the people who worked on the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan in particular, and the major amendments in that regard. Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning Services—they are always staff that we rely on incredibly through the year, and I would like to thank them, as well as our IT superstars who are always there to come to our rescue whenever we are having an IT malfunction. For someone who is a techno peasant as I am, that is more often than not, so I wanted to thank them for their fabulous support this year as well. More broadly, and on behalf of my colleagues as well, they wanted to extend thanks to the guys in Information Services, all those people who deal with our file requests so diligently. We understand that often we are asking for a fast turnaround, and sometimes they can’t deliver within the time periods that we are asking, for reasons outside of their control. But they are always nice and polite and diligent, and earnest in the information that they try to get for us. Just on behalf of the Labor team, a special shout out to Brisbane’s bus drivers, particular this year. Obviously we have had an incredible tragedy amongst our bus driver team this year, and the whole lot of them need to feel our love at this particular time and as we go forward into 2017. So thinking of them in particular, as well as fabulous ferry services staff as well. I actually represent a ward that has no less than four ferry terminals in it, and they are a critical part of our public transport network, and I would like to thank them for all of their hard work as well. Last but not least, my ward office team: Carla Pinder and Tia Bayer, as well as my 75-year-old volunteer who has been with me for 10 years now, who comes into my office twice a week and does all those little bits and pieces on the computer and in the work room that we need to just make the Morningside Ward Office function, Jeanette Mitchell who, despite the fact that she is a volunteer, must fill in her leave forms before she takes any time away from the office because she is so valuable to me and my team. I also have a broad range of community volunteers that are there to help me in a whole range of community initiatives, and community events that I do. While we are thanking staff, I would also like to thank those people as well who, out of the goodness of their hearts, give up the time for community purposes and for Brisbane City Council objectives on the ground in Morningside Ward as well. So thank you to the entire team. Thank you also to my Council colleagues. I am acutely aware that in Opposition you also need support from the Administration to further some of your local objectives, and for the Chairs that I have worked closely with through the years, and particularly this year, who have been able to see past the colour of politics and actually help with important local issues, I thank you as well for being open to my representations. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This being my first Christmas as a Brisbane City Councillor, it is an honour indeed to have been asked to participate in the appreciation of Brisbane City Council’s Council officers of the west. Although we western suburbs Councillors are often in the public spotlight, more often the public put us on the spot, and it is this where the Council officers of the west enter the fray and help us, the Councillors, to respond to the demands of our wards’ residents. As Councillors we perform a dual role: we represent the people to Council, and we represent Council to the people. Therein lies the paradox of public office. The assertions we make to the public on behalf of Council and the advocacy we perform on behalf of our constituents are two delicately balanced roles, both leveraging from a stake in the ground which is at the core of every decision we make in our dedication to achieving a better Brisbane. So, Madam Chairman, that stake in the ground is the Council officers of the west. It is them in their commitment, their expertise, their experience and the collaborative approach to all that they do is what we, the Councillors, rely on. What we say to our residents, whatever explanations we give them, are meaningless without them backing up with action, which is the accurate representation of their concerns to all of them. Accurately aligning words and action with consistency and credibility is a noble task, a worthy pursuit, but it requires a cohesive team to execute the magnitude of that task. So you, the Council officers of the west, are an essential part of that team. You provide well considered advice; you collaborate and pool resources; you are efficient, creative and you carry out the necessary actions to improve facilities, and enhance the quality of life for all residents in the western wards. Thank you for your immeasurable contribution to our people; to us, the elected representatives; and to the shared backyard that is our great City of Brisbane. Your commitment is inspirational. Thank you for the initiative you have shown in getting things done. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise. Thank you for helping me day by day to become an even better Councillor. So Merry Christmas to the Council officers in the west, and thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to enter the appreciation motion. As a new Councillor, I really didn’t have much of an understanding of what Council did and what Council officers did as well out in the field. I am very grateful that a number of these Council field officers took me under their wing, so to speak, and gave me some knowledge that I needed to be able to communicate to them what my priorities were. I would like to first acknowledge Adrian Patterson, the Regional Manager for Asset Services who has put together a couple of roundtables with a number of the officers, once in my office and the other one over at Fairfield. My staff were able to attend those meetings as well. Without that sort of knowledge and them gaining that understanding, we wouldn’t be able to do the job that we need to do. Glen Diskin, of course, along with Rob Mollison—parks, my ward has many, many parks in it, as Councillor OWEN would attest to. Forest Lake, Delfin was very good at building parks, and of course now Council then has to look after them. Of course, there are many, many parks in the rest of the ward as well, so they do a terrific job with the budget they are given, and I rarely have a complaint from constituents in regards to the actual looking after the parks, especially the agricultural side of the parks. Trees, of course, are a big issue in my ward, being it is Forest Lake, as we remind residents, so Cameron Carey has done a terrific job in looking after our trees. We have the odd discussion, of course, in regards to whether a tree should remain or disappear, but anyways, I follow their expert advice for the majority

of times, and I just want to thank them for their understanding of what I am trying to do as well. I would like to also acknowledge some transport officers as well— Simon McDermott and Taelor Jorgensen—who are working on a couple of issues in the word that are going to take some time and some effort to resolve. I do appreciate their understanding of what we want to do in the community and what the community would like to see done as well. Of course, Allyson Reid and Darren Schumaker—well, I have talked to Allyson on a number of occasions, and of course she is always very helpful. But my ward staff said that these two people have really made their job so much easier because again they were all new as well. I just want to acknowledge also a couple of litter officers, and you might ask me why that would be the case. Chris Delou and Paul, the litter officers, have been doing an enormous amount of work in my ward, rolling out those litter prevention programs. They have been out on many a weekend, actually, when community organisations take part in the litter prevention, and they were out last weekend at DJ Sherrington when we had the Worldwide Church of God who actually mustered about 50 people to help forensically clean up the DJ Sherrington Park and the Inala Shopping Plaza. They were out there doing their bit, flying the flag for Brisbane City Council. Finally, I just want to acknowledge my ward staff. Again, we were all new. We all sat down with a clean slate, and I just want to acknowledge Pam McCreadie, my ward advisor and Joey Kaiser, who has moved on, unfortunately, working now for a Senator. Obviously Council wasn’t sexy enough. But I really wish him well, and he will do a great job for his new boss. Nayda Hernandez, was one of my ward officers as well, is just a really wonderful individual to know, and has a great work ethic. Of course, her social media skills are quite incredible. Chris Ramsay has recently come to me. He spent a number of years with a Federal member, Bernie Ripoll. His knowledge of the area has been a great asset as well. I know I have gone on a little bit, but thank you very much for the opportunity to acknowledge these people. They are a great asset for Brisbane City Council. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; I rise on behalf of Administration Councillors in the eastern region to thank all the Council officers there who have contributed to our success in 2016. Can I just commence by acknowledging the hard work of the CEO and the Executive Management Team for all the work that they have done in supporting the eastern region over this year. In the eastern regional team, we are very capably led by Michael Hinz and his team, Craig Hardie, Mick Lawson and Brendan Whittaker, who has very ably stepped into John Niukkanen’s role while he is on leave. Michael is a calm, collegiate leader and he is doing a really, really good job in that role, and I just wanted to publicly acknowledge that today. So it is, too, with Brendan. All Council officers in the eastern region have a lot to do with Brendan as we go around and request different park upgrades and bits and pieces here and there. Brendan has a very high work load, and so too do his officers that are doing all the design and technical drawings. But he always manages to balance the work load that Councillors place on him efficiently and diligently, so I just want to commend him for all that. Also, Noel Lawrence, Matt Grose and Chris Jameson, and that team in Civil Engineering East. They are doing a tremendous job making sure all our culverts and drains are clean. As I am now saying, if you ever want to drain a swamp, Noel is the person that you go to to get that organised. He is an absolute expert in his field. He has been working for Council for now over 20 years, and it will be a very sad day whenever he chooses to retire from Council’s service.

I also want to thank our arboriculture team in Council, very capably led by Benjamin Inman, which includes Sean Downes, Ken Edie and Garry Rangi in the eastern region. They have a very difficult job to do balancing community expectations around how we manage trees, both within Council’s land and our street trees that most residents think are part of their own property. That is a very difficult job, and they often have to make hard judgment calls, and it is important that we all back them in that. They have done another tremendous job this year, and I want to commend them on their service. Also to Kate Flink, our Habitat officer for East Region, who does a tremendous job supporting all our habitat groups. Well done to Kate. As well, Kim Gartner and Eve Nitschke who are the administrative support officers there in East Region. We know that all the other officers out there in the field would not be able to do the job that they do without them in support behind them. To our CARS officers in the East Region: Matt Thompson, Brock Beatson, Troy Casey, Derek Cairns and Nathan Kelso. It is a very difficult job to be a CARS officer, and we thank them for the restrain that they often show in doing their job which allows us to do our job all the better. To our DA (Development Assessment) team in East: Matthew Boyd, Elriko Koeberg, Sultana Alam, and many others, thank you for being so accessible to the community. Just a phone call away whenever they have concerns around development. It is very helpful to have Council officers who are there, able to be spoken to about development applications, not only for constituents but also for our ward office staff that need that on a regular basis. To the entire team in TP&S: Deb Sketchley, Charlie Johnson, Nick Herson, Anthony Burke, David Clarke, Brian Nichol, Melvin Boh and Kevin Chen. They all do a tremendous job, and the reason I named every single one of them is because the quality of work that comes out of that division is truly excellent, and they all deserve commendation for their work. To Lea Gamble, on a very personal note; I blame Lea for having Mayfield State School win the Active School Travel competition this year. Lea is such a wonderful leader in Council, and she has shown tremendous skills and ability in being able to manage that program in the way that she does Active School Travel. I just wanted to commend her especially for her work. To Wendy Lucey and Adam Burgess who help manage all of our ward offices; I think we all agree that they do a tremendous job with a limited budget, so thank you to them as well. I also wanted to thank Ian Walker, who is a project director in Asset Optimisation. He is leaving Council at the end of this year. His service is finished. He has had a stellar career in Council, and I just want to wish him well as he embarks on the next stage of his life. To our community facilities team: Glenn Smith, Michael Mulherin and Moy; they do a really great job managing all our community facilities and the associated leases. They are friends of so many community groups all around the eastern suburbs, and I wanted to congratulate them on what has been a bumper year for them. Just to the Youth Affairs portfolio, I want to congratulate Miriam Kent and Nina Sprake and Simon Clayton, all of whom work in the youth affairs space across Council. There are 48 initiatives across five programs in there. All of them do a wonderful job helping young people in this city to achieve the absolute best that they can. It is a wonderful area of Council, and it has been my pleasure over the last year to get to know them a little bit better. So I wanted to congratulate them. Wrapping up now, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the LORD MAYOR’s Office, often much maligned in this Chamber. The LORD MAYOR’s Office, while many of them are appointed by the Administration of the day, that does not mean that they care for this city any less. They do a tremendous job in there, right from the Chief of Staff and the Director of Strategy down to the administration and policy officers. They all do a great job, so I just wanted to congratulate them on that. That goes for the PLOs as well.

Finally, Madam Chairman, to our ward offices, the staff who support us in the eastern region on a daily basis, thank you for the way in which you work with each other so well. We are blessed in the eastern region across party lines to have ward office staff that cooperate with each other in a way that really benefits the residents of the City of Brisbane. We could not do the job that we do without them. To Allyson, Darren, Billy and James, our ward office support people and our IT support people, and of course I won’t forget Ed, who is probably out the back there tapping away on his computer. Ed was telling me the other day that he has been working in and around City Hall, working on IT, since Campbell Newman’s day, when he helped fix Campbell Newman’s blackberry one time, and Campbell wouldn’t let him go after that. So I think he probably deserves a public service medal for the work that he has done over the years here. So our congratulations on a great year to all of them. Finally, Madam Chairman, to you and the Clerks, we all choose to be here, but often the Clerks do not, and we acknowledge that every Tuesday night is the time that you spend away from your families and loved ones. So we just thank you for the overtime service that you do provide to Council. Congratulations on a wonderful 2016 to all Council officers who I was unable to mention, and we look forward to working with you to build a better Brisbane in 2017. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and look, everyone has been thanked many, many times, so I just want to in particular draw the attention of the Chamber to two workers, Dayne Harkness and Gavin Dick, who are both workers who assisted on the weekend that we had the vigil for Manmeet. They assisted me at Moorooka. I know all the officers are great; they are all very professional; they all help us do our duties, and sure, local government to me I think is the most relevant level of government to the people. Certainly I know when I do mobile offices with State or Federal members; I am the one they drag along because I seem to get all the work. I acknowledge all the great work our officers do, but in particular, those two officers. I have written to the LORD MAYOR and the CEO just to ask that those officers get acknowledged. They worked all day and into the evening. They managed traffic. Nothing was a problem. To me it just exemplified the flexibility that we have with our staff and the brilliant staff that we have. So thank you very much. Chairman: Further speakers? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair; I rise to speak in support of this motion, and echo the words of my fellow Councillors. I am very grateful to all the Council officers I have worked with this year. I won’t list them all by name, but it has been an immensely steep learning curve for me, coming into this Council as a new Councillor without the support of a larger party around me. I have learned a lot in the short space of time. I have the deepest of gratitude for the patience and support of those Council officers, particular when I brought what might be considered wackier ideas to the table, and they had the wisdom and the common sense to be able to see the merits of some of those proposals. Particularly in terms of our participatory budgeting system, where we gave every resident a vote on how the money from the local wards footpath and parks budget should be spent. That is a pretty unconventional approach, and the local Asset Services team were really open-minded and supportive of that, and I am very grateful to them. I might also make particular acknowledgment of all the invisible Council staff and workers, and all those subcontractors as well who work late nights, who work overtime, who clean the toilets, who do the after-hours security shifts; I feel like, just because we don’t have as much day-to-day interaction with those

people doesn’t mean that they’re forgotten. I am mindful that increasingly there are a lot of Council employees on less secure employment contracts and conditions, and I hope in the future we can do a better job of supporting those people and giving them the stability they need. We have a strong tradition in Brisbane and Queensland of a frank and fearless public service. It has been heartening to me to see that still within Council there are many Council officers who have the bravery and the courage to speak out and to question the decisions of their superiors, and to make comment when they think that a decision hasn’t been made the right way. I think that is really important and healthy for a bureaucracy. I think it is great when those Council employees have the ability to articulate their perspectives and to share their concerns, and that is the sign of a healthy organisational culture where people aren’t afraid to question their superiors, and aren’t afraid to offer new and challenging ideas. So I commend all the staff working within Council, from the managers right down to the lower level on the ground workers. Thank you again for all your support this year, and have a very merry Christmas. Chairman: Further speakers?

As there were no further speakers, the Chairman restated the motion of appreciation, which resulted in its being declared carried unanimously.

Chairman: Confirmation of Minutes, please.

MINUTES: 289/2016-17 The Minutes of the 4513 meeting of Council held on 29 November 2016, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Kim MARX, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the Standing Committees? Councillor ALLAN. Question 1 Councillor ALLAN: My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Yesterday marks 10 years since this Administration highlighted its commitment to dealing with traffic congestion and improving public transport in Brisbane. Sadly, Labor Councillors refused to make the same pledge. Can you outline what has been achieved by this Administration since making this pledge to the people of Brisbane, and highlight this Administration’s continued commitment to attacking traffic congestion and keeping Brisbane on the right track? LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor ALLAN for the question. Councillor ALLAN, of course, has raised in his question the issue of building infrastructure in our city. It is true, going back to 2004, that there was a very clear platform of building significant infrastructure in Brisbane. That led to a situation in 2006 where all Councillors in this Chamber were invited to sign up a pledge. We had a minority Council at that time, you might recall, so a majority of Labor Councillors, minority of LNP or Liberal Councillors as it was at that time, with a Liberal Lord Mayor. The signing of a pledge was sought from all Councillors to acknowledge that there was a need for an infrastructure build to make sure that our city was one that was not going to simply get more and more into the grip of congestion, and

that we were inviting everybody to sign up to build that infrastructure. At that time, that pledge was only signed by those on this side of the Chamber. It was the Liberal minority at that time that signed up. At that time, the Labor Councillors in the majority at that time refused to sign up to the pledge. So it was, in spite of that, we went ahead and started to build significant infrastructure. So, Councillor ALLAN, as you would have seen in the city across Brisbane, there has been a significant infrastructure build since that pledge was offered to this Chamber 10 years ago yesterday. The Clem7 came on line on the ides of March, 15 March 2010, a 4.8 kilometre tunnel project which was a significant piece of infrastructure, Brisbane’s first tunnel. We went on then to build the Go Between Bridge. It overlapped in terms of the construction period. It was delivered to the people of Brisbane in July 2010. There was, of course, a great deal of furore around what was then known as the Hale Street Link. The early opponents of that were largely from the West End community, but the biggest users of that facility now are the people from the West End community and South Brisbane precincts. We knew that it was necessary. We knew that, with natural growth in the city, that piece of infrastructure was going to be critical. It went on from there to Legacy Way, and of course that opened on 25 June 2015, in that case a $1.5 billion project, with a $500 million injection from the Federal Government. That was a 4.6 kilometre road tunnel project. These are all very, very important projects. They have helped to relieve congestion in the city significantly on what it would be if those projects were not in place. We know that 120,000 vehicles a day are using those facilities. If you look back, Councillor ALLAN, to 2009, for example, there were just 32 general traffic lanes across the Brisbane River. That meant that our city was operating at 93 to 95% capacity. If there was just one accident on one of those cross-river connectors, it meant that the whole city would grind to a halt, and it did regularly. If people remember those days, one accident on one of those river crossings, be it the Story Bridge, be it the Captain Cook Bridge, be it William Jolly Bridge, any of them, it resulted in pressure on the other river crossings and the city was down to a standstill. Now, instead of having 32 general traffic lanes across the river, we have 46. It has made an enormous difference to the capacity and reliability of the network. Of course, over the years, the number of residents in our city continues to grow. So, we have continued to build the infrastructure. The Alderley roundabout was another significant project. Remember that old five-ways that was out there, the roundabout? That, of course, was a major project to organise that intersection in a much better way, allowing some free movement of vehicles through that corridor. Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 2 Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Last week your Finance Chairman, Councillor ADAMS, reassured the Chamber that glitches in the Weatherzone system were already fixed. Yet last weekend tens of thousands of Brisbane residents received storm alerts several hours after the storm had passed. Did Councillor ADAMS mislead the Chamber, or is she just incompetent? LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. I would just say this: the weather event that was experienced last Saturday was entirely different from what you were making reference to in terms of Councillor ADAMS’ comments the previous week. I can and am happy to however comment on the events of last weekend. The reality is that only around

two-thirds of our 133,000 residents who are signed up to the early warning alert service received a warning in time for that storm event. At a personal level, I received it at 4.26, and the storm event came through a little after 4.45 at Eight Mile Plains. It is a fact that around one-third of those residents received a warning only after the storm had passed through. It was an issue in terms of the delivery. It is unacceptable. There is no other way to describe it. It was a system failure. We have been working to make sure that Weatherzone are working overtime themselves to correct this issue. The latest advice that I have been given is that they ran a system test yesterday, and that further tests were being conducted today as well. That test ran successfully yesterday. So I am very, very hopeful— Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Well, I am just saying that I am not satisfied with the outcome of what happened last Saturday, and it is not acceptable; no other way to describe that. What I am saying is that we are continuing to work to make sure that this gets sorted quickly. We want a system that is reliable, that people can depend upon. Whether or not it is a free service is immaterial. It is a service, and sure, we are the only Council that does provide this type of free early warning alert service. But it must be reliable. It must be able to be depended upon. We are not going to stop working until we reach a situation where people can absolutely depend upon it. The reality is that Weatherzone were successful in a contract bid. It came through in October last year. They were working on that system. The costs and so forth that are being thrown around by the Labor Party have been inaccurate, but that is immaterial. What is important here is that we get this system fixed and sorted. I respect the question, Councillor CUMMING, in the sense of what we are doing to try to get it sorted, but I think you will find that, in terms of Councillor ADAMS’ comments, they were referencing something completely different a week ago. The Weatherzone system, and the reason it was selected without comment of a negative nature by any Councillor in this Chamber at the time was because it offered a broader application. It offered an application whereby, if you were signed up to your place of residence, say that was, for example West End, to pull a suburb out of the air, and you were over at Nudgee, you could find out what the weather conditions were at Nudgee through this system, through the downloading of an app. So it had a broader application in terms of what it could do. But I just say to this Chamber—and this is our last meeting today—but I will not be stopping work on this until it is sorted. It has to be fixed, and you have my commitment that it will be. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor WINES. Question 3 Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER. Earlier, we heard from Councillor ALLAN that yesterday marked 10 years since this Administration highlighted its commitment to dealing with traffic congestion and improving public transport in Brisbane, and that sadly, at the time, Labor Councillors refused to make the same pledge. Can you outline what has been achieved by this Administration since making that pledge to the people of Brisbane, and highlight this Administration’s continued commitment to public transport and keeping Brisbane on the right track? DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you for the question, Councillor WINES. I heard, disrespectfully, Labor Councillors mumbling away while you were asking that question. I know that we are all elected representatives here, and people sometimes don’t believe us when we say things—shock, horror! Councillor CUMMING has said you got it wrong. Well, we have the proof here today; the proof here today. This, that I am

holding up right now, is the pledge that we asked all Councillors to sign. It is interesting, because you can see some Councillors signed it, and some Councillors didn’t. Interestingly enough, I see Councillor Peter CUMMING’s name here, and there is no signature. Would you like me to pass this around so everyone can have a good look? I will put this here. Councillor SUTTON’s name was on there, too, and it wasn’t signed. Interestingly enough. So we have the proof there, and that is dated December 2006. Councillors interjecting. DEPUTY MAYOR: Nothing new to talk about? We will continue to talk about traffic congestion, because the battle is never won. We will continue to focus on it because it is what the people of Brisbane want us to focus on. Councillors interjecting. DEPUTY MAYOR: It is interesting Labor Councillors mumble and interject— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! DEPUTY MAYOR: —but the reality is, when they were asked to sign a pledge to deal with traffic congestion, they refused to do it. Councillor interjecting. DEPUTY MAYOR: This Administration, on the other hand, has a clear record when it comes to dealing with traffic congestion, and in particular in the field of Public and Active Transport. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! DEPUTY MAYOR: You know when you are hitting the mark when Councillor SUTTON gets that really high pitched voice and starts interjecting. The reality is this Administration, like no other Administration in the city’s history, has focused on dealing with traffic congestion through Public and Active Transport in particular. If you go back to December 2006 and you look at our bus fleet, back then we had a much smaller bus fleet, around half the size of what it is today. Consistently since that time, since we made that pledge, we have invested in all forms of Public and Active Transport. So, since December 2006, we have funded and delivered 774 new buses—774 new buses. In fact, that is more buses than were in the entire fleet when we first took Office. Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you, DEPUTY MAYOR. Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: The DEPUTY MAYOR is clearly misleading the Chamber. He knows that the new buses are funded by the State Government— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON: —yet he is claiming credit— Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON: —for that entire funding. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Order! Councillor SUTTON, when I call order, you cease speaking. That is not an appropriate point of order. Please resume your seat. DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Councillor SUTTON knows that this Council makes the decision on how many new buses to put on the road. We make that decision, and there is money in the budget, there is a line item in the budget—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order; Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: If he is going to continue to not tell the truth, I am going to call misrepresentation. He knows that— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, you do not— Councillor SUTTON: —he reduced his own election commitment— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, Councillor SUTTON, I remind you of section 51 of the Meetings— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON, for the third time—Councillor SUTTON, Councillor SUTTON— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, you have just repeatedly continued to yell out whilst I was speaking. I remind you of section 51(1) of the Meetings Local Law 2001. When the Chairman speaks during the progress of a debate, any Councillor then speaking or offering to speak, shall immediately be seated. Now, I also acknowledge that there were other Councillors also yelling out during that time as well. I remind all Councillors of section 51: when I ask you to cease and desist, and I call order, you need to stop speaking and stop yelling out and disrupting the Council meeting. DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look, I understand why Councillor SUTTON is ashamed of Labor’s record, and wants to interject. But the reality is 774 new buses on the road since December 2006. You cannot argue with that. That is a fact. Not just new buses, but also, since that same period, 11 new CityCats. In the same period, around $250 million on bikeways and cycling infrastructure. We were coming from a period where Labor, if they were lucky, would spend about $20 million a term, a four-year term, on bikeways. This Administration will continue to invest in Public and Active Transport, and we believe in it firmly, unlike Labor. We now have a bus fleet that is 100 per cent air conditioned. It is the most modern bus fleet in Australia, 100 per cent low floor. As I said, we have new CityCats on the river. We also invested in things like the CityCycle scheme which Labor said they supported but have opposed very actively ever since. There have been 1.5 million trips taken on CityCycle since it was introduced. Every week that goes by, we are seeing new members sign up to CityCycle, and during the month of November we had a record 1,522 trips in one day. This is a great scheme for Brisbane that is getting better. Since we have been tweaking it to make it easier to use, based on customer feedback, based on community feedback, more and more people are signing up, and more and more trips are being taken. This is all our multi-pronged approach to dealing with traffic congestion. This Administration believes in a balanced approach, and that is investing in all the modes, right across the spectrum, and we are very proud of that achievement. Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired. Further questions? Councillor CUMMING.

Question 4 Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. On ABC Radio yesterday, your Finance Chairman, Councillor ADAMS, advised Brisbane’s residents to subscribe to the Bureau of Meteorology app to check several different sites if they wished to obtain early warnings of approaching storms. Is this not an admissions that Council’s own system, which is costing ratepayers up to $1.2 million, isn’t worth two bob? LORD MAYOR: Well, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. I would just say this: I heard Councillor ADAMS respond behind that she did not say what you have referred to. I did not hear the interview, so I am not going to confirm or deny anything. But Councillor ADAMS would have known what she had said yesterday. I would just make this remark. You have referred to $1.2 million, and again, this is a misleading figure. If you go to the contract which again was awarded in October last year, and look at Weatherzone, this is what it says: there was a $247,441 contract awarded to the Weather Company Pty Ltd trading as Weatherzone. That was the contract. That is for two years. That is all that this Council has approved. The reality is that there were options for further three years extensions, in other words, a further three one-year extensions to that contract. The $1.2 million that Councillor CUMMING is referring to is the figure before which you have to come back to Councillor for a further approval. That applies to everything that we approve. There is a figure there on which you don’t have to come back to Council. But the contract cost, let me be clear, was $247,441 for two years. After that two years, if it is not operating well, it can be chopped. They don’t have to extend. The reality is, of course, that we’ve got to get this right, and we’ve got to get it right fast, because we are in the summer storm season. I think Weatherzone would clearly know the consequences if we don’t get it right. You won’t be waiting around for two years for action, that is for sure. So, Madam Chairman, let’s be clear about that. That is what the Council approved, Councillor CUMMING, not a $1.2 million contract. But to the point —and I can only repeat what I said earlier—Weatherzone have got to get this right. They believe that, from the tests that they have run yesterday and are running again today, they will get it right in the next storm event. All I can say is that the next storm event will tell the story. It will tell the story. I hope they are right, for the sake of the people of Brisbane, and for the sake of themselves I hope they’re right, because this has to be got right. We cannot have a situation where there is a lack of confidence in the early warning alert service. We have seen the growth of the number of people signed up for this service grow from 60,000 about three or four years ago to 133,000 people today. So we have to, as I said, make sure that Weatherzone get the performance efficiencies right. They are in all the manual senses getting the data, and of course they get the data from the Bureau of Meteorology. That is where their information comes from. They take a warning from the Bureau of Meteorology, and they then disseminate that to the 133,000 people signed up to the early alert service. That is how it works. As I have said earlier, in the case of Saturday, two-thirds of the people did get it in time. I certainly did. I had actually worked it out before I got warnings from anybody. I looked at the sky and there was a dirty big black cloud coming, Madam Chairman; that was enough early warning alert for me, I have to tell you. I was starting to move. But, what Councillor ADAMS might have said—and I didn’t hear the interview —but what I would say now is that, once, even if you get an early warning alert, I always then go into the Bureau of Meteorology site and have a bit of a look; have a look at the colour code and see what the colours are. If it’s blue, well, that’s good. That is nice steady rain. If it is yellow, that’s a little bit moderate, hard. If it gets to red, well you know it’s going to be a heck of a downpour, and

if it’s black, you better stand by for hail. That is what the codes are about. That is why the Bureau of Meteorology has a site. The early warning alert service will give you a general overview. It will tell you if hail is expected. It will tell you if winds are expected. But also the early warning alert service, from my point of view, is also important in terms of flooding, and that is why we’ve got to get it right. It is not about even the storm, it is about floods as well. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor KING. Question 5 Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to ask a question to the Chairman of Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Last week we heard comments from the Labor Opposition about the loss of privately-owned sports and recreation land in Brisbane. We also heard from the Leader of the Opposition how this Administration should be assisting in the redevelopment of the Stafford Bowls Club on Council-owned land. Could you please outline to the Chamber how this Administration is protecting our public open spaces? Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I have to thank Councillor KING for that very good question. It is timely considering today we are considering the LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan) that is before us, which is a plan about how we are delivering and how we plan to deliver the infrastructure that this city needs going forward. Part of that infrastructure, obviously, is community infrastructure like sport and rec land. This side of the Chamber has a strong track record in this field when it comes to protecting public spaces and sport and rec land across the city, but also in improving and providing appropriate facilities and supporting community groups who manage those spaces. We have been kicking goals with the range of programs that we provide to support our sporting clubs and sporting organisations, whether it is our Better Sports Grounds Project that was announced as part of the election, with our commitment to four new synthetic sports fields, three stormwater harvesting systems, as well as 20 of our sports fields being placed on centralised irrigation monitoring, or our Building Stronger Communities Grants which were recently opened up for submissions, which are open until 9 February, where community groups and sports clubs can put in for up to $100,000 for new infrastructure. Also, for the first time ever, they are able to put in for money to upgrade existing or to do maintenance on existing infrastructure as well. So we are supporting our groups and our sports clubs like that, by making sure that they have access to money to improve their facilities, to provide appropriate facilities for the community that they are working in. But we are also protecting our sport and rec land by making sure that we are running appropriate processes when it comes to having the correct lessees using our facilities. It was interesting, the debate in last week’s Council Chamber. I reflect and acknowledge the Commonwealth Games are coming up in about 18 months’ time, and I honestly think that the Leader of the Opposition is trying out for the Australian diving team. He performed the most difficult dive possible. He did a three forward somersault with a four and a half twist degree of difficulty 6.4. In the space of one Council meeting, he managed to completely change his position on the issue of sports and rec land and development. I know it is a bit too much to believe, but he did. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition last week that we should, as a Council, not allow groups to develop sports and rec land. We should be ceasing all development. He was reported in The Courier-Mail—and you can read the Hansard—where Councillor CUMMING said, ‘We don’t want to see the city lose our sports fields to aged care.’ Just remember those words. ‘We don’t want to see the city lose our sports fields to aged care.’

But, Madam Chairman, and hour and a half later, in General Business, Councillor CUMMING stood up and pontificated the need for this Council to support the Stafford Greens proposal and support the Brisbane North District Bowls Club to get on and let them do their development on the Stafford Bowls Club site. But I think Councillor CUMMING has been sold a pup. What he probably wasn’t told is that the groups that are partnering or looking to partner with the Stafford Bowls Club are groups like Retire Australia, Five Good Friends, or Nexus Strategies, all three of which are aged care providers. So, in the space of an hour and a half, Councillor CUMMING managed to perform one of the biggest political back flips I have ever seen, not only in my time here but I think — Councillor interjecting. Councillor BOURKE: One Council meeting. He managed to change his party’s position and policy when it comes to development of sport and rec land for aged care. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Literally, call up Peter Beattie now, get the jacket and the little cap for the Australian Commonwealth sports team; you’re going to the Gold Coast, Councillor CUMMING, in the diving for Australia. Well done! What a back flip. Madam Chairman, this side of the Chamber takes a different approach to managing and protecting sport and rec in our city. We are running an expressions of interest process for Stafford, the right thing to do. The right thing to do to allow the community to have their opportunity to put forward their proposals for this facility, rather than just putting in aged care as the Australian Labor Party wanted to do on this site—thank you, Councillor CUMMING. We are running an open process, and we are encouraging groups to put forward their proposals. I am happy to inform the Chamber that we actually had a number of people and groups go through the facility last week to have a look at the facility and to help formulate their proposals. I would hope that all Councillors in this place might just take with a grain of salt some of the things that they are told, and do a little bit of research, a little bit of homework, when it comes to making some statements. But also I would just encourage Councillor CUMMING to take the time over Christmas to practise maybe a backward somersault, not just a forward somersault when it comes to your policy positions. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 6 Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. After last weekend’s failure of your new Weatherzone warning system, can you give the ratepayers of Brisbane an absolute assurance today that there will be no more failures of this early warning system with the summer storm season now upon us? LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, the guarantee that I give to the ratepayers of Brisbane is that I will not rest until this matter is sorted out. I can only provide the information that I have to Councillors today, which is that more tests have been done yesterday and again this morning, and I am advised that those test runs have proven successful. You have heard clearly what I have had to say today. It is the next storm event will be the key. Based on the tests, it should go well. But I am not in the business of providing guarantees for anybody, other than to say that I am going to continue to work until this is fixed. That is the only guarantee that I will provide here today. The reality is that we will continue to work with Weatherzone in the interests of the 133,000 people that are signed up to the early alert service. We will work and continue to work until it is fixed. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HOWARD.

Question 7 Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the City Planning Committee, Councillor SIMMONDS. Residents of Herston are very concerned with the State Government’s development in Herston which will see a 30-storey residential tower being built. Can you outline to the Chamber what role Council and the community can have in this project and have their voices heard? How does this differ from Council’s award-winning approach to planning our suburbs? Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you to Councillor HOWARD for the very pertinent question. You are right, Councillor HOWARD; over the last couple of weeks we have seen quite a number of neighbourhood plans come through this Chamber that have been developed by this Administration in close consultation with the local community. The Labor Councillors opposite are often very critical of those neighbourhood plans, so I thought it worthwhile to go and see what Labor does when they actually get into Administration, when they get a bit of power behind them. The most relevant and current example that we have, of course, is by their factional colleagues up in the Labor State Government, whom they support week in and week out in this particular Chamber. Of course, their latest effort when it comes to planning is the Herston Quarter, where they announced on 14 August this year Australian Unity as the preferred tenderer, who had a proposal for a 30- storey tower on the site. On 18 November this year, the State Government had then declared the site a priority development area (PDA), which means it is going to be dealt with, unfortunately for you, Councillor HOWARD, in the same way as Northshore Hamilton, Bowen Hills and Fitzgibbon. What does that mean? It means that there will be a clear lack of consultation, no infrastructure charges provided to Council for the burden it puts on our city’s infrastructure, and of course the residents’ rights of appeal have been completely removed, all at the hands of the Labor Party, and ably supported by the Labor Councillors right here in this Chamber. In fact, all they have managed to do in terms of consultation with the community so far is they have recently released the Interim Land Use Plan. Despite having announced a 30-storey tower in their press release back in August, their Interim Land Use Plan at Herston, which they put out to the community, fails to mention a 30-storey tower at all. It doesn’t even talk about it. It is as if it never happened. So, no need to consult the community on that. Don’t you worry about that. We put it in the media release. We don’t need your views on the height within the Herston Quarter. Not only that, but it completely fails to mention any single skerrick of supporting infrastructure that the State Government would be providing on the site. We already know this isn’t a collaborative process, but we also know that, unfortunately, residents will find it hard to understand what exactly to expect when it comes to the Herston PDA. We have seen their previous efforts in Bowen Hills, just across the road from the Herston Quarter, Councillor HOWARD, where the Labor Party had the site earmarked for eight to 12 storeys as they told the community, and there is currently a 30-storey tower development on that site as it is. So once again you can see that while the Labor Councillors in this place attack unnecessarily our award-winning neighbourhood planning approach, which provides no less than three individual and detailed community consultation periods, where we go out to the whole community; we work with them in depth. We have Talk to a Planner sessions; we do surveys; we do community meetings; we do a draft strategy and a draft neighbourhood plan, and all the rest. When it comes to what their alternative planning mechanisms are, it is to completely cut out the community.

We have seen them do it in other PDA areas, of course. In Carseldine, they are currently out there asking the community and consulting them on a plan they have already decided. They have decided on towers as tall as eight storeys, putting in 900 homes and approximately 3,500 residents. That would be fine if the Labor Party was out there genuinely consulting about it, but of course, not only are they consulting on a plan they have already decided on, but Councillor COOPER tells me that their consultation consists of trying to blame it on the Brisbane City Council. Nice try to the Labor Party, but if you are going to declare PDAs, if you are going to take away residents’ rights, if you are going to arbitrarily decide on heights without any consultation, you had better be willing to put your money where your mouth is and have the guts to own your own decision. Councillor McLACHLAN has seen it down there in Northshore Hamilton with 15,000 residents put in as part of that PDA, yet not a cent to the upgraded Kingsford Smith Drive which is so vital to keep that artery of the city and those people moving. It is Council and the ratepayers that have had to bear the cost of that infrastructure. We see it happening all over again with Herston; not a single piece of infrastructure, yet when we call on the Labor Councillors to support this Council in getting the State Government to provide more infrastructure, they literally run out of the Chamber to support their Labor mates rather than the people of Brisbane. Thank you, Madam Chairman, my time is up. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 8 Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. The CBIC (City of Brisbane Investment Corporation) Annual Report said the corporation had posted its lowest return ever to the residents of Brisbane. It also said that CBIC’s board is seeking to diversify geographically outside of Brisbane. Is this because they have already sold every Council asset handed to them on a silver platter, and the cupboard is now bare? Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Yes, I thought I had answered this about a week ago, actually. Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. As Councillor CUMMING will remember from my answer to this question last time, the CBIC over the last 12 months registered a result of 7.5% profit. That was down on the previous double digit profits that have been made year in, year out since the establishment of CBIC. But as I said last time, I would say that that 7.5% is still a very good result. It is a result that many institutions would be very, very pleased to receive. The reality is that, of course, in the last year, we have seen them diverse from just straight returns. They provided a $20 million dividend of course which was able to be utilised in the Council budget, saving ratepayers about two per cent of a rate increase. But the issue was that, in the last year, we have had this wonderful project called the Wynnum Library where that facility has been able to be delivered at virtually no cost to the ratepayers of Brisbane. Not only have they got now a 2,000 square metre library down there instead of a 650 square metre that they had previously, but they have also got a nice new Woolworths store, just to top it off. So, Madam Chairman, when you are doing these social outcome developments, obviously you are not going to make a massive profit out of building libraries, are you? That is the reality. That was the reality. That is why the percentage was down in the last year. They have always had the capacity to undertake work outside of Brisbane. I just remind Councillor CUMMING, as I did last time, to look at the Queensland Investment Corporation. Look at the range and diversity of investments that they have on behalf of the Queensland Government and the people of Queensland.

Labor Councillors here seem to think it is all right for the Queensland Government to have this entity, this future fund entity called the Queensland Investment Corporation that buy money, buy ports and all sorts of things, internationally as well as throughout Australia, it is all right to do that outside of Queensland, but somehow or other it is not okay for CBIC, it is not okay for this Council to have a future fund. I just find that to be hypocritical. It doesn’t make sense. The Queensland Investment Corporation has been good for the Queensland Government and its resources, and I would put the case that CBIC has been good for the ratepayers of this city as well. We know that Labor would simply sell it off and go out and spend all the money. They don’t believe in savings accounts. They don’t believe in savings accounts. We are committed to CBIC. If they see a good investment that is outside of this city, then I am not going to stand in the way. It is within their terms of reference, and it has been from day dot that they could do that. So, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the repeat question. It just tests out my memory recall from what I answered last time, and I don’t think there is much I have left out. So I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HUANG. Question 9 Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, Councillor BOURKE. Residents of Brisbane know that this Administration is committed to delivering new lifestyle and leisure opportunities for the residents of Brisbane. Can you outline how the city’s network of pools will serve all residents of our city through the summer months? Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor HUANG for the question. Obviously all Councillors in this place would know the fantastic way that our pools provide in terms of leisure and lifestyle opportunities for the residents of Brisbane right across this city. Of course, there are 22 Council pools that we have in the city attracting some 2.2 million visitors each year. Last week I mentioned in the Council Chamber how we were expecting a little bit of hot weather over the weekend, and that weather certainly did eventuate. I know that there were thousands of people who took advantage of the fantastic Council pools across the city to cool down before those storms hit, but indeed to use and take advantage of those fantastic facilities that we have. But, Madam Chairman, obviously it is not just about the pools and their recreational uses; these pools provide a significant bonus and benefit to the residents of Brisbane in terms of the programs that are run. I encourage Councillors to support and communicate with their residents in the community about some of these other programs, whether it is the Learn to Swim, so the 450,000 people a year who are involved in our Learn to Swim program, or the actual swimming training squads and the actual proper swimming classes that are run at our schools, which another 186,000 people are involved in, or the 48,000 people who are involved in our aqua fitness classes across our pools, helping to get healthy, helping to get active, and helping to be out there in our community engaging with other people, and obviously the benefits that come from being in that sort of supportive environment. There were some comments made in the Council Chamber last week in general business by Councillor STRUNK in relation to the answer that I gave around the question asked of me last week about the pool that was potentially to be built out at Forest Lake. We had quite a detailed discussion about it in the Council Chamber, but Councillor STRUNK still chose and took the opportunity to stand up in General Business and continue to make some comments. The gist of it, we finally got to what the real issue for Councillor STRUNK is, and that is that the pool isn’t in his ward.

All of us would know that the Council boundaries changed this year. It moved slightly, where part of Ellen Grove went into my ward, and part of Ellen Grove is in Councillor STRUNK’s ward. The 600 metres between the pool now and where the Forest Lake Ward starts seems to be some sort of barrier for Councillor STRUNK when it comes to actually engaging or helping to get his residents to use this pool facility that is just down the road. I don’t know, Councillor McLACHLAN, maybe it is sort of an invisible wall, a force field, that stops him from being able to encourage his residents to use it. But not every suburb has a pool in it. We have to remember that. Council has 22 pools across the city that provide for a catchment. So the Ellen Grove pool at Carole Park State School provides for the catchment around it. As I said last week, the most eastern point of Forest Lake Ward, Old Blunder Road, is only less than five kilometres from the Ellen Grove pool, whereas in my ward, the most western part of my ward in which my residents live is actually further for them to get to the Jindalee pool. But I am not standing here going, it’s terrible, they need a pool closer. I run communications with them, whether it is through my newsletters, through a whole range of other programs, when I am out talking to them at street corners, to encourage residents to take advantage and use these facilities. That is our job as Councillors in this place, and it is the job that we do. Let us not forget that there is one ward where there was a pool but the Labor Party closed it, and that was Councillor MATIC’s ward, the Toowong Ward, so we know that the Labor Party has a track record and form when it comes to pools. So, the offer stands, Councillor STRUNK. Whenever you want, I will see you at the Carole Park pool, and do you know what? We will even go for Greek food after. Chairman: That ends Question Time.

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 28 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Before coming to the report itself, I would just like to report on a few matters occurring between last Council meeting and this. First, as Councillors would be aware, I took a group of Brisbane businesses on a business mission to Taiwan, Korea and Japan in September. There will, over time, and I will report, there will be a significant outcome to that business mission. As people will recall, at previous business missions, we have managed to do around $200 to $300 million in business. I just want to report on one aspect of that mission which has come to fruition which has an impact on Brisbane people. In Kaohsiung, our sister city in Taiwan, I met with a group called Brogent Technologies. They are obviously a Taiwan headquartered company, and they have a simulation technology. I was able to view that technology. I did note that the investments that they had made, for example, in an event called Fly Over Canada, was voted on TripAdvisor as a top tourist attraction in Vancouver. It is what is termed an ‘i-Ride Flying Theatre’, and they are going to bring it to Brisbane. This is a US$20 million investment, I suppose in Australian dollars around $25 million. I haven’t done the conversion, but around $25 million in round figures. Essentially, Brogent is a leader in the next generation immersive technology. I am absolutely delighted that the company will be bringing its i-Ride Flying Theatre to our city.

I had the opportunity of not only meeting the mayor, but I knew they made a couple of trips to Brisbane, and I caught up with them again on the night of the Asia Pacific Screen Awards recently. They are in a position now through their CEO, Mr Zhi-hong Ouyang, to announce that they will be setting up here in our city. So I just advise that to the Chamber. You will find it a unique experience when it comes. The Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust issued 45 charities with an amount of money over recent days. The Lady Mayoress and I had the privilege to be able to present cheques to those entities. We thank them very much for the work that they do. They are on the ground. They are the non-name entities; in other words, they don’t get a lot of coverage. They are, in most cases, small groups going about the business of volunteering and making sure that those moneys get to the ground where it is needed. So we thank them for that. This is the seventh year we have had an amnesty for the return of library books. I think last year we got something like 64,000 cans of food—I am going a bit on memory here, but it was around that figure—and obviously the return of a lot of library books that were overdue. In fact, there were around 2,000 lost items that suddenly reappeared. So these are worthwhile events. The cans of food that come as a part of that amnesty obviously are provided to Foodbank, whom I thank for the great work that they do, and those cans of food are distributed to those in need in our city, so they too can share a little joy of Christmas. We turned the sod on the Mt Coot-tha Visitor Centre. This is a $3.4 million construction. It is part of a $15 million revitalisation boost that we have announced for the Mt Coot-tha precinct. We will be on with the job of developing that Visitor Information Centre. It will also have an opportunity for a little room for volunteers for the Mt Coot-tha Botanic Gardens as well, and that will be completed we think around the middle of next year. Also just to state that Council has been nationally recognised by the Australian Human Resources Institute which celebrates achievements in human resources across Australia. I am proud to report that we have been awarded the Graeme Innes AM Award for Disability Employment for our excellence in disability employment, initiatives and programs in the workplace. There was a second award that Council has received in the form of a bi-social award. It is a category at the Social Enterprise Awards in Melbourne. This was awarded on Wednesday 30 November, last Wednesday. Council’s submission showcased our strong commitment to social procurement over the past 10 years, delivering local services including cleaning, catering, and animal welfare services. Of course, we are all aware of our social enterprise tip shops with Endeavour Foundation. Over the past year, Council has spent more than $4 million with social enterprises in our city, and it is something we are keen to expand where we can appropriately do that. So a couple of recognitions, and I thank all of the officers involved in the delivery of those services on behalf of Council. To the items before us today, and there are a number of them. First, item A is a Garden City Library lease. There has been obviously a major refurb to expansion of Garden City, and as part of that, our library lease has expired on September 2016. When the library was first established there, an arrangement was put in place with, I think, it probably would have even been AMP at that time, I am not certain. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: It was AMP? Yes. That was for a peppercorn rental at that time for 20 years. That period of 20 years is up, and we convert now to a commercial rent. So the proposed new stand-alone site for the Garden City Library in its new location will see a larger footprint; it will have 1,960 square metres under the new provisions. This new library lease commences late 2017 and is subject to lessor approval and DA (Development Assessment) approval. The current library is open seven days per week, and is very well utilised by the community. It has around 30,000 people each year that utilise our library.

Item B is the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP). Councillor SIMMONDS will be dealing with this in more detail. But the LGIP, as it is known, is something that all local governments are now required to provide by way of State Government regulation. It sets out what are some of the infrastructure that will be delivered by Council over the coming years. It is a demonstrated delivery against a financial model. These are the requirements of the State Government, so they are presented. It is a longer term and a shorter term viewing of the infrastructure delivery. In other words, we have a City Plan, we have certain areas of infrastructure that we commit to around that over a 20-year period, but this is a shorter term commitment within the Local Government Infrastructure Plan. That is what is presented for Councillors today. Councillor SIMMONDS had a briefing of Councillors earlier today in relation to it. Item C is tied up with the LGIP, so Councillor SIMMONDS will again deal with that in totality when he speaks a little later in this debate. Item D is a report where Council presents its Environmental Offsets Policy, which has been developed in accordance with the principles outlined— 290/2016-17 At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX.

Chairman: Please continue, LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks, Madam Chairman, and I thank the Council. This is presented through the Council’s Environmental Offsets Policy. It is developed in accordance with the principles outlined by the Queensland Government’s Environmental Offsets Framework. It is testament to Council’s commitment to a clean, green and sustainable city. It aligns with the Queensland Government’s Environmental Offsets Act 2014. The offsets policy brings together Council’s existing Natural Assets Local Law 2003 conditions for offsets. Council’s existing tree replacement policy and the offset policy is a firm example of ensuring that, at a local government level, we counter-balance the unavoidable impacts of development in areas of high environmental value to our city. This city, of course, has been named Australia’s most sustainable city, both in 2014 and again in the year just gone. Item E is a funding agreement and operating agreement between Council and that of the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary. It provides funding arrangements for a koala research centre. It forms the basis of a $2 million koala research centre. It provides also for $1.3 million which goes towards a four-year funding agreement around researchers, making sure we’ve got the people in the white coats, as it were, in that research centre, and also part of that funding goes towards the trees which are going to be planted nearby that site. Together with the RSPCA Animal Hospital, they do a lot of koala veterinary work at RSPCA, and we are looking at making sure we’ve got a source of koala food trees, the right type of eucalypt trees within close proximity to both of those venues. Item F is the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan. In response to a direction by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport, we have been progressing the amendment to the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan. The September 2015 direction was to determine the appropriate planning and development outcomes for the balance of the Cedar Woods Master Planned residential development site. In addition, the Minister requested that Council undertake this process suitably expedited. However, this Administration prides itself on the various steps of non-statutory public consultation undertaken for all of our neighbourhood plans. As such, we did not propose to reduce or cut corners in any of those three opportunities for public consultation. As such, for the past 12 months, Council has been consulting with the community through an initial community survey, and again during the release of the strategy document. Council undertook initial community engagement from November 2015 until 30 March this year, with an online survey and called for nominations to be part

of the community planning team. Council received over 600 responses to the community survey. In addition to that, we had 43 community planning team nominations, while 24 went on to attend four community planning team meetings. That work is now complete, and it is back here for people’s assessment. I understand that Councillor WINES and Councillor TOOMEY will say a little bit more on that later today. That is it, thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING. Seriatim for voting – Clauses A, F and G; and seriatim en bloc for voting–Clauses B to E At that time Councillor Peter CUMMING rose and requested that Clause A, LEASE TO THE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BRISBANE; Clause F, FERNY GROVE-UPPER KEDRON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, and Clause G, ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AMENDMENT 2016, be taken seriatim for voting purposes; and that Clause B, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN, Clause C, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES, Clause D, BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL EP031 OFFSETS POLICY, and Clause E, FUNDING AGREEMENT AND OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE NEW KOALA RESEARCH CENTRE, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Chairman: So you want item A, F and G individually for voting? Councillor CUMMING: Yes. Chairman: Then items B, C, D and E as a group together for voting? Councillor CUMMING: Yes. Thank you. Madam Chairman, in relation to the lease for the library, we are very interested to know what the rent was for the current lease, and then we hear it is a peppercorn rent. Obviously Jim Soorley was a much better negotiator than the current Mayor, Madam Chair. Jim Soorley got us a 20-year lease for peppercorn rent, and the current Mayor now is getting us a lease that, if you add all the bits together, it is about $900,000 a year. So we can’t support that type of arrangement. But I have to say the comparable leases to other areas was interesting. Why we are paying so much at Kenmore is beyond me. This is a major shopping centre lease, and it is cheaper than what the Kenmore Library is paying per square metre. Anyhow, I digress. In relation to item B, I have some concerns with the revenue figures for item B, the LGIP, because this document here, the Local Government Infrastructure Plan at 5.1 Anticipated Infrastructure Charges Revenue, which I am sure you have all read, shows quite a substantial drop in revenue anticipated from 2022 to 2026, compared to the current five-year period. I am concerned about that, and I would like Councillor SIMMONDS to explain why that is occurring. The more detailed figures go on to show that the drop is in anticipated revenue for attached dwellings, one and two-bedroom dwellings. The first five years, the anticipated revenue is $44.124 million per annum, and then the second five year period, 2022 to 2026, it drops down to $32.026 million, a 27.42% drop in revenue. There is sort of general commentary around the community, I guess, and around the real estate market, that perhaps there are too many units being built, but that is a really tremendous drop anticipated to occur after some five years. Perhaps I have it wrong, but I would be interested to know on that. The other one is the three or more bedroom attached dwellings again, dropping from $21,806,400 to $14,341,600, a 34.23% drop. Yet detached dwelling revenues—and of course we have just been through the debate on the regional plan where most of the growth in Brisbane is going to be infill housing, and most of it units, yet we are saying that in detached dwellings, there is going to be a substantial increase in the revenue coming from detached dwellings, for the first five-year period, $8,086,400 to the second five-year period of $15,710, 800. So it is a 94.29% increase.

But the overall anticipated revenue drops from $76 million down to $63 million, a drop of 16%. I am interested to know those things, because it would appear that there are some fairly grave budgetary problems for Council somewhere shortly down the track. I don’t know how we are going to fund this infrastructure with this sort of drastic drop-off in revenue. The other thing about the LGIP is that, generally, it is going on for further consultation, and we are happy to support it going along that line. I have a few other questions that we did not get the chance to ask during the briefing. The extension for it is up to June 2018. I just want confirmation that that full amount of time will be taken up by Council, and we won’t be bringing our LGIP down any earlier than that. Just the method of calculation for some of the infrastructure, whether it is the same as under the previous Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) or whether the science, I guess, the engineering in measuring these types of things, particularly things like water infrastructure, has changed, so basically whether there is a different method of calculation or not. I notice in terms of the figures that are being used to calculate storm water parks requirements, et cetera, we are using the figures from the Queensland Statistician, I wonder whether that is necessary. I would have thought perhaps you would take into account the regional plan figures as well, I don’t know. Perhaps Councillor SIMMONDS would like to comment on that. There is also reference in the discussion on parks to revise accessibility standards for public parks. I am just interested to know whether that relates to disabled patrons or parks, or perhaps it is different standards for parks for the community. I also believe I read in part of it that there was a reference in the east region of Brisbane I think that it was considered in the first five-year period there would be no need for any additional sporting facilities. I am interested to know the basis of that in the region. For example, I am not aware of clubs in my area being approached to know what sort of excess capacity they have to cater for the increases in the number of people that are going to be living in Wynnum Manly and the east region of Brisbane and wanting to play sport and wanting their kids to play sport in the areas. So I am interested to know about that as well. In relation to item C, the major amendment, on the surface, this seems a good idea to have another part of the plan which deals with longer-term infrastructure requirements. But I have to say, having been around Council for a while, things can change fairly quickly. Once you get beyond about the next year in the budget, even if you are relying on the Council budget which has four years of figures for a particular project, you can’t rely on it too much to be saying that this will definitely go ahead. A lot of things get canned after a year or so and don’t go any further. I looked back at an old budget the other day and saw that the Lindum level crossing was all set for funding back in the 2008-09 budget. It had four years of figures there, but disappeared off the face of the earth. I guess I really query the credibility of a plan which extends out this length of time, and the likelihood of any particular project at any time out of those projects actually being built and going ahead. In principle, it doesn’t seem a bad idea, but the practicality of it and whether if a constituent came to see you and you said, “oh yes, it will be done in 2031” or something like that, I would still say that they would be well justified in saying that the likelihood of it ever occurring is perhaps not high. In relation to item E, the Koala Research Centre, we love koalas like everyone else. I think this is a really important project. I heard recently an interview with I think the Australian Koala Foundation person in Brisbane who had some pretty drastic figures on the number of koalas in South-East Queensland. They contrasted significantly with a public count of koalas which occurs on a yearly basis in the Redlands. I think it may occur in Brisbane as well, but certainly in the Redlands, which showed quite a different figure. The research centre is really essential in getting accurate figures—

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 27 - 291/2016-17 At that point, Councillor CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK.

Chairman: Please continue, Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, and thanks to the Chamber. It is really important to get a solid factual basis on which to operate in terms of numbers of koalas in Brisbane and in the rest of South East Queensland, and also whatever can be done to assist in boosting those numbers and making sure that the koalas are in a healthy condition and are breeding well. It is an important project, and we continue to support this project. In relation to item D—I think I hopped over the offsets policy—Councillor GRIFFITHS will be speaking on that. We are generally supportive of this policy. In relation to item F, we think the neighbourhood plan doesn’t deal with the issues that the public raised. Councillor SUTTON will be speaking on that. In relation to item G, the administrative arrangements, we think some of these are a bit petty, I guess, and a bit bureaucratic, and using that as a prejudicial description, with the Brisbane Transport Division changing its name to Transport for Brisbane Division. Well! Urban Amenities—this is the classic one—changing its name to Urban Amenity. Amenities to Amenity. Well, the question arises, I guess, with these sort of changes, how much are they going to cost? Are we going to have to change a lot of letterheads? Are we going to have to change a lot of business cards? I guess the signature block on all the emails that any of the workers in these branches send out is going to have to be changed. Someone is going to have to pay for that, we are going to have the IT people doing that. I don’t know; there doesn’t seem to be any great substance in any of the changes being made, and we wondered whether they are worth it at all. That is my comment on that. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor HUANG. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on item A of the E&C Report, on Garden City Library lease renewal. Thank you, Councillor CUMMING, for his information on how Labor has given us so little in assets. That reminds us that Labor has invested far less than this Administration on things like buses and also they closed down Toowong Pool when they were in Administration. That is another example of how Labor invests less in this city rather than investing more. May I start with a bit of background on the Garden City Library. Garden City Library was opened on 1 October 1970. Prior to the last lease in 1996 being executed, the library was only 161 square metres, which was too small for a regional library. At the time, the population of the catchment area was estimated to be between 35,000 to 40,000 people. Therefore, the size of the new expanded library was seen as more than adequate to cater to this population. However, with the growth in population, the Garden City Library now caters to a wider catchment population of over 200,000 residents, and the expansion of the Garden City Library is an exciting project that the residents of Macgregor Ward cannot wait to occur. As the local Councillor, I constantly get requests about library-related activities, ranging from meeting spaces to seniors’ computer classes. The proposed lease renewal will increase the library capacity from the current 1,601 square metres to approximately 1,960 square metres in the new location. This additional space will cater for the increasing demand of library users for the local community. I urge all Councillors in this Chamber to support the lease agreement with Westfield who are also contributing $250,000 towards the fitout of the new library. This contribution will not be subject to reimbursement from Council.

Before I conclude, Madam Chair, I note that the local Councillor at the time, Councillor Graham QUIRK, fought for new expanded Garden City Library and was successful for his residents. Twenty years later, now we have another opportunity to again see the LORD MAYOR deliver an expanded Garden City Library for the residents of Macgregor Ward. Once again, I urge all Councillors to support the lease agreement to ensure the new library becomes a reality. I commend item A to the Chamber. ADJOURNMENT: 292/2016-17 At that time, 3.58pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Kim MARX, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4.19pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you; I just rise to speak on items D and E, just to say that in relation to item D, the Brisbane City Council Offset Policy, Labor Councillors support that and agree with the Administration with their proposal there. We acknowledge that, from our reading of it, it seems to fit with State and Federal legislation. It offers a framework for Council to look at preserving our bushland and our local natural areas as well as taking into account offsets that might be required should development be necessary to proceed. It was interesting to hear that we won another sustainability award, and that is great. I think what we all need to remember is that Brisbane City Council is unlike many local councils in the country, in that it is more a regional government. It covers a large area, and we have the ability to influence and really produce a great environmental outcome for our residents. It is good to see that this particular policy is going forward and allowing that. Secondly, in regards to the agreement about the Koala Research Centre, once again we support that. We think it is smart to be bringing together the non- government sector and also the universities in looking at the ways we can preserve and look after our koala habitat and population. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chair; I rise to enter the debate on item A, the Garden City Library lease. At the outset I just want to encourage all Councillors to support this particular item. It is a bit dismaying to hear from the Leader of the Opposition that the Australian Labor Party won’t be supporting this particular item that we have before us. As the LORD MAYOR said, the new library is a little bit bigger than the previous leasehold area that we have. The current library is 1,600 square metres; the new library is 1,960 square metres. It will provide additional space for public reading as well as more work stations, Wi-Fi desks, additional bench facilities for people to use, more meeting rooms—which are something that is very critical in terms of infrastructure and support for the community. We will have improved facilities, including a person with disabilities facility and a parents’ room for customers so that they have the ability to use those facilities with comfort and convenience inside the library. It is moving, of course, inside the particular facility at Garden City. But it never ceases to amaze me in this place the way that the Australian Labor Party manage to rewrite history. It is often a thing of beauty when the Australian Labor Party stand up in this place and try to claim credit, or indeed try to rewrite

history for their own benefit, either politically across the city or in their individual wards. I did a little bit of digging. I had a read of the file, a very important document coming to Council, the lease for the Garden City Library. So I thought I’d have a little bit of a read of the file to see the history and get an understanding of why and how this library came about. On 7 October 1994, there is a letter on the file to the Head Librarian of the day out there at Holland Park Library from the local Councillor for the Wishart Ward, now LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK, where he is expressing his desire to see the library facility at Garden City expanded. I will read from the letter, because we had Councillor CUMMING saying that this was some great idea of Jim Soorley and the Australian Labor Party. But here we go, 7 October, 1994, a full two years before the lease was signed back in 1996. It says, ”It would strike me that the opportunity of organising an option for increased space to not be missed, and it would be my suggestion that negotiations commence between Council and AMP as the developer of the Garden City Shopping Centre.” Oh, it was Councillor QUIRK’s idea that we should do negotiations to get an increased library space out there at Garden City Library, not the Labor Party’s, as Councillor CUMMING claimed. Then Councillor CUMMING moved on and went to the fantastic deal. The Labor Party was so wonderful at doing negotiations. Councillor interjecting. Councillor BOURKE: Hear, hear, he interjects; hear, hear! So I will read from the memo dated 4 February 2000 between two Council officers, a senior conveyance clerk and someone in the Brisbane City Legal Practice which says, “In 1996 approval was given to enter into the lease for 20 years for part of the Garden City Shopping Centre for the purposes of a library. The lease was subsequently executed due to a typographical error, the termination date of the lease appears to be 2116, making the term 120 years. An amendment of the lease has now been submitted.” So wonderful were they at doing negotiations that they couldn’t even get the fine detail. So instead of a 20-year lease, they got a 120-year lease, and then went back and changed it. So not very good, because you gave up 100 years that you had agreement on. Well done, Councillor CUMMING; absolutely smashing effort. Absolutely smashing effort. I pulled out the E&C from 1996 on the original lease, and the mock outrage from Councillor CUMMING around the amount of money that is being paid for this commercial rent, they acknowledged it in the E&C back in 1996 where it said, ”This is an opportunity unlikely to ever be available again.” They are not my words; they are the words out of the E&C, signed by Jim Soorley, David Hinchliffe, Maureen Hayes—I can’t make out some of these other initials there. It goes on to say—and this is the real kicker, because Councillor CUMMING goes, oh, it’s terrible, you shouldn’t be paying commercial rents, “Although there is no further expansion possible”—so the Labor Party got a site where they knew they couldn’t expand any further, “without paying full rental,” they still signed up to the lease that they were in. So, it is all right for Councillor CUMMING to go, oh, a peppercorn deal, we were so great; they were never going to be able to expand it without paying full commercial rates. What gets better is then, peppercorn deals are great, Madam Chairman, through you to Councillor CUMMING, but I’ve got another memo here from the Community Development Branch, Department of Recreation and Health, dated 4 June 1996. This is in regard to Mount Ommaney and Garden City leases for libraries. Under ‘other’, where they are going through the leases, under ‘other’, is says, “The lease is dependent upon AMP gaining concessions in relation to car parking requirements for future expansions.” Peppercorn leases, concessions for car parks, who is doing great negotiations here, Madam Chairman? Not the Australian Labor Party. But what is better, and what is the real kicker, is the other document that was on that file. Councillor CUMMING was saying how wonderful it was that we got $1 back in 1996, but

the Soorley Administration also set up the Customer Service Centre at the Garden City Shopping Centre, a novel idea at the time, a fantastic effort. So, in 1998, the Soorley Administration entered into a lease at the Garden City Shopping Centre for the Customer Service Centre. For how much were those fantastic negotiators able to secure the 170 square metres that the Customer Service Centre occupied, per square metre? Any guesses? Any takers, given that they had secured that library for $1? I will tell you, Madam Chairman; Council was paying $491 a square metre in 1998 for the Customer Service Centre, $491 a square metre. The library lease that we have before us today is only $460 a square metre. What is that, 18 years later, we are getting a cheaper rate on the rent at Garden City than the so-called expert negotiators of the Soorley Administration were able to do for the Customer Service Centre. On the claim that the Australian Labor Party and Councillor Soorley were able to negotiate fantastic deals, wrong. The deal we have before us is consistent with all of the other deals and library leases that we have entered into. Most importantly—and we know how Councillor CUMMING is so proud out there promoting his wonderful library down there at Wynnum—the lease arrangements are consistent with the lease arrangements that we have down there at Wynnum. They are consistent with Chermside; they are consistent with the Kenmore Library; they are consistent with the commercial rates that we have to pay to provide these fantastic facilities. The Australian Labor Party has a real challenge today, because this is where the rubber hits the road. This is where we find out whether they have the intestinal fortitude to back the ambit claims that we know the Labor Party continually make about being the champions of social services and providers of facilities that support our community. If they abstain or vote against this lease today, they are exposed for what they truly are in this place, pure political opportunists. Because they will be voting against one of the most critical, one of the most important and vital services that we provide to our residents. As I have said on multiple occasions, there is only one side of this Chamber that supports our libraries and supports community services in this city, and that is the LNP side. We know that this is the only Administration that doesn’t shut down pools, that enhances and improves our libraries, and provides the facilities so that our residents are ensured the quality of life, we have lifestyle and we have leisure opportunities. I just implore all of the Labor Councillors who are here today to think about where their leader is taking them with this. They don’t want to be tarred with the tag of being the people who voted against a new library for the Garden City and for the greater residents of the south-eastern suburbs of Brisbane. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI.

Seriatim - Clauses B and C en bloc for voting Councillor Jonathan SRI requested that Clause B, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN, and Clause C, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES; be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Chairman: So you are asking for them to be voted on seriatim as a group together or individually? Councillor SRI: Yes, those two together. Chairman: We will now have items A, F, G individually; B and C together; and D and E together. Councillor SRI: Thanks for that, Madam Chair. I might also just briefly note in relation to item F that I have heard a bit of community feedback expressing concerns about the

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 31 - drafting process, and the fact that many residents feel community consultation has been tokenistic rather than meaningful. So I will be abstaining from that vote. But onto items B and C, the Local Government Infrastructure Plan and the City Plan amendments. It was really great to get a briefing today. I extend my sincere thanks to Councillor SIMMONDS and his staff for offering that opportunity. I acknowledge that you don’t have any obligation to do that, but I think it is a very healthy process that contributes positively towards a democratic and meaningful dialogue. Having said that, I still feel, given the size and scale of what we are being called upon to vote upon today, I don’t think I have been given enough time and information to consider what has been put before me and to make an informed choice. There is a great deal of detail in these documents. While I don’t think it is the role of elected representatives to micromanage and second guess every decision of every Council employee who work so hard on these plans, ultimately as elected representatives, we are the ones who are responsible for making sure investment and delivery of trunk infrastructure keeps up with the needs of the city. I don’t believe we have been given sufficient time and information to make that assessment prior to today’s vote. I know, and I understand, that there is going to be further public consultation on this new LGIP, but I would also like to place on the record my concern that 30 days of public consultation is woefully inadequate for plans that will have such significant ongoing ramifications for the people of Brisbane. It does seem to me that, while this plan that has been presented and framed as sort of just rolling over what we already had in the Priority Infrastructure Plan, at first glance and on further reading, it looks like some projects have been pushed back quite a bit and that others have been maybe omitted. Really, I’d like more information, and I would like more time to understand the details of what we are being called upon to vote for. I am also concerned about the somewhat arbitrary limitations which seem to have been placed on debate regarding the contents of the LGIP. I was told during the briefing today that, if I had concerns about infrastructure projects that seemed to have been left out, and I wanted to make the case that other trunk infrastructure projects should be prioritised and including in this plan, Councillor SIMMONDS told me I should raise them on the floor here during the debate. But then, immediately after that briefing, I was pulled aside by the Chair and told that, during the debate, I am only to speak about what is included in the plan, and I am not allowed to speak about key infrastructure projects that have been excluded from the plan. That strikes me as contrary to the intended purpose of Council meetings, and clearly undermines the capacity of city councillors to advocate on behalf of their residents. Given that I have been restricted from outlining my concerns about what projects have not been included in the plan, I will simply note that, while there is much to be commended in this new Local Government Infrastructure Plan, I am concerned that a range of urgently needed trunk infrastructure projects seem to have been delayed or omitted all together, including bike lanes, park acquisitions, ferry terminals and stormwater upgrades that would clearly fit the definition of trunk infrastructure but seem to have been overlooked. So, as a way forwards, I hope that Councillor SIMMONDS will give his Council officers permission to approach me directly so that we can discuss in detail my concerns about the key trunk infrastructure projects that I think have been omitted, and I would like a detailed briefing about park acquisitions; I would like a briefing about stormwater infrastructure; a briefing about active and public transport; and a separate briefing specifically about ferry terminals. I trust that Councillor SIMMONDS will open the door and allow his officers to engage in respectful and open dialogue about this. I am not seeking to be obstructionist. I know we have the same broad goal here of ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with demand, but I feel, certainly as an individual Councillor, I have been left out of the conversation about which projects should be prioritised. I note that my ward is experiencing very heavy densification, and

that a lot of these priority trunk infrastructure projects will be implemented throughout the inner city. I think it is important that that perspective isn’t marginalised or ignored. I want to work with the Administration. I want to be productive and as supportive as possible, but that requires open dialogue, and a genuine respect and interest in my perspective. I hope Councillor SIMMONDS will take that on board. I look forward to working with you further, but for the time being, I will consider whether I am going to abstain from this vote or vote against it, because I am concerned that those key projects may have been left out of the debate, and I am frustrated that I am not even allowed to talk about them, because apparently I am only allowed to speak about what is in the report and not what is not in the report, which seems again a little but undemocratic. So, thank you for that. Chairman: Councillor SRI, in reference to your inference, I remind you of section 35(7) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 which clearly states: During debate on the motion, the Chairman may rule out of order any aspects of the debate which do not relate to the specific subject matter under debate, and may direct that that issue may be raised during general business. Further debate? Councillor TOOMEY. Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise on item F, the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan. In 2009, the South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan was gazetted by the Bligh Labor Government, identifying the suburb of Upper Kedron as a green field area to contribute to the delivery of over 30,000 dwellings in the short to medium term. The Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan came into being as a result of a ministerial call-in by the Deputy Premier, and an election commitment by the State member for Ashgrove, the Honourable Kate Jones. Ironically, Minister Jones was Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability in the Bligh Government, and at the time was a leading member of the Regional Coordination Committee that signed off on the SEQ Regional Plan. Subsequent to call-in and ministerial instruction, Council started a revision of the neighbourhood plan in November 2015. Background information was sought from residents within Ferny Grove, Upper Kedron and also the neighbouring suburbs of The Gap and Ashgrove. Over 600 respondents provided Council with information on what was important to them, their expectations and future aspirations for the community. During the background phase, I joined Council officers in Ferny Grove for a number of public engagements. During these engagements the officers and myself had the opportunity to explain the process and the methodology, to listen to their concerns and take on their feedback. Every household in the planning area received a letter from Council that encouraged them to participate and to have their say. I also encouraged members of the public to register their interest to participate in the community planning team via social media, P&Cs (Parents and Citizens' Associations), and community consultations. All of these played a part in creating interest for the future CPT (Community Planning Team) members. At the close of nominations, almost 50 applications had been received by the planning team, 24 of which made up the future Community Planning Team. This group met between May and August this year, and as I would learn, they have come together from all walks of life, some from the private sector, some from the public sector, some self-employed, and their involvement in the community was second to none. Their active diversity in the community is also a credit to the group, with members representing Lions, Rotary, school P&Cs, Scouts, Neighbourhood Watch and single interest groups. As an observer, I noted these community group-minded residents were extremely engaged in the process, many seeking to

ensure their concerns and those of their friends and fellow residents were heard at the tables. However, the meetings were not the only time for discussion. The officers, to their credit, were completely engaged, often responding to questions from CPT members and other residents at any time. One very clear message that came through in the meeting was the lack of attention given to the Ferny Grove Train Station, TransLink bus network in Ferny Grove and Upper Kedron, and I will be working with the DEPUTY MAYOR to ensure residents’ concerns are heard by TransLink. In October this year, Council released the draft neighbourhood plan strategy. As the local Councillor who has been with the community on this neighbourhood planning journey, which I believe reflects the intent of the CPT group and the community’s intention at subsequent meetings in the Ferny Grove Shopping Centre and Upper Kedron Recreational Reserve, what we are here to vote on today is item F. It is the draft plan for Ferny Grove Upper Kedron communities’ wishes and their futures. They have been principal drivers behind the formulation of this document. This neighbourhood plan before us reflects the community’s values and ensures that future development and concerns are in line with their values. This amendment ensures, as the residential area grows, links to recreational areas and shopping hubs are incorporated, be it by car, bicycle or foot. It also makes way for the State to provide effective public transport to the area as growth occurs. The environment and natural bush settings of Upper Kedron was also a strong theme identified amongst the community and in the CPT meetings. The amendment addresses those concerns, and contains provisions to respond to the area’s natural constraints and to manage the interface between the natural environment and the built environment. This draft neighbourhood plan meets the intent of the meetings, and the community consultations I and the officers attended. I ask the Chamber to support its release for public consultation. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to talk on items B, C and F in this report. I will start with the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron Neighbourhood Plan. I think it is important to remind the Chamber that this is the neighbourhood plan that this Administration did not want to do. It is clearly in the documentation before us today that they were directed to do this neighbourhood plan by the Deputy Premier, Minister Jackie Trad. She exercised her powers under the Sustainable Planning Act to direct Council to do this neighbourhood plan after this Council had failed to proactively plan for this area. Every level of government has a role to play in planning for this city. The State Government is responsible for setting some of the strategic parameters, as it does in the South East Queensland Regional Plan. In 2009, they did identify the land at Upper Kedron as an emerging community. That is the point where Brisbane City Council should have acted. Brisbane City Council should have commenced a neighbourhood plan for this area back in 2009 as soon as possible after the land at Upper Kedron had been dedicated emerging community. They chose not to. What they did instead was to sign an infrastructure agreement in secret, that effectively as an independent assessment, as the result of a State Government call-in on the development application suggests, they pursued an infrastructure agreement that effectively locked the community out of planning for its suburbs. As a result, and only as a result of— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON: —a State Government call-in, and then a subsequent ministerial direction, did this Council finally commence this neighbourhood plan. That is an indictment

on every single LNP Councillor in this place, most especially former Councillor for the area, Geraldine Knapp, and secondly the current Councillor for The Gap, Councillor Steven TOOMEY. Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order; Councillor WINES. Councillor WINES: Councillor SUTTON is misleading the Chamber. At no point was Geraldine Knapp ever a representative of the Upper Kedron Ferny Grove area. Councillor SUTTON: Councillor WINES has just reminded me of his failings as a local Councillor as well in this equation, because he sat idly by and let it all happen as well. Except he was even worse. He hoped that no one would actually catch on to the fact that he was actually the Councillor representing the area, because most of the impact happened on The Gap Ward. Councillor KING: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order; Councillor KING. Councillor KING: I didn’t realise that personal assassination was in the document in front of us. Could you bring her back to the report? Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON: It is not a personal assassination— Chairman: Order! Councillors interjecting. Chairman: When the Chamber is silent. Councillor SUTTON: Come on, my time is running out. Chairman: Order! Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS! Councillor SUTTON, can you please come back to the report? You are digressing somewhat. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, I am happy to. It is actually called professional peer review, not personal assassination. Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, I want to say— Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON: I want to say, Madam Chair— Chairman: Order! There is a point of order on the floor. Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Quiet! Councillor WINES: Councillor SUTTON is misleading the Chamber. Chairman: Just a moment, please; I haven’t called you, Councillor WINES. There were too many people calling out. Councillor WINES, you have a point of order. Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Councillor SUTTON is misleading the Chamber because no resident of The Gap Ward, in its former iteration, would ever have been affected by the proposal at Cedar Woods. That was a misleading deception put forward by then candidate Jones, and then member for South Brisbane, Jacklyn Trad, both of whom are now Cabinet Ministers and hopefully— Councillor SUTTON: So that’s a minute and a half he’s been speaking, Madam Chair. Chairman: Order! Order! Order!

Councillor WINES: —perpetuated by those people for political advantage— Chairman: Councillor WINES! I called order. I have called order on everybody in this Chamber. Councillor WINES, I remind you that debating on a point of order is not appropriate. Councillor SUTTON, can you please come back to the report. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the members of the Fightback Ferny Grove and Upper Kedron group for the great job that they have done in representing their local community and encouraging them to participate in this debate. They have raised several important issues in the context of this neighbourhood plan. Unfortunately, members of the Community Planning Team cannot do that because they have been forced to sign a confidentiality agreement to be part of that Community Planning Team, and therefore we won’t be able to hear from them. But members— Councillor SIMMONDS: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Councillor SUTTON: —of the Fightback— Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SUTTON; Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Councillor SUTTON is just misleading the Chamber saying that CPT members can’t participate in public consultation. Councillor SUTTON: Public comment. Councillor SIMMONDS: Their agreement says nothing about that, so again she is misleading the Chamber. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, please come back to the report. We are talking about the neighbourhood plan, not the entire community planning process. Councillor SUTTON: What I was saying is the members of the Fightback Ferny Grove Upper Kedron group have raised a range of concerns. Councillor TOOMEY: Point of order, Madam Chair. Councillor SUTTON: They have included environmental concerns— Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SUTTON; Councillor TOOMEY. Councillor TOOMEY: Madam Chairman, Fightback Upper Kedron only formed after the close of the CPT meetings. Councillor SUTTON: No, they did not, Madam Chair. Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON: He just needs to check— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, I haven’t called you. Can we please come back to the neighbourhood plan? Fightback Upper Kedron is not mentioned in this report. I remind you of section 50 of the Meetings Local Law 2001 which is digression. I have asked you to come back to the report, so please speak to the neighbourhood plan, not about things that are not in the report. Thank you. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, they have raised significant environmental concerns. They have raised issues with the traffic impacts. They already know in terms of the traffic impacts that the local road network cannot be relied upon in an emergency. There are significant congestion issues that may make it difficult for emergency vehicles to actually attend sites in an emergency situation, and there is a whole heap of reasons about the unsustainable development that is being proposed. They have raised their concerns about it. They have also raised concerns about being short-changed on public infrastructure, including parks and sporting fields. I want to thank them for their efforts in encouraging the broader community to have their say. Moving on to the LGIP and the major amendment, Madam Chair. You could see by the question time strategy in this place that they were running scared. The LNP in this place were running scared, they knew this LGIP would actually catch them

out on what they haven't been doing in terms of Brisbane's infrastructure. That's why they had to try to relive the glory days of the Newman Administration. They all miss him, we know, we know that. Madam Chair, they didn't mention the Road Action Plan, that 20 years' worth of roadworks in just 10 years that was never delivered. How do I know it was never delivered? Because in the schedule of works that we have before us today yet again, the Wynnum Road upgrade has been pushed out. Remember Campbell Newman said, 2012, it's going to be done and dusted. All the way from Shafston Avenue up to Riding Road, done and dusted. It's not, Madam Chairman, the schedule of works in the LGIP today has that project, Stage 2 of that project being pushed out even further. Sections that are already over capacity, pushed back even further. So when you compare the priority infrastructure plan (PIP) that we have now with the LGIP that is being endorsed and voted on by this LNP Administration, there are at least 30 intersections that are being delayed as part of this program. They are in, for a large amount of them, are in LNP wards, but the LNP Councillors like little lemmings today will go over the cliff with their— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON, I refer you to section 55(2) of the Meetings Local Law, Councillors shall refer to each other during a Council meeting by the respective titles or as Councillors and in addressing officers shall designate them by their respective official title. Therefore, please do not refer to Councillors in this place as lemmings. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, I used a simile. I said they were like, just like Councillor SCHRINNER last week said we were like cockroaches and that was okay. So just to clarify. So, Madam Chair, also on the community infrastructure, planning for community infrastructures, we are going from this PIP, from the priority infrastructure plan that we have now, we are going from planning for 18 community facilities in the next 10 years down to just six, Madam Chair. That's not about moving them out to the second 10-year period, this is about what was currently in here to be delivered within a 10-year period, most of which were to be delivered by 2021 under the old PIP. So within the 10-year period we are going from 18 facilities that we're planning for, down to six, Madam Chair. When it comes to our ferry terminals, on the schedule of works that we are looking at and on the ferry terminals that are listed there, Eagle Street Pier, Mowbray Park, Thornton Street, Norman Park, New Farm Park, South Bank 1 and 2 and Guyatt Park Ferry were all proposed to be upgraded between 2011 and 2016. They are being pushed out to 2021, Madam Chair. There are in fact only two ferry terminals that they are proposing to deliver on schedule this term. Madam Chair, when it comes to parks and park embellishment, all I can say is we're going from a 46-page document listing parks and park embellishments down to a 10-page document, Madam Chair. I don't have time because of all the interruptions that the LNP insisted on doing with their spurious points of order over there, trying to shut me up, to go into each individual project item by item, line item by line item, but I'm happy to expand on some of the roads projects that were actually going to be delaying as well. But the other point that I want to make here as well is about the financial viability and how much infrastructure charges are actually going to be levied against these projects. I am concerned about the inability of this Council to fund the infrastructure that it needs. Every time you turn around, Councillor QUIRK is announcing another deal for developers where he waives their infrastructure charges. All in the name of stimulating development, Madam Chair. Then he cries poor that he's not getting enough money from the State Government to fund infrastructure. Well again, every level of government has their role to play in providing infrastructure for our city. What I would urge Councillor QUIRK to do is stop giving infrastructure concessions—so that we can fund the infrastructure that this city needs. We can only control what is in

our control. We cannot control what the State Government may or may not choose to do. You know what? If they want to be members of the State opposition, they need to go and run for State parliament. If that is what they want to do, time and time again, they come in here and they go on about the big bad State Government. Well, Madam Chair, I understand there's a vacancy opening up somewhere near Stanthorpe, they need to move out there and they need to put their hand up if they want to be in State parliament with Tim Nicholls, they need to follow him and do what he did, resign and contest a State Government seat— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, your time has expired. Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR. Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt. Just seeking your clarification. If a Councillor is speaking and there are multiple points of order, does that take away from their speaking time? I'm just asking. Chairman: So when somebody is speaking, and somebody interjects and calls a point of order, that ceases that person's speaking time and then it recommences when the point of order is dealt with. DEPUTY MAYOR, you wanted to speak? DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item B and item G. Madam Chairman, it's interesting to hear the discussion so far and Labor seems to be just falling into the trap of doing what bland, unimaginative oppositions do and opposing and muddying the waters. But when it comes to the delivery of infrastructure, I don't think there can be any doubt about this Administration's commitment. Councillors interjecting. DEPUTY MAYOR: That delivery of infrastructure goes well beyond this local government infrastructure plan. This is only part of what we do. This is a State Government requirement for us to produce this plan. Primarily it's about identifying infrastructure for the purpose of collecting infrastructure contributions from developers. As I said very clearly, this is only part of the infrastructure we deliver. As has been mentioned before, this infrastructure plan, if you look back in history, there would have been no Clem7 Tunnel mentioned in this plan, there would have been no Legacy Way, no TransApex, no Go Between Bridge, no Eleanor Schonell Bridge. But all those projects were delivered, because this Council is committed to delivering infrastructure. There is one thing that the people of Brisbane can take as a certainty, and that is that they will always have, while they've got this Administration in place, an Administration that is absolutely committed to delivering infrastructure, planning for that infrastructure. In fact, it wasn't until this Administration, the people on this side of the Chamber, were in office that the city developed its first long-term infrastructure plan back in 2007. Believe it or not, before then, there was no long-term infrastructure plan for the City of Brisbane. Now there've been subsequent plans since then. More importantly, there's been delivery of record amounts of infrastructure. So Labor can say whatever they want about various things that are maybe in or may not be in the plan or changes to this particular plan. But as I said, it's only one component of the infrastructure that we deliver and this plan is primarily about identifying infrastructure for the purposes of collecting contributions from development as it occurs. It is absolutely appropriate that we do collect those contributions. But overall, those contributions represent a very small proportion of our infrastructure investment as a city. Very small proportion. Year after year, we spend far more,

we invest far more in infrastructure than we collect in contributions. That will no doubt continue going forward. On item G, the administrative arrangements, this one is particularly exciting for myself. Because it flags the creation of the Transport for Brisbane Division. Now this division is certainly more than just rearranging the words, Brisbane Transport to Transport for Brisbane. This division is actually a step change and a significant change in the way this Council manages public transport. Many of you may not be aware, but at the present time, Brisbane Transport sits as a separate division in itself. But the management of things like ferry services is in a different section of Council. So we've got bus services and ferry services being planned and run by different sections of Council. By the same token, CityCycle, managed by a different section of Council. What this does today is to bring all of the transport planning and delivery into one section of Council, into one division, the Transport for Brisbane Division. Most importantly, it's about making sure that we are geared up and in a position to work closely with the State Government to implement our 10-point plan that was announced a couple of months ago. That 10-point plan is all about integrating transport, improving transport for the people of Brisbane. We need to ensure that the transport planning and delivery is done within the one section of Council. So this is an exciting change for the City of Brisbane and one that I believe will down the track deliver significant benefits in terms of transport planning and delivery. We want an alliance contract with the State going forward for the delivery of bus services. We want to see better integration of the different transport modes across the city. This today, this change and the creation of the Transport for Brisbane Division is the first important step in delivering our 10-point plan and delivering better integration between the different modes of public transport and active transport. So we'll see buses, CityCats, CityCycle all controlled within the Transport for Brisbane Division. That's really an important step going forward. I'm very excited about what's on the agenda for public transport in Brisbane and it is an absolutely essential part of our agenda as an Administration. Which is why we have called it Transport for Brisbane. This is not transport for Brisbane City Council, this is transport for Brisbane and transport for the people of Brisbane. We will definitely continue to work to ensure that the people of Brisbane have access to high quality public transport, integrated wherever possible with other modes. So integrating wherever possible buses and ferries, trains and buses— that's if the trains actually run. CityCycle with other modes, such as ferries, and ensure that there is a cohesive and coordinated plan for public transport for our city going forward. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on items B and C and item F if I get the opportunity. Bearing in mind that I only have 10 minutes. So thank you to the Chamber very much for the debate on the LGIP and the major amendment package today. The LGIP is a very important document for Council. It will allow us to first of all levy infrastructure charges for approved new developments and set trunk infrastructure conditions on development approvals. An important aspect of the way that trunk infrastructure is delivered in our city. The local government infrastructure plan will also meet the requirements of the Queensland Government's statutory guidelines and act, as they have asked us to do, to transfer the previous priority infrastructure plan into the LGIP. It will provide transparency about Council's plans for the provision of trunk infrastructure that is well designed against Council's capital works programme. It will ensure that our trunk infrastructure is appropriately planned and provided for, in an efficient and aligned manner.

It will identify Council's schedule of works and continue this Administration's commitment to the ongoing and long-term delivery of infrastructure. In particular, it is not meant to be a document that catches every single infrastructure programme that this Council will deliver. It captures almost 1,000 projects in 10 years, worth over $2 billion, in the LGIP. That again, in the major amendment. But of course, in addition to that, we have a number of other transport and infrastructure plans and we have the budget process that will continue to guide the infrastructure delivery in our city. The LGIP is aligned to a 10-year horizon, which is Council's long-term financial forecast. So that this Council, particularly the Councillors here, comparing against a budget to what are the projects provided for in this plan, can have a level of certainty and confidence that this Council is able and willing to deliver the infrastructure that we will need—and outlined in this plan that we will need to deliver to enable the growth of our city to occur. We're not the only ones that should be delivering infrastructure for growth, the State Government should be as well. But this Council and this Administration stands willing and able to play its role with the projects that we have outlined today. I wanted to address a few matters that have been subject for the debate today. First of all, the infrastructure charges revenue. Well it's quite clear from the documents in front of you, they are very detailed documents, that infrastructure charges do not cover the cost of all the projects outlined in the LGIP. So not only do they not cover the cost of all the projects outlined in the LGIP, they certainly do not cover the cost of all the infrastructure spend that this Council undertakes every year. In fact, infrastructure charges only cover some 12% of our almost $1 billion spent on infrastructure every single year. This LGIP is focused on trunk infrastructure, so those bits of infrastructure can be conditioned to development or do relate to infrastructure changes. But any insinuation based on infrastructure charges projects that we cannot achieve these projects is spurious. Because we know ratepayers will have to subsidise to some extent, through the good financial administration of this Council, the trunk infrastructure required for growth. Councillor SUTTON's point that somehow we are eroding that revenue base by the infrastructure charges remissions that we have given is also erroneous. For the simple reason that, for example, take the hotels moratorium on infrastructure charges, where we know we hadn't had a four or five-star hotel in this city for a decade before that policy came into place. So how much infrastructure charges revenue were we sacrificing? None. None. It was only once the moratorium came into—the remission came into place that we were able to achieve new four and five star developments. The same goes for aged care. We know that we are woefully underprepared in terms of that stock. So it's a false economy to claim that that base is being eroded, but still we know that it won't meet the full cost of infrastructure in this city. Both Councillor CUMMING and Councillor SUTTON talked about community facilities and what they saw as a reduction in the planned infrastructure. That is quite simply incorrect and an incorrect reading of the documents in front of them. I can advise the Chamber that the PIP had 15 community facility projects in it, of those 15, four have already been delivered and there are a further 12 in the documents before you. That adds up to 16, that is in fact more than what was previously provided in the PIP. So that's a furphy and it's a bit like Councillor STRUNK who came to the briefing today to tell me that there were no infrastructure projects in Ellen Grove, again, wrong, there are quite a number of infrastructure projects in Ellen Grove. So this goes back to the fact that those— Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: I'm concerned Councillor SIMMONDS is misleading the Chamber or is comparing apples to oranges. I am clearly looking, and the document I referenced was the community purposes network— Councillor SIMMONDS: Madam Chairman, she's chewing up my time with spurious points of order. She's chewing up my time. Chairman: Councillor—order! Councillor SUTTON: He is— Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON, I think Councillor SIMMONDS has made it quite clear you raised a comment about things not being included, he has explained and provided clarification as to the difference in what your numbers were versus what are actually in the LGIP. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, point of order then, I claim to be misrepresented so I can explain. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. They don't like it when they're caught out not doing their homework, when they're caught out not doing their job. But they do have to go through and read the documents. We have provided a very detailed suite of documents. How do you think that I do it as a Chairman? I read through every one of these documents. How do you think cabinet does it when they come to decide these matters? They read through all of these documents. For yourself to quite clearly be able to identify projects on a spreadsheet, for Councillor SRI to claim that he hasn't got the information to make a decision is not acceptable. Roll up your sleeves, get into the detail and do the jobs that you're paid to do. Councillor SRI, for example, all you had to do was read the spreadsheet and add up those ones that were allocated to The Gabba Ward to know that The Gabba Ward actually has the largest amount of infrastructure of any ward in this entire city— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Now that's not unexpected, it's an area of high growth that will need trunk infrastructure. But if Councillor SRI would like to vote against a plan where his ward receives more infrastructure than other wards, because it is a growth node, well then he can be my guest. But he'll be doing so because, as he admits, he hasn't done the work. Then he asks for briefings, after admitting that he hasn't even bothered to read the documents. Well guess what, Councillor SRI, the officers' time will not be wasted. If you cannot be bothered doing some work yourself and reading at the very least the documentation that you are provided, you owe your residents that much. Frankly, Councillor STRUNK and Councillor SUTTON's constituents deserve better than what they've been able to achieve today. Councillor CUMMING spoke about the population figures, well this LGIP, as he said, is based on the State Government's own figures. Those are the same figures that they then extrapolated out to 2041 to get the figures in the draft regional plan. Now this isn't a document that we have in front of us out to 2041, so no, they're not the same figures, good pick up, Councillor CUMMING. This document only covers the next 10 years and the major amendment the 10 years after that. But they are based on the State Government's own figures. So there is a compatibility there. In terms of the documents before you, well they are living, breathing documents. So the plan is for us to now send this up to the State Government for a State

interest check and then out to the 30-day statutory consultation. Councillor SRI, I accept that you didn't think that that was enough but it is what is specifically advised for us to do under the State Government's act. They have also put in place a very firm timetable of when this must be completed. So that is what we will undertake. If you can convince them to extend that timetable, well then we can look at the community consultation. But for the moment, we are following the Act to its letter, that has been set by the Labor State Government. But following that, it will be incorporated into the— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Would Councillor SIMMONDS take a quick question on that? Councillor SIMMONDS: No, I've got one and a half minutes. Chairman: No. Councillor SIMMONDS: Both documents will be incorporated into the City Plan and become living, breathing documents. Now it might interest Councillors to know that in the last five years since we've put the priority infrastructure plan in place, we have completed as a Council some 614 projects out of it. So with another 1,000 projects over the next 10 years, you can see that we have a proven track record of delivering this infrastructure. But, it will be a living breathing document. Some development will come on sooner than we anticipate and we will need to move it out of the long-term major amendment, into the LGIP. Some development might come on a little bit later and we'll move it out of the LGIP into the long-term plan. But that will all be through a transparent process of a major amendment to the City Plan which will come to this particular Chamber. Finally, just on item F, thank you very much to the Councillors and the community for their support. Let's not let Councillor SUTTON rewrite history about why this is here. This is here because Kate Jones, as a Labor minister, sat in cabinet and signed off on a regional plan that had significant development in this area and then backflipped as soon as it got a little bit hard in her community. That is why we've had to plan, because they have completely changed the goalposts on the community. We saw the Deputy Premier out there saying that this area could accommodate up to 1200 dwellings, even more than what Council had originally envisaged as part of its approval process. That is why we are out there with the community in order to conduct a planning process. Because of the politics, the Labor politics that were conducted prior to an election. Thank you. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, misrepresentation? Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on Councillor SIMMONDS' accusation that I got the figures wrong on the community facilities. Madam Chair, in my speech, I directly referred to the current PIP which currently has a total of 27 projects in it, of which I noted that 18 of them were meant to be delivered by 2021. I then compared it to the current 10-year plan which has only six. I don't understand how that's confusing to Councillor SIMMONDS but I think I need to set the record straight. Chairman: Councillor SRI, misrepresentation. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Councillor SIMMONDS repeatedly asserted that I haven't been doing my homework and that I haven't taken the time to read the documents. I assure Councillor SIMMONDS that I have read many of the documents. You're right, I haven't read them all but I don't think that's an unreasonable state of affairs when they were only provided last week. It doesn't have to be adversarial, party-political— Chairman: Yes, Councillor SRI, misrepresentation is not another opportunity to make a speech. You stated your misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Sure. Chairman: Further debate? LORD MAYOR, right of reply? LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I thank all Councillors for the— Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your microphone, please. LORD MAYOR: I thank all the Councillors, Madam Chairman, for their contribution to the debate. Madam Chairman, just in relation to the Garden City lease, I think Councillor BOURKE covered off that one fairly well in terms of the history there, Madam Chairman. Happy to have the motion put. Chairman: I will now put item A.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Matthew BOURKE and Andrew WINES immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 22 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM, and the Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Shayne SUTTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.

Chairman: I will now put item F for foxtrot.

Clause F put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clause F of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

AYES: 18 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 4 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Shayne SUTTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.

Chairman: I will now put item G for golf.

Clause G put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clause G of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

AYES: 19 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM and Councillor Jonathan SRI.

NOES: 4 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Shayne SUTTON.

Chairman: I will now put items B and C together, so that's B for bravo and C for Charlie.

Clauses B and C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B and C of the report were declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put items D and E. So D for delta and E for echo.

Clauses D and E put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clauses D and E of the report were declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.

A LEASE OF PREMISES FOR THE GARDEN CITY LIBRARY 112/445/444/43-02 293/2016-17 1. The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.

2. Council’s lease for the Garden City Library at Westfield Garden City, 2049 Logan Road, Upper Mount Gravatt commenced on 17 September 1996 and expired on 16 September 2016. The lessor has confirmed that the current library premises are to be redeveloped and a new lease over the current premises will not be granted.

3. The lessor has proposed a new location within the centre for the library and provided an offer for a new 20-year lease over the new premises. The new premises are approximately 1,960 square metres (subject to survey) on the fourth floor of a building currently used for car parking. The current library is 1,601 square metres.

4. The lessor’s proposed base annual rental is $764,400.00 (excluding GST) per annum, being $390.00 (excluding GST) per square metre. Council will also pay its share of rates and taxes on a floor

area basis, which is budgeted at $45,080.00 (excluding GST) per annum, being $23.00 (excluding GST) per square metre in the current financial year.

5. A fitout rent of $107,800.00 (excluding GST) per annum, being $55.00 (excluding GST) per square metre, will also be payable. The fitout rent is to reimburse the lessor for works that Council has requested the lessor to undertake. This does not constitute the entire cost of the fitout. The remainder of the fitout is to be funded by Council’s budget for the new library.

6. The base rental and fitout rental will be subject to annual increases by CPI plus 0.5% on each anniversary of the commencement date. Council will be responsible for the servicing and maintenance of the air conditioning plant for the premises.

7. The lessor has also offered to contribute $250,000.00 (inclusive of GST) to Council’s fitout of the new library. This contribution will not be subject to reimbursement from Council.

8. The lessor has approved Council to holdover in the current location, under the terms of the expired lease, until the new premises are available. The sunset date in the lessor’s offer for the new premises to be handed over to Council is 30 November 2018. Under the current lease, Council pays outgoings, municipal and water rates and air conditioning costs, totalling $85,519.32 (excluding GST) per annum, being $53.42 per square metre in the current year. The Lease Terms Sheet is contained in Attachment B, submitted on file.

9. The lessor’s offered rental (excluding the fitout rent) is at the lower end of gross market rentals for this type of property, which range from $413.00 (excluding GST) per square metre to $643.21 (excluding GST) per square metre (refer Attachment C, submitted on file).

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

11. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment A Draft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL TO ENTER INTO A LEASE OVER NEW PREMISES FOR THE GARDEN CITY LIBRARY AT WESTFIELD GARDEN CITY, 2049 LOGAN ROAD, UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT

(i) Council’s lease over the current Garden City Library premises expired on 16 September 2016

(ii) the existing library premises are to be redeveloped by the lessor and a new lease over these premises will not be provided

(iii) the lessor has provided an offer for a lease over new premises at the centre

(iv) there is approved budget for a new Garden City library,

(i) Council approves the entering into a lease over the new library premises

(a) in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Attachment B, submitted on file

(b) otherwise on terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the Asset Portfolio Management Manager, Asset Management, and the Chief Legal Counsel, Brisbane City Legal Practice. ADOPTED

B LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 152/160/414/406 294/2016-17 12. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

13. At its meeting of 10 May 2016, Council resolved: - pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of Statutory guideline 04/14 making and amending local planning instruments (Guideline 04/14), to make a local government infrastructure plan (LGIP) - to apply to the Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (the Minister) for an extension of time, as allowed for by section 997 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (the Act), to adopt an LGIP (proposed LGIP) that complies with the requirements of Statutory guideline 03/14 Local government infrastructure plans (Guideline 03/14) - pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 3.3.2 of Guideline 04/14, to make major amendments to planning scheme policies.

14. The proposed LGIP will replace Council’s current Priority Infrastructure Plan (the PIP), a transitional LGIP under the Act, which is contained in Part 4 and Schedule 3 of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme).

15. By letter dated 7 June 2016 (Attachment B, submitted on file), the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) approved Council’s application to extend the timeframe for preparation of its proposed LGIP to 30 June 2018. By letter dated 19 July 2016 (Attachment C, submitted on file), the Minister advised that Council’s proposed LGIP for 10 years complied with the requirements of Guideline 03/14.

16. The key changes between the transitional LGIP and the proposed LGIP are as follows. - The Queensland Government requires that Council demonstrate it can fund the trunk infrastructure identified in the proposed LGIP and that the proposed LGIP aligns with its Long Term Financial Forecast (LTFF) and Asset Management Plans (AMP) (as detailed in Attachment G, submitted on file). - The proposed LGIP has a 10-year planning horizon from 2016 to 2026 which aligns with the LTFF. - The proposed LGIP includes updated desired standards of service, trunk infrastructure and costing/valuation methodology for land and works.

17. A minor amendment to the planning scheme to support the proposed LGIP is also proposed and is set out in Attachment D, submitted on file. The minor amendments include, but are not limited to, the following changes. - Remove redundant or outdated information (e.g. information relating to the PIP which is currently in the Strategic framework and Infrastructure design planning scheme policy). - Replace references to PIP with references to LGIP.

18. It is also proposed to proceed with a major amendment to the planning scheme policies (the proposed PSP amendment), which will include the following. - Provide a new classification for parks and make changes to reflect revised accessibility standards for public parks infrastructure. - Update information relating to stormwater drainage. - Remove redundant terminology.

19. The proposed LGIP, minor amendment and proposed PSP amendment have been prepared in accordance with Guideline 03/14 and Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (Guideline 01/16) and are set out in Attachment D, submitted on file. A summary table of proposed amendments is set out in Attachment E, submitted on file.

20. It is also proposed to make major amendments to the planning scheme through a separate amendment process, to include the longer term trunk infrastructure projects beyond the 10-year LGIP horizon of 2016 to 2026 that are currently identified in the transitional LGIP. This will ensure that longer term planning for infrastructure is retained in the planning scheme.

21. On 23 September 2016, Council received the first statement of compliance (Attachment F, submitted on file) from the Appointed Reviewer (PIE Solutions Pty Ltd), stating that the proposed LGIP complies with the requirements of the Act, Guideline 03/14, the schedule of works model (SOW) and the LGIP checklist, and that no conditions have been imposed.

22. Should Council resolve to progress the proposed LGIP, it will be sent to the Minister, requesting a review of the proposed LGIP and the Minister’s agreement to publicly consult on the proposed LGIP.

24. RECOMMENDATION:

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

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO MAKE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

1. As Council:

(i) at its meeting on 10 May 2016, decided to make a local government infrastructure plan (the proposed LGIP)

(ii) pursuant to Step 2 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (Guideline 01/16); has prepared the proposed LGIP (Attachment D, submitted on file)

(iii) has received the first compliance check appointed reviewer statement (Attachment F, submitted on file),

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to Step 3.5 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of Guideline 01/16 that the Minister be sent a copy of the proposed LGIP (Attachment D, submitted on file) and the checklist, reports and statements as outlined in Step 3.5(b) of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of the Guideline 01/16 and requesting:

(a) a review of the proposed LGIP

(b) the Minister’s agreement to publicly consult on the proposed LGIP.

2. As Council:

(i) decides to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme), pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Guideline 01/16 to make a minor amendment to the planning scheme associated with the proposed LGIP (the proposed minor amendment) (Attachment D, submitted on file),

then Council:

(i) directs that the proposed minor amendment be publicly consulted at the same time as the proposed LGIP.

3. As Council:

(i) at its meeting on 10 May 2016, decided to make major amendments to planning scheme policies (the proposed PSP amendment)

(ii) has received the Minister’s confirmation of state interests for the proposed amendment (Attachment B, submitted on file)

(iii) has prepared the proposed PSP amendment pursuant to Step 2.1 of Stage 1 of Part 3.3.2 of Guideline 01/16 (Attachment D, submitted on file),

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to Step 3.1 of Stage 2 of Part 3.3.2 of Guideline 01/16, that the proposed PSP amendment be publicly consulted at the same time as the proposed LGIP. ADOPTED

C MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES 152/160/1218/14 295/2016-17 25. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

26. At its meeting of 10 May 2016, Council resolved to make a major amendment for infrastructure purposes to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include long term infrastructure (the proposed amendment). By letter dated 19 July 2016 (Attachment B, submitted on file), the Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (the Minister) confirmed the State interests to be addressed in the proposed amendment.

27. The proposed amendment has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (Guideline 01/16) and is set out in Attachment C, submitted on file. A summary table of the proposed amendment is set out in Attachment D, submitted on file.

28. The proposed amendment will ensure that long term infrastructure planning information and requirements beyond 2026 (the proposed Local government infrastructure plan (the proposed LGIP) 10-year period) are retained in the planning scheme by: - amending provisions in the Strategic framework - introducing a new Community purposes network overlay code and maps - introducing a new section in Part 10 Long term infrastructure plans - adding new assessment criteria within the following. - Overlay codes including the Road hierarchy and Bikeway network overlay codes. - Development codes including the Stormwater code. - Neighbourhood plan codes including the Chermside centre and Ithaca district neighbourhood plan codes. - removal of SC3.1 Infrastructure corridor plans from Schedule 3 and replacing with additional assessment criteria in Part 8 Road hierarchy and Bicycle network overlay code - introducing long term infrastructure plan maps in Schedule 2.5 Other plan maps - introducing new Brisbane City Council administrative definitions to support the new long term infrastructure plan framework.

29. The amendments to other parts of the planning scheme resulting from amendment to the proposed LGIP will be progressed with the amendment for the proposed LGIP. Should Council resolve to progress the proposed amendment, it will be referred to the Minister requesting a State interest review and seeking agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment.

31. RECOMMENDATION:

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO MAKE MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES

As Council:

(i) at its meeting on 10 May 2016, decided to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to make major amendments for infrastructure purposes (the proposed amendment)

(ii) has received the Minister’s confirmation of State interests for the proposed amendment (Attachment B, submitted on file)

(iii) has prepared the proposed amendment pursuant to Step 3.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (Guideline 01/16),

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to Step 4.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Guideline 01/16, that the Minister be sent a copy of the proposed amendment (Attachment C, submitted on file), the reports and statements as outlined in Step 4.1(d) of Stage 2 of Part 2.4A.1 of Guideline 01/16 and requesting:

(a) a State interest review of the proposed amendment

(b) the Minister’s agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment. ADOPTED

D BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL EP031 OFFSETS POLICY 131/590/272/227 296/2016-17 32. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

33. The Queensland Government’s Environmental Offsets Act 2014 (the Act) came into effect from 1 July 2014 and is the legislative basis for environmental offsets (offsets) in Queensland. The Act establishes requirements for offsets for development which is assessable under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). Council has recently commenced an amendment process for the Brisbane City Plan 2014 to ensure it is consistent with the requirements of the Act.

34. Offsets are a mechanism to counterbalance unavoidable impacts of land development on the natural environment by ensuring other environmental gain is achieved either at that development location or in another place.

35. Council has identified two gaps in the Act. The Act leaves several matters to the discretion of local governments and applies only to assessable development. However, Council’s commitment to the protection of vegetation extends to its own works, and to works that it regulates under the Natural Assets Local Law 2003 (NALL). Council has the opportunity to establish a policy to clarify its requirements for offsets in accordance with the Act and NALL.

36. The proposed new EP031 Offsets Policy (the Policy) (Attachment B, submitted on file), establishes a framework for the scope and delivery of offsets associated with unavoidable impacts to the natural environment. The Policy will inform the implementation of: - offsets regulated by the Act, to support Council’s compliance with this legislation - offsets for vegetation recognised as having significant environmental or landscape values, in order to counterbalance unavoidable impacts of works on vegetation within Brisbane.

37. The Policy will help ensure the effective and consistent implementation of offsets within Council.

39. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE EP031 OFFSETS POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE EP031 OFFSETS POLICY

That Council resolves to adopt the EP031 Offsets Policy set out in Attachment B, submitted on file. ADOPTED

E FUNDING AGREEMENT AND OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR THE NEW KOALA RESEARCH CENTRE 131/435/273/13 297/2016-17 40. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

41. Council is investing up to $2 million into a new koala research centre (the research centre) to be based at Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, 708 Jesmond Road, Fig Tree Pocket. The research centre, due to be completed in the 2018-19 financial year and will be staffed by scientific researchers who will focus on key issues facing koalas (habitat loss, predation by domestic animals, road kill and disease) and collaborate with universities and other research institutions.

42. The aim of the research centre is to: - provide a world-class research and tourism facility that establishes Brisbane as the ‘koala capital’ of Australia - educate and engage visitors about how they can contribute to koala conservation in Brisbane with visitor admission costs contributing to funding ongoing research activities.

43. The research centre’s key focus will be centralised around the four pillars of research, protection, visitation and education. It is designed to bring together research institutions and industry experts to collaborate on health and conservation advancements for the koala population. The research centre will be publicly accessible with Council overseeing the construction process. A koala tree plantation will also be established and managed by Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary in collaboration with other not-for- profit organisations.

44. It is proposed that Council commence negotiations with Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary for the finalisation of the funding agreement and operating agreement for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the research centre and the koala tree plantation.

46. RECOMMENDATION:

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH LONE PINE KOALA SANCTUARY FOR THE NEW KOALA RESEARCH CENTRE

(i) Council approves commencing negotiations with Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary for a funding agreement and operating agreement for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the research centre to be constructed at the Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary and the koala tree plantation,

(i) Council authorises the Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, and the Chief Legal Counsel, Brisbane City Legal Practice, OLMCEO to negotiate the terms of the funding agreement and operating agreement. ADOPTED

F FERNY GROVE-UPPER KEDRON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 152/160/516/439 298/2016-17 47. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

48. By letter of 1 September 2015 (Attachment B, submitted on file), the Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade (the Minister) advised that she had exercised powers under section 126 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) to direct Council to amend the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan (the neighbourhood plan) and to make any necessary consequential amendments to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme). The Minister confirmed the spatial extent of the proposed amendment to include all of the land addressed by the Cedar Woods development site by subsequent letter of 3 November 2015 (Attachment B, submitted on file).

49. At its meeting of 15 September 2015, Council proposed to amend the neighbourhood plan and to make any consequential amendments to the planning scheme (the proposed amendment). This constitutes a major amendment to the planning scheme. Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) sets out the process for making a major amendment. However, the Minister’s direction established a modified process by shortening the time required for the State interest review.

50. In the letter received on 3 November 2015, the Minister provided advice of the State’s interests, and these have been considered in the preparation of this planning scheme amendment package, with Council’s response to the State interests set out in Attachment C, submitted on file. Consideration has also been given to feedback received from participants in community engagement events.

51. The proposed planning scheme amendment package is provided at Attachment D, submitted on file, and a brief explanatory statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment is provided at Attachment E, submitted on file.

53. RECOMMENDATION:

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO AMEND THE FERNY GROVE-UPPER KEDRON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

As Council:

(i) at its meeting on 15 September 2015 decided to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to amend the Ferny Grove-Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan and to make consequential amendments (the proposed amendment)

(ii) has received the Minister’s confirmation of State interests

(iii) has prepared the proposed amendment pursuant to Step 3.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline), having complied with Step 3.2 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline,

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to Step 4.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the Minister be sent a copy of the proposed amendment (Attachment D, submitted on file), and the reports and statements as outlined in Step 4.1(d) of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline and requesting:

(a) a State interest review of the proposed amendment

(b) the Minister’s agreement to publicly consult on the proposed amendment. ADOPTED

G ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AMENDMENT 2016 155/455/468/35 299/2016-17 54. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

55. Section 193 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 provides that Council must adopt, by resolution, an organisational structure that is appropriate to the performance of Council’s responsibilities.

56. The most recent amendment to administrative arrangements occurred in 2014. Since this time, there has been ongoing functional realignment resulting in roles and responsibilities of some divisions, groups and branches across Council’s organisational structure. In addition, further amendments are required to improve Council’s operations.

57. Attachment A, hereunder, sets out the resolution which amends the proposed administrative arrangements supporting this organisational structure, and Attachment B, submitted on file, records the functions and responsibilities of Council’s divisions, groups and branches.

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

59. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE OF COUNCIL

(i) Council under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 has established divisions, groups and branches and allocated roles and responsibilities to those divisions, groups and branches

(ii) Under Section 193(1) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010, Council must adopt by resolution an organisational structure and may amend that structure,

Then COUNCIL:

(i) CREATES NEW BRANCHES called

(a) ‘Fleet Solutions’ branch in the Field Services group, Brisbane Infrastructure division, and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Manager, Fleet Solutions’

(b) ‘Commercial and Contract Services’ branch in the Transport for Brisbane division, and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Manager, Commercial and Contract Services’

(ii) CHANGES THE NAME of the

(a) ‘Brisbane Transport’ division’ to ‘Transport for Brisbane’ division and DETERMINES the manager of that division will be called ‘Divisional Manager, Transport for Brisbane’

(b) ‘Operational Services’ branch in Field Services group to ‘Commercial Services and Business Improvement’ branch and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Manager, Commercial Services and Business Improvement’

(c) ‘Support Services Centre’ (group) in Organisational Services division to ‘Support Services Centre’ (branch) and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Manager, Support Services Centre’

(d) ‘Urban Amenities’ branch in Field Services group to ‘Urban Amenity’ branch and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Manager, Urban Amenity’

(e) ‘Development Assessment’ branch in City Planning and Sustainability division to ‘Development Services’ branch and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Manager, Development Services’

(f) ‘Brisbane Lifestyle’ division to ‘Lifestyle and Community Services’ division and DETERMINES the manager of that division will be called ‘Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services’ division

(g) ‘Brisbane City Legal Practice’ branch to ‘City Legal’ branch and DETERMINES the manager of that branch will be called ‘Chief Legal Counsel’

(h) ‘Office of the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer’ group to ‘City Administration and Governance’ division and DETERMINES the manager

of that division will be called ‘Divisional Manager, City Administration and Governance’

(iii) ABOLISHES Councillor Executive Support and Governance Services in Office of the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer

(iv) DETERMINES that the functions and responsibilities of Council’s divisions, groups and branches are as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file

(v) DETERMINES that if an officer has responsibilities and performs functions and duties in a group or branch, and by virtue of this resolution, those responsibilities functions and duties are now to be performed within a new group or branch, that officer will continue to have those responsibilities and perform those functions and duties in that new group or branch

(vi) NOTES that the Chief Executive Officer currently holds delegations of powers previously delegated to officers in units and branches abolished by this resolution;

(vii) AUTHORISES the Chief Legal Counsel to do anything to have the description of Council’s delegates, and any limits on their delegations, and their relevant divisions, groups and branches updated in Council’s delegation database to reflect Council’s organisational and administrative changes from time to time

(viii) AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to make any additional minor administrative arrangements as are deemed necessary to fully reflect Council’s decisions. ADOPTED

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special report)

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 special meeting of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, one of the commitments this Administration made was to upgrade the Inner City Bypass (ICB). Madam Chairman, it’s part of a $1.3 billion investment, 90 road projects we have committed to this term. This particular upgrade, Madam Chairman, is —we've been out to tender, we had a shortlist, Madam Chairman, and now we are in a position to indicate that BMD (BMD Constructions Pty Ltd) have been awarded the opportunity as the successful contractor to get on and to deliver this project. It's four lanes in each direction from Kelvin Grove where the Legacy Way Tunnel comes out, Madam Chairman, right through to the tunnel under the exhibition grounds. So it will provide also a westbound on-ramp, Madam Chairman, from Bowen Bridge Road heading, Madam Chairman, westerly. So that will provide obviously a faster opportunity for public transport trips and also that of general motorists will use that as well. So, Madam Chairman, that's the nub of it. It is a competitive price, Madam Chairman, that we've been able to achieve. We believe that this project overall will come in around $20 million less than what we had envisaged, so that's a good outcome all round. I'm happy to move the report. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING? Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this proposal, the work's really only needed because the Administration failed to plan properly when they

constructed Legacy Way. They managed to funnel tens of thousands of extra cars in the ICB in a very short, narrow exit lane to Herston, one of the busiest public transport stops in Brisbane. They've also now got western suburbs bus services going into that area too, which has required this work to be done. The community at Spring Hill, of course, had genuine concerns, and Councillor HOWARD, you should be concerned about their concerns about the loss of green space. Dr Joan Jacobi came to Council on 16 August and spoke on the issue and pointed out that on her estimation, there were some 5,000 square metres of green space would be lost from this area. This area had originally been stated by one of the early leaders of modern Queensland to be the lungs of the city and the lungs of the city are being reduced in size while the city's growing in size, while the number of people living in Brisbane is growing, particularly in that inner-city area. So she had genuine concerns and of course that's all been lost now because of this proposal. Finally, yes, look in terms of the budget, I know the LORD MAYOR was saying last week they were getting it at a good price and all that, that seems fair enough. But I've got to query the expertise or lack thereof of those who estimate, or guesstimate as it may be, the cost of these projects in the Brisbane City Council budget. In the budget, the 2014-15 allocation was $1,700,000, 2015-16, $1,901,000, 2016-17, $30,084,000, 2017-18, $48,799,000. So the budgetary allocation towards this project was in fact $82,484,000 and now we get the best tender is $36,577,557. Now, Madam Chair, that's an enormous difference. That's an enormous difference. What do we do in the budget? We pick a figure and add a zero on the end and hope that'll be more than enough to cover things? It's very ordinary budgeting, whoever's putting the figures together for the budget is way out of touch with market conditions or, perhaps, BMD have tendered under what they should have. But hopefully BMD's a very experienced tenderer and hopefully they wouldn't be silly enough to tender way under what it's going to cost. So it's a good deal for Brisbane but whoever's put the figures into the Council budget, seems they've no idea. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to speak to the special report. Certainly—and I think the LORD MAYOR has been very clear in the Chamber this afternoon—that we have, through the TransApex plan over the last 10 years, delivered certainly on our commitment with delivering of over $7 billion worth of major infrastructure projects. The largest ever initiated by a local government in Australia. So we've delivered Legacy Way, Clem7, the Go Between Bridge, Eleanor Schonell Bridge, all essential road infrastructure and continue to invest in our city's future. Now it's disappointing to hear the debate from Councillor CUMMING where he really does dispute what this particular project proposes. A significant investment in upgrading the ICB. I remember who actually built the ICB, it was the Australian Labor Party. So perhaps he's criticising his own colleagues when they actually proposed the construction of the ICB that they didn't actually future proof it. They didn't allow capacity for it to increase in patronage. They didn't provide for it in future to expand to accommodate the needs of our growing community. So perhaps it's really an indictment of the Australian Labor Party who yet again have shown that they are the administrators over a Council at the time who in fact weren't capable of future proofing or delivering the infrastructure that our city needs. So disappointing that really they are condemned by their own leader that they had not the capacity to actually think about what might happen. Because this is one of Brisbane's busiest roads. It currently is operating at 90% capacity, it carries an average of more than 100,000 vehicles per day, with peaks of up to 105,000 vehicles in that peak

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 55 - hour. It will exceed capacity by 2021. Now growth across Brisbane is expected to generate approximately 25,000 additional vehicle trips on the ICB per day by 2031. So that anticipates the average daily traffic volume to grow to approximately 128,000 vehicles. So very substantial growth right now but into the future it will significantly increase. I think this Chamber, and I would expect that every reasonable Councillor, would say that we need to make sure that we provide infrastructure to cope with the growth. The LORD MAYOR is very much delivering budgets that commit to building the roads, building the infrastructure that this city needs. So we have seen, of course, the LORD MAYOR talks about how we're investing $1.3 billion and delivering over 90 road projects. We are doing a whole lot of work to make sure that we accommodate the needs that our city certainly is experiencing over the years to come. We went through a process, we went out there to tender, we asked for expressions of interest. We got, as the LORD MAYOR outlined, he explained the process, we had strong interest in this particular project and that strong interest allowed us to drive value for money for Brisbane ratepayers. We reviewed, as part of our process we looked to see what was the best overall value for money for Brisbane, for the Council, for ratepayers. We looked at things such as cost, design and community outcomes to make sure that the impacts on Victoria Park and the Queensland rail line were all mitigated as a result of this particular proposal. This road is a vital link in our road network. It connects to Lutwyche Road, the Airportlink, the Clem7, Legacy Way and the soon-to-be-upgraded Kingsford Smith Drive. This particular upgrade will see travel time savings of up to 25% in 2031 for an inbound trip in the AM peak on the ICB between Kingsford Smith Drive and Kelvin Grove Road, saving motorists up to one minute and 25 seconds. The Recent Key Corridors Performance Report ranked this as the busiest arterial road under our control, surpassing the Story Bridge. So you can see, as this has quite clearly pointed out, that there is significant growth and that significant growth is something that Council is absolutely keen to deal with. So the comment from Councillor CUMMING that we fail to plan is actually more a criticism of the Labor Party when they actually built this road. I actually noticed, it was actually originally open to traffic in 2001. When it was originally built, it required approximately 46,000 square metres of Victoria Park. So 46,000 square metres of Victoria Park where the Legacy Way portal is now positioned and the RNA tunnel. So Councillor CUMMING's comment that this particular proposal is going to detrimentally impact on Victoria Park didn't seem to be a concern back then when this was actually undertaken by the Australian Labor Party, 46,000 square metres, through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor CUMMING. You seem to think that that was acceptable but this particular proposal, which is carefully working through to make sure that it reduces any potential impact on this particular proposal with a maximum encroachment of up to 3.5 metres maximum—I know it's shocking for you, Councillor CUMMING, through you, Madam Chair, but we've actually worked very hard to make sure that we absolutely minimise any impact on the park throughout the upgrade's detailed design process. We fully acknowledge the environmental significance of Victoria Park and we are absolutely committed to making sure that we minimise impacts as a part of this particular proposal. Council actually fully investigated and considered the use of the existing Queensland rail corridor adjacent to the ICB westbound for construction during the detailed design phase. However, there was very limited opportunity to undertake this due to existing constraints. There are, of course, access issues. So the requirement to access the existing train wash facility and the rail corridor specifically did eliminate the opportunity to do that as much as is possible. So it was disappointing that there was no opportunity to lessen the impact but the officers are absolutely keen to look at every opportunity to continue to minimise the impact as a consequence of this

particular proposal. It's also important to note that this project has a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 8.42. So a huge benefit that this particular project derives. The LORD MAYOR almost couldn't cope with that, because that's such a huge number for a BCR. That really shows that the particular benefits of this, the transport efficiency, the travel time and operational savings as well as the improved transport linkages that this project delivers not just for vehicles, but particularly for public transport and I know that there was much derision about those of the western suburbs suggested by Councillor CUMMING. But this will deliver an opportunity for buses to utilise Legacy Way. Certainly they are currently able to do that when they are heading eastbound but this will allow them to have that opportunity to do that westbound. There are travel time savings of between three to 13 minutes for the journey times and a 40% increase we've seen with the eastbound movements, we anticipate that kind of patronage increase. So significant public transport opportunities this particularly will deliver. So it was disappointing to see that we haven't had support from the Australian Labor Party for what is, I think, a very vital piece of infrastructure that delivers public transport benefits also. In terms of what is being delivered with vegetation, there will be approximately 700 lilly pilly trees that will be planted to provide screening adjacent to the ICB. There will be additional vegetation planted. We'll be undertaking further tree planting and landscaping works throughout Victoria Park to supplement the project's offset planting, through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor McLACHLAN, Council does offset planting, unlike other people who construct road projects and don't seem to think that they should do that, which I believe is quite a disgraceful attitude towards our city's green space. So we will be making sure that we undertake offset planting in according with our commitment. We will also make sure that we leave a lasting legacy for Victoria Park and make sure that it will particularly look even more green than it currently does. So there will be some trees that have to be removed, they were trees that are about 15 years old and were actually planted when the original ICB was constructed in 2001. We will be making every effort to make sure that any impact is able to be carefully managed. So there will be additional trees that will be planted and particularly we will be undertaking a whole landscaping plan to make sure that these sorts of issues are resolved, certainly in line with the feedback we've had from the local community. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Oh. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI? Councillor SRI: I was going to ask Councillor COOPER if she wanted to take a question. Chairman: No, her time has expired. Councillor SRI: All right. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI? Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on the item about the upgrade to the ICB. I use the term upgrade loosely, because I don't think this is an example of progress of future proofing or sustainable planning. I think this project has some serious concerns which have already been well articulated in this Chamber on other occasions. But crucially, the two main concerns I have and the reasons I'll be voting against this are (1) I object on principle to the idea that we're removing parkland for expansions of private roadways. If we were expanding public transport services and putting in dedicated public transport infrastructure, I might be convinced to take a different position. But my understanding—and please, Councillor COOPER, or maybe the LORD MAYOR will correct me if I'm wrong—but the

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 57 - added capacity to this road is not specifically for public transport, I believe. Yes, correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that this upgrade will simply upgrade the capacity for private vehicle transport. If that's the case, I don't think it justifies removing public parkland. I'd also like to know, from the LORD MAYOR or perhaps from one of the other Councillors, when we talk about offset planting and no net canopy loss, are we comparing the canopy today or are we comparing what the canopy will be in the future? So as an example, if we remove five square metres of canopy of trees but then we say, oh we're going to replant enough trees so that they'll have the same canopy coverage in three years' time, we're actually not accurately comparing the future canopy that would have been there with the future canopy that will be there as a result of that replacement planting. So I hope that doesn't sound too technical, but you understand my point is that if we remove 15 square metres of canopy today, we must immediately replace it with 15 square metres of canopy today. Not say, okay we're replacing it with five square metres of canopy and in another five years, that will grow and provide the same amount of canopy. That's not genuine offset planting and that doesn't represent satisfactory outcome in terms of canopy replacement. So I'd appreciate a clear answer on that. But to the main point, and the main reason that I'm objecting to this upgrade is that I don't think it represents value for money infrastructure. I've made my concerns about this kind of project clear in the past but our long-term strategic goal here in Council has to be shifting more people to active transport and public transport. That has to be our strategic goal. I would argue that this kind of project, rather than reducing congestion, actually serves to increase congestion. Because it encourages more people to drive, encourages more people to rely on private motor vehicles. Even if this particular stretch of corridor might flow more smoothly, that means that more traffic will be flowing into other parts of the city over time. So I'm sure Councillors opposite are familiar with the term induced demand or latent demand. I'm sure you understand the logic that if you make it easier for people to drive in private vehicles, they will choose to drive more often and more frequently. I understand the concerns about congestion but the solution is not to widen roads. The solution is not to increase capacity for private vehicle transport. The solution is to direct that money towards public transport and active transport infrastructure. I know Council is investing some money in that, but we can always invest more. I believe that this kind of investment, this kind of infrastructure upgrade is actually counterproductive. It undermines the hard work that the active transport and public transport teams are doing, because they're working so hard to encourage people to shift to buses, to shift to trains, to shift to walking and cycling, and here we are widening roads and making it easier for people to continue to use their cars. I also emphasise that outside of peak hours, the ICB, while occasionally congested, is nowhere near capacity. That maybe if we're concerned about those sorts of issues, we should be looking at encouraging shifts in the time of day that people travel rather than simply widening the roads. So there are alternative solutions to dealing with traffic congestion and this to me looks like another example of short-sighted planning that follows the same regressive attitudes to traffic congestion management that have characterised suburban sprawl and excessive freeway developments over the past 50 years. So I implore Councillors opposite to reconsider. Even if you don't care about the loss of parkland, even if you don't care about those residents' very legitimate and valid concerns about the impacts on their neighbourhoods. Please recognise that this is not sensible investment of ratepayers' funds. This is not a sustainable solution. You're widening the road, down the track you're just going to widen it again and then 10 years after that, you'll widen it again and we're just going to

keep throwing bad money after bad money when we could be investing that money in public transport infrastructure instead. I'm really disappointed that we're still taking this short-sighted approach towards congestion reduction. Because cities around the world show it doesn't work and I see no evidence that it's going to work in this case. I'm mindful of these often- quoted statistics about the feasibility study results and the cost benefit analysis. But I emphasise that the criteria that define those cost benefit analyses are highly subjective, and that's the case with this report here. I won't go into too much detail, but you can see that different criteria have been given what I would argue are kind of arbitrary weightings. When you set the criteria the way you want to set it, of course you're going to get the outcome you want to get. So maybe we should look at re-evaluating those criteria to include externalities like carbon emissions, like the loss of green space, like impacts on amenity. Because those seem to be deprioritised in the current criteria and I don't think the cost benefit analysis accurately reflects the true impacts both positive and negative of this project. So I've said my piece, I don't know how many times I have to keep saying it. But widening roads doesn't reduce traffic congestion. It is not a sustainable solution. Chairman: Further debate? LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I hear Councillor SRI. I would just say that I think that we're transitioning over time. I think when we move to autonomous vehicles, I think as will occur over time, Madam Chairman, there will be an opportunity for a quantum shift. That matter is being discussed right now within the Council of Mayors. That visioning of where we're heading, not just in Brisbane but in South East Queensland as a whole. So, Madam Chairman, I don't think we disagree to a large extent in terms of the end game. But there will be a transitioning period. In the meantime, you have to, for a number of reasons—one of which being the strength of the economy, Madam Chairman, you have to keep the city mobile. So, Madam Chairman, that is why this Council, in spite of it not being our responsibility, is moving towards a Metro in this city. Something which you're not supporting, Councillor SRI, through you Madam Chairman, something which others aren't supporting either. But we are committed to making that investment, it's our biggest investment in this term as in a public transport project, which ought to be a State Government project. Madam Chairman, to this particular item, Councillor CUMMING has declared that somebody's not adding up too well in terms of the estimates. That it's going to come in under the estimate. But he's making all sorts of predictions about the Metro being over estimates. So I don't know, Madam Chairman, estimates are estimates. When you go out to the competitive market, that is the real test, I suppose, of costs associated with these projects. So I just am grateful that it is going to represent about a $60 million project and not an $80 project at the end of the day. That is something that I certainly welcome. Councillors interjecting. LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, that's probably all I need to say on this. BMD is a reliable builder in this city of road projects. They were one of the three—obviously they were the Brisbane partner together with Ghella and Acciona who put together the Legacy Way Tunnel, and, Madam Chairman, a good Brisbane company, and it's good to see them getting this work. Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Misrepresentation, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Just the LORD MAYOR seemed to suggest that I'm opposed to the Metro project and I just wanted to emphasise on the record that I'm not opposed to it, I've been seeking more information, I'm keeping an open mind and I look forward to further conversations about that. But I just wanted to correct the record. Chairman: I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE INNER CITY BYPASS UPGRADE 188/630/414/1437 300/2016-17 1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. The Chief Executive Officer and Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 29 November 2016.

3. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required works.

Commercial-in-Confidence

4. The commercial in confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the words [Commercial-in-Confidence]. The [Commercial-in-Confidence] information is available at Attachment A, submitted on file.

Purpose

5. That the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves entering into a contract with BMD Constructions Pty Ltd, to design and construct the Inner City Bypass (ICB) Upgrade.

6. The contract will be on a lump sum price basis of $31,345,987 [Commercial˗in˗Confidence].

Background/operational impact

7. What is being procured and why: Design and Construct (D&C) Contractor for the ICB Upgrade Pre-market approval : E&C approved the Significant Contracting Plan (SCP) on 7 December 2015 Process used: Two stage tender process – Stage 1 Expressions of Interest (EOI) and Stage 2 Request for Tender (RFT) Closing date for responses: 31 August 2016 Offer validity period expiry date: 18 March 2017

Pre-market approval adhered to? Yes

Summary of responses

8. Non-price Name Address and ABN/ACN score [out of 100] BMD Constructions Pty Ltd 1 Sandpiper Avenue 82 (BMD) Port of Brisbane PO Box 197 Wynnum QLD 4178 ABN: 59 010 126 100 ACN: 010 126 100 CPB Contractors Pty Ltd (CPB) Level 6 HQ South Tower 75 520 Wickham Street Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 ABN: 98 000 893 667 ACN: 000 893 667 Seymour Whyte Construction 12 Electronics Street 72 Pty Ltd (Seymour White) PO Box 4436 Eight Mile Plains QLD 4113 ABN: 48 105 493 187 ACN: 105 493 187 Bielby Hull Joint Venture PO Box 52 70 (Bielby Hull) Kenmore QLD 4069 ABN: 88 191 703 417 Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Garden City Office Park 63 Ltd (Fulton Hogan) Building 8 2404 Logan Road Eight Mile Plains Qld 4113 ABN: 46 010 240 758 ACN: 010 240 758 WBHO McIlwain Civil Joint McIlwain 56 Venture (WBHO) 1/1283 Lytton Road Hemmant Queensland 4170 ABN: 90 053 214 707 WBHO L10/580 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne Vic 3004 ABN: 78 089 434 220 ACN: 089 434 220 Georgiou Group Pty Ltd 10 Browning Street 55 (Georgiou) South Brisbane Qld 4101 PO Box 5607 West End Qld 4101 ABN: 82 073 851 948 ACN: 105 614 846

9. The Evaluation Panel also undertook sensitivity analysis as to whether Bielby Hull’s score should be reduced one point for design case studies, Seymour Whyte’s score reduced one point for organisation structure, and Seymour Whyte’s score increased by one point for construction staging. The sensitivity outcome for each or a combination of the different scores resulted in a slight narrowing or widening of the overall point score, but no change to the final ranking of the top three.

10. RFT shortlist The EOI Evaluation Plan envisaged a shortlist of three. On 13 June 2016, the Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, approved the following three EOI respondents to progress to RFT shortlist.

11. BMD BMD provided a response that demonstrated a very strong capability with respect to Council’s criteria and the best overall response clearly demonstrating through its nominated case studies and

methodology a high level of capability in delivering similar D&C projects with a track record of successfully delivering similar and larger projects for Council.

12. CPB CPB provided a response that demonstrated a strong to very strong capability with respect to Council’s criteria. The respondent has significant capability in delivering large D&C projects and capability in integrating the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) aspects of the project.

13. Seymour Whyte Seymour Whyte provided a response that demonstrated a strong to very strong capability with respect to Council’s criteria including additional information relating to staging solutions that would assist in successfully delivering the project.

Summary of RFT responses

14. Name Non-price Final Tendered Price* Final Tendered Value score [out (excl. GST)**[after any Price* (excl. for of 100] negotiations, excluding GST)**[after any Money PAVs] negotiations, (VFM) including PAVs]*** Index*** * Recommended Offer BMD 80.92 $29,134,771 $33,378,196 27.9 Shortlisted Offers not Recommended CPB 68.5 $31,629,240 $38,320,100 21.4 Seymour Whyte 54.44 $53,979,308 $66,457,475***** 10.1

* 'Final Tendered Price' means the price after negotiations and excluding PAVs.

** All monetary figures in this submission are exclusive of GST.

*** Not all PAVs will be elected and have not been included in the total contract sum at Section 1 above.

**** The VFM Index is calculated by dividing the non-price score by the Final Tendered Price ($millions), excluding PAVs and multiplying by 10.

***** Excludes price for two of the PAVs as Seymour Whyte was excluded from further evaluation prior to the PAVs being issued.

Evaluation of responses

15. EOI evaluation criteria (a) Mandatory/essential criteria: Be of a prequalification level equal to or above the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) R5, B4, F100 standard. If the respondent is not currently listed in the TMR Contractor Prequalification list, they must be able to clearly demonstrate that they are of at least an equivalent capability and financial capacity to this category. (b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria: Criteria Weighted Evaluation Criteria Description Weight ing

Proposal Delivery Demonstration of the capacity and experience in delivering 10% Capability tenders for projects of a similar complexity and scale. Council is particularly interested in the respondent’s: - ability to form a tenderer team capable of undertaking road and bridge construction works

Criteria Weighted Evaluation Criteria Description Weight ing - ability to submit a tender within Council’s transaction timeframe. Financial Demonstration of the financial strength, solvency of and 10% Capacity capacity of the respondent taking into account the impact of the project on their balance sheet and workload. Design Demonstration of capacity and experience (particularly of the 30% respondent’s designer) in previous comparable projects (e.g. size, scope, technical complexity, environment, proximity to sensitive stakeholders) in regard to: - ITS design - bridge works design - Public Utility Plant (PUP) - Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) design.

Demonstration of a robust methodology/approach proposed for this project relating to: - organisation/structure of design team and integration with construction team - optimisation of whole-of-life value. Construction Demonstration of capacity and experience (particularly of the 40% key participant for construction) in previous comparable projects (e.g. size, scope, technical complexity, environment and proximity to sensitive stakeholders) in regards to: - safety - major road widening in dense urban environment under live traffic conditions - PUP relocation experience - minimisation of construction impacts - legislative compliance (e.g. environment and cultural heritage management, obtaining necessary approvals and authorisations) - ability of the D&C contractor to integrate the proponent team.

Demonstration of a robust methodology/approach proposed for this project e.g. addressing: - organisation/structure of the construction team - construction program and staging - PUP. Communication Demonstration of capacity and experience (particularly of the 10% and Community key participant for construction) in previous comparable Consultation projects (e.g. size, scope, technical complexity, environment and proximity to sensitive stakeholders) in regards to community consultation and stakeholder engagement during design and construction. Demonstration of a robust methodology/approach proposed for addressing community consultation and management of stakeholder interaction and community impacts. (c) Price model: Not applicable for EOI stage

16. Evaluation panel during RFT phase For evaluation of the tenders, in accordance with the RFT Evaluation Plan and approved by the Acting Executive Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, on 8 September 2016, the Program Director, Major

Projects, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, delegated his role on the evaluation panel to the General Manager – Delivery Queensland, Transurban Queensland, given their role as key stakeholder. - Independent Panel Chair, E3 Advisory - Category Manager Construction and Operations, Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services - Project Director, ICB Upgrade, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure - General Manager – Delivery Queensland, Transurban Queensland

17. RFT evaluation criteria (a) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria: RFT Evaluation Criteria Weighting 1. Commercial 40% (a) Financial Capacity 10% Financial capacity to deliver the Project. 15% (b) Contractual Extent of compliance with the terms of the Project Deed attached to this RFT and the acceptability to Council of any alternative commercial positions for any agreed Project Deed departures. (c) Governance 15% Governance arrangements to ensure efficient and effective delivery of the Project, including strategies, organisation structures, plans, the Tenderers’ approach during the RFT process and key personnel with the requisite capability, experience and availability. 2. Technical 50% (a) Infrastructure Solution (at completion of the Project) 25% Proposed new infrastructure and adjustments to existing infrastructure including: - the robustness of the technical solution as a long term, key infrastructure asset, including integration with existing ITS and associated systems (e.g. BMTMC and tunnel operations) - the extent to which tenders meet the requirements of the urban design and landscape objectives and have a positive impact on environmental outcomes and the vicinity of the project - the extent to which whole of life operational and maintenance costs have been optimised. (b) Design and construction 25% Design and construction approaches including: - the certainty that the project will be complete by 30 June 2018 - extent of compliance with the standards in the performance specification and the value provided to Council by any proposed departures - robustness of quality management and verification approaches - measures to ensure that the works are delivered safely - measures to minimise disruption to users of the transport systems, including road users, public transport, pedestrians and cyclists during construction - measures to deliver the works while achieving the prescribed, or enhanced, environmental outcomes.

RFT Evaluation Criteria Weighting 3. Communication and Community Consultation 10% Communication and consultation measures to manage and identify required mitigations for impacts on residents, businesses adjacent to the works, the broader community and stakeholders and to support Council to efficiently and effectively manage the stakeholder communications and community engagement for the project. (b) Price model: Tendered price (lump sum including a provisional sum of $1,500,000 for the relocation of the 33kv Energex cable in the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association (RNA) tunnel).

18. Addenda issued Six addenda were issued before the close of tenders to amend the following: (1) the Project Deed to include Transurban Queensland (TQ) in clause 5.3(b) Interested Third Parties (2) various clauses in the Performance Specification (3) returnable requirements to assist the tenderers in keeping the costs of tendering down (4) the Project Deed to include a new PAV for tolling provisions, a reduction in the minimum Professional Indemnity Insurance, and a provisional sum in relation to the relocation of the Energex 33kV cable (5) the Project Deed and Performance Specification including the contractor’s insurance obligations, a PAV for the ITS Upgrade and Council Accommodation Works (6) revised Project Deed and Performance Specification issued to the bidders to reflect all of the above changes.

19. Initial evaluation Seven EOI’s were received and evaluated against the RFT evaluation criteria above for the purpose of recommending an RFT shortlist.

20. Shortlisting and additional stages On 13 June 2016, the Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, approved that three EOI respondents be shortlisted to progress to RFT stage. The RFT was issued on 20 June 2016 with tenders closing on 31 August 2016.

Following receipt of the tenders and compliance checks, an initial assessment was carried out by the Evaluation Advisors (including Council’s project team, legal, technical and transaction advisors, wider Council specialists and other external advisors) and the Evaluation Panel.

The Evaluation Panel met on Tuesday 13 September 2016 to undertake an initial scoring exercise based on early advice from the evaluation advisors and their own review of the tender documentation. It was recommended that Seymour Whyte would not progress to further evaluation at this stage due to being a significant outlier in many of the RFT evaluation criteria above.

The key factors differentiating Seymour Whyte from the other bidders included: - price far exceeding the other two bidders - significant mark-ups to the deed and performance specification - team capability.

The Project Finalisation Committee agreed with the recommendation and that Seymour Whyte’s bid did not offer value to Council.

21. Summarise any clarification/modification/negotiation of tenders undertaken Three Requests for Clarification were issued to each of the two remaining tenderers, CPB and BMD, and included clarifications in relation to: - securities - licenced construction areas - program - ITS arrangements - environmental investigations - technical details

- scope - traffic impacts - confirmation that departures from the Project Deed and Performance Specification not accepted by Council would be withdrawn - additional PAVs - any changes in price associated with the above.

Objectivity and probity

22. O’Connor Marsden Pty Ltd (OCM) were appointed as probity advisor during the procurement phase. OCM have reviewed the RFT evaluation process, and have confirmed that as of the date of the evaluation report, they have no unresolved probity issues. OCM will provide a full probity report on the conclusion of the RFT process, after debriefs with unsuccessful participants.

Recommended tenderer (most advantageous for Council)

23. Most advantageous The recommended tenderer is BMD for the following key reasons. - BMD offered the lowest price and achieved the highest VFM Index. - The team proposed to deliver the project are more experience and familiar with the works to be delivered including providing a high level executive to assist in any issue resolution. - BMD fully accepted the project risk allocation. - The bid involved limited technical departures. - The ITS design and understanding of interface with the existing assets was well developed. - The design solution and construction staging and methodologies are designed to minimise the impact on traffic flow on the ICB.

24. Tenderers not recommended A final evaluation scoring workshop was carried out between BMD and CPB where BMD scored higher than CPB in every criteria except one, where CPB’s financial capacity scored marginally higher than BMD’s.

The key reasons CPB scored lower than BMD were: - CPB presented a higher number of departures from the Project Deed than BMD - CPB presented a higher number of design exceptions than BMD and also had less understanding around the ITS and associated systems - CPB provided a completion date one month earlier than required but provided less detail in their program as to how that would be achieved - CPB did not provide a project specific response in relation to communications and community engagement - CPB provided a less project specific Environmental Management Plan than BMD - CPB provided a minimal landscaping offer.

25. Environmental, Quality Assurance, Access and Equity, Zero Harm and Support for Locally Produced and Australian Products: BMD has grown from a small Queensland family business to become one of Australia’s largest privately-owned construction, consulting and urban development organisations.

BMD maintains third party certification of its integrated quality (ASNZS ISO 9000), safety (ASNZS 4801) and environmental (ASNZS 190 14001) management system. The company was one of the first to obtain accreditation with the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner in January 2007 and was re- accredited in 2013 through to 2016.

BMD’s environmental management performance has also been recognised through multiple industry awards for Environmental and Construction Excellence.

In early 2012, BMD established a goal of Zero Harm across the entire organisation promoting continual improvement of health, safety, environment and quality management.

26. Risks associated with this contract (including mitigation strategies): Procurement risk (completion Risk Comments/other risk mitigation strategies date 30 June 2018) rating Community issues Low Performance specification addresses tree clearing Vegetation Management Plan in place and Natural Asset Local Laws (NALL) application has been made for NALL offsets Land Access to the Licenced Medium Queensland Rail Interface Agreement signed. Construction Area Contractor priced in delayed access to 1 October 2017 Council directed delays Low At Council’s discretion Change in codes and standards Low Short construction duration Change in law Low Short construction duration RNA – early works impacts to cost Low RNA early works contactor is coordinating to and timing program and works including investigations, access, site establishment Council delay in design approval Low Appropriately staffed project team Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) Medium Bidder interaction with QUU during interactive water main relocation tender phase to minimise impact on QUU infrastructure Energex provisional sum is Medium Energex charges may exceed Council’s estimate inadequate for scope of work Additional scope Medium Potential changes may include LED lighting, painting in the RNA tunnel, additional conduits, additional trees etc. Contaminated land Low Council may direct removal

PAVs to be directed at Council’s discretion Victoria Park site reestablishment 254,114 Additional gantry provisions 827,456 [Commercial-in-Confidence] [Commercial-in-Confidence] [Commercial-in-Confidence] [Commercial-in-Confidence]

Contract proposed

27. Type of procurement: Establishing a once-off contract If establishing a new CPA, how will it be Not applicable operated? Contract standard to be used: Non-major Project Deed Amendments to standards: Nil All non-compliances with contract Yes conditions and specifications resolved? In accordance with the RFT documentation, the Is liability and indemnity to be capped? limitation on contractor's total aggregate liability to Council under this contract is 50% of the contract sum. The limitation on the contractor's liability for liquidated damages is 10% of the contract sum. There are some exceptions which are unlimited as defined in the Project Deed. Has the proposed contractor(s) signed the The tenderer has signed a Deed of Confirmation and contract to formalise their offer? Commitment in advance of finalising the contract. Execution date of contract: Expected early December 2016 Term/period of contract: 19 months Price basis: Lump sum

Variation for rise and fall in cost: Prices will be fixed for the duration of the contract. Security for the contract: Security in the form of two unconditional bank guarantees, each equal to 2.5% of the contract sum. Defects liability period/ Warranty period? 12 months Liquidated damages: $20,000 per day Software component? No AS4000/4902 Provisional Sums? $1,500,000 for the Energex 33kV cable relocation in the RNA tunnel Contract preparation: Clayton Utz in conjunction with the project team and Strategic Procurement Office, Organisational Services

Funding

28. Estimated expenditure under this contract (excluding contingency if any): $31,345,987 [Commercial-in-Confidence] [Commercial-in-Confidence]

29. There is sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this contract.

30. Budget line item: Program: Program 2 – Moving Brisbane Outcome: 2.3.2.1 – Build the Transport Network Service: 2.3.2.2 – Improve Local Transport Networks Operating or Projects: Constructing ICB Upgrade

Financial Year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 $000 $000 $000 $000 Capital 1,700 1,901 30,084 48,799 Expenses - - - - Revenue - - - -

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

32. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING.

(1) ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH BMD CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD, FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE INNER CITY BYPASS (ICB) UPGRADE, ON A LUMP SUM PRICE BASIS FOR THE SUM OF $31,345,987.

(2) [COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE].

(3) THAT THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR, MAJOR PROJECTS, CITY PROJECTS OFFICE, BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE, IS EMPOWERED TO SIGN AND MANAGE THE CONTRACT ON COUNCIL’S BEHALF. ADOPTED

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special report)

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 special meeting of that Committee held on 5 December 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, Councillors will recall last week that we brought to this place a proposal for the establishment of a temporary local planning instrument over certain pre-1911 homes that we were able to establish fitted into that category because of a sewerage document, Madam Chairman, which had been discovered. As a result of further works from that sewerage and drainage—well it was a sewerage map actually, from pre-1911, Madam Chairman, it has assisted in coming up with these identified properties. Now, the only reason this is here today, and I thank her for it, the Deputy Premier has advised of her approval to have the local planning instrument, or temporary local planning instrument put in place and so given it was the last meeting of Council, we thought it was appropriate to bring it back. So, Madam Chairman, it's as simple as that. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, yes, we support this item. It's been great work from the State Government in turning around the request so quickly and helping to dig the BCC out of the mess of its own making after its refusal to do the audit we'd called for originally. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further, LORD MAYOR? Chairman: I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds.

A TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 05/16 – PROTECTION OF CHARACTER BUILDINGS 152/160/1218/47 301/2016-17 1. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

2. At its meeting of 29 November 2016, Council resolved to propose the Temporary Local Planning Instrument 05/16 Protection of Character Buildings (the proposed TLPI), which is set out in Attachment B, submitted on file.

3. By letter dated 2 December 2016 (Attachment C, submitted on file), the Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment, the Honourable Jackie Trad MP, advised Council that the proposed TLPI meets the

statutory requirements for a temporary local planning instrument in section 105 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and that Council may adopt the proposed TLPI.

4. Once adopted by Council, the proposed TLPI will have effect for a period of one year from its date of gazettal unless repealed at an earlier date. It is anticipated that a major amendment to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme), to include the subject sites in the Pre-1911 building overlay map, will be in effect prior to the proposed TLPI ceasing to have effect.

6. RECOMMENDATION:

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 05/16 PROTECTION OF CHARACTER BUILDINGS

As Council:

(i) pursuant to Step 5.1(a) of Stage 3 of section 4 of Statutory Guideline 01/16 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), decides to adopt the Temporary Local Planning Instrument for the Protection of Character Buildings (the TLPI) as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file,

then Council:

(i) directs:

(a) that notice be given in accordance with Step 5A.2(b) of Stage 3 of section 4 of the Guideline

(b) that the Chief Executive of the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning be given, pursuant to Step 5.3 of Stage 3 of section 4 of the Guideline, a copy of the notice under Step 5A.2(b) and an electronic copy of the TLPI. ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES that the report of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Madam Chairman, exciting things happening in public and active transport. We had a report last week on the banana bar removal strategy for Council, across our bikeway network. I know, I guess for some people, it's a little bit niche, but for many cyclists and pedestrians, it's very important and has been welcomed by many out in the community who use our bikeway network on a regular basis. So Council will now progress to identify the highest-priority locations to remove the banana bars and replace them with something safer and more appropriate for the situation.

Many of our bike paths are getting massive numbers of cyclists and pedestrians each day, which is a fantastic thing. Obviously the banana bars are not appropriate, particularly in these high-volume situations. So we're progressively identifying locations that the removal and replacement can occur and we'll obviously keep the Chamber updated in the future going forward on that. Another particular issue that is really relevant at the moment is the fact that on Monday, so next Monday, 12 December, we will see major changes to the Brisbane public transport network, in particular the Brisbane bus network. These changes have been necessitated by the Queen's Wharf Development Project, which is obviously kicking off in January. There'll be various road closures and traffic diversions associated with this project and this has required significant changes to the Brisbane bus network. So TransLink has been out there notifying people of the changes that will come into play. I am particularly concerned that these changes will see almost 50 extra buses going across the Victoria Bridge during the peak period. So at the moment, we're seeing around 200 buses per hour in the peak period going across Victoria Bridge. Now 200 buses per hour rolls-off the tongue easily but that's a bus every 15 to 20 seconds so that's a lot of buses, and that is going to be even busier with an extra 46 buses to be precise going across the bridge from next Monday. We've all, if you've caught a bus from the city to the southside of Brisbane, sat on that Victoria Bridge and experienced the congestion. We've all seen it with our own eyes: queues of buses lined up across the bridge. Two-thirds of public transport trips in our city are taken by us and a significant number of those bus passengers are heading across the river to the southside and they have to deal with that congestion on the Victoria Bridge. In May this year we put a proposal through to the State Government to convert the Victoria Bridge into a green bridge which would essentially involve taking the cars off the bridge and making a bridge that is dedicated for public and active transport only. Unfortunately, despite an initial positive response from the State Government, we then got an answer back which was really disappointing which was a no. I believe that as of next Monday and certainly going into the early parts of next year it will become very clear why this bridge needs to be a green bridge. People can see it with their own eyes now but that will only be further exacerbated—the congestion, the bus delays will only be further exacerbated with the changes that will come into place next Monday. So today I'm announcing and launching a petition to the Premier to reconsider her decision, to reconsider the State Government's decision, on Victoria Bridge. I'm delighted that we have bipartisan support for this position. We have had Councillor CUMMING and Councillor CASSIDY stand up in this place before saying that they support our proposal, that they believe the Victoria Bridge should be a green bridge, and it's great. I know that Councillor SRI is also of that opinion as well. So Council is united on this position. Buses are critical to our public transport network and Victoria Bridge is critical to our bus network. We need the State Government to reconsider their decision and come to the table, sit down with us and work out how we can make that bridge more efficient and effective use of infrastructure. The great thing about this proposal is that we're not asking anyone to build a new bridge. This is a relatively low-cost solution to a problem that needs urgent attention. Now we have a longer-term solution to this problem which is the Brisbane Metro, but the problem exists today, and the problem will exist even worse next Monday and as we go into the new year. So this is an issue that we really need to address. We need the State Government's cooperation on this matter.

Now while Council controls the Victoria Bridge, it's our bridge. What we don't control is the bus station immediately to the south of the river which is the Cultural Centre TransLink Bus Station. We don't control that whole arts precinct through there in Southbank so we need State Government support to make these changes. We certainly encourage all Councillors in this Chamber who are singing from the same song sheet, marching in lockstep, to assist in pushing this with the State Government so that we can get a great outcome for the people of Brisbane. Converting Victoria Bridge to a green bridge, a public and active transport bridge, is good for the city. It will help efficiently carry more people through our network each day. We believe it will be a position outcome for public transport in Brisbane, and as I said before, the best thing about it is it is a relatively low-cost solution that will make a significant difference. So I urge everyone to support the petition and do what they can as Councillors and individuals to help get the best outcome for the city in relation to Victoria Bridge going forward. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CASSIDY? Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I just rise to talk briefly on banana bars and we support the report here and what was again Council's position and action in removing these based on feedback from cycle user groups and pedestrians and various users of the bikeways. It does note here that there are 900 banana bar assets in place across Brisbane, but I was a little bit perplexed to find out that there's no complete record, or I'm led to believe there's no complete record of these, so I'm not sure how the strategy will be rolled out. I certainly hope it's better than the strategy to not install any new little yellow bicycles on bitumen roads as was done in the suburb of Deagon after the DEPUTY MAYOR's announcement that no more of those BAZ (Bicycle Awareness Zone) signs would be painted. So I certainly hope that the DEPUTY MAYOR can get on top of this and working with cyclist user groups to actually implement this plan properly. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI? Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Just really quickly I'm quite happy to add my voice in support of the proposal to convert Victoria Bridge into a green bridge. I'm very, very critical of the Queen's Wharf mega casino, but I think this change is sensible and represents a positive step forward and I'll be sharing that petition as well. Chairman: Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR? I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Peter Cumming, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – USE OF BANANA BARS ON THE BIKEWAY NETWORK 302/2016-17 1. Mark Pattemore, Transport Planning and Program Manager, Transport Planning and Programs, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the use of banana bars on the bikeway network. He provided the information below.

2. Bicycle deflection rails, commonly known as ‘banana bars’, have been used as an access management or vehicle restriction treatment on bikeways and shared paths in Brisbane since the 1990s. They were also used as a way to reduce cyclist speed at conflict points such as roads, intersecting paths, tight corners and potential collision points with other path users.

3. The use of banana bars around Brisbane attracted significant community feedback, including: - movement restriction – banana bars restrict movement to one-way when two-way access would be desirable and safer - safety hazard – the geometry of banana bars makes them difficult to manoeuvre around and a lack of visibility increases the risk of collision between path users - ineffective – banana bars do not always prevent vehicles as there are often opportunities for alternate access.

4. Council has responded to community feedback, committing to cease the installation of single entry banana bar treatments. At the request of the Chairman, Public and Active Transport Committee , a Banana Bar Removal Strategy was developed to identify, prioritise and determine actions for the removal of banana bars across Brisbane.

5. The steps for removal of banana bars include: - identification – Council has more than 900 banana bar assets in place across Brisbane, with a majority of these located on the bikeway network - prioritisation – priority was given to banana bars located in high use areas, in areas where there are high volumes of two-way traffic, on corners and where there were complaints from members of the public. Once prioritisation was done, an assessment was made to determine if an entrance treatment is required, the purpose of the treatment and if an alternative treatment is required - communication – once a removal program was developed, community communication was done to advise them of Council’s approach - implementation – Council’s Field Services Group is responsible for removing redundant banana bars and installing alternative treatments where required.

6. The progress to date includes completion of the development of a banana bar removal strategy, and a decision that banana bar treatments will no longer be installed on Council’s bikeway network. The prioritised removal of banana bars is in progress and alternative treatments are being considered.

7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Pattemore for his informative presentation.

8. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT. ADOPTED

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER?

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There was a very informative presentation given at Committee last week on pedestrian safety outlining some things that Council will be undertaking to try and make sure that we work closely to try and improve pedestrian safety in the CBD. Noted there's already been some significant things that have been able to be achieved, but always looking to improve upon our record is something Council is very keen to do. There were also a number of petitions which I'm happy to speak to if anyone has any commentary on those. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor BOURKE? Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Very quickly to—rise very quickly to speak to item B on the report we have before us. Madam Chairman, this issue of the speed on Sumners Road has been a matter of debate in the Council Chamber before. There was a petition back in 2013 that came before us with relation to the speed and the actions that Council undertook at the time—was to conduct a speed limit review with the police as well. The decision was to lower the speed limit on a section of Sumners Road, past Horizon Drive, down to 50 kilometres an hour following a number of accidents and concerns from local residents around speeding and safety for crossing the road. Council carried out that work. Since then there's been a couple of incidences of speeding on Sumners Road in that section, including one in 2014 where a young driver of 20 years old was clocked doing 126 kilometres an hour in a 50 zone. When he saw the police officer with the radar gun actually locked up the tyres on the vehicle and slid into the police bike, narrowly missing the police officer. Since that time the Queensland Police Service have decided that it was a good location to carry out a range of speed enforcement actions, and have actively been patrolling and enforcing the speed limits on that section of Sumners Road because of some of those incidences. So the catalyst for this petition was the concern from residents around the new 50 kilometre an hour speed limit, which I have to say, the petition has actually been lodged 18 months after the new speed limit was implemented so there has been that speed limit in place for quite some time. There are new 50 kilometre an hour signs that were put up at the time of the speed limit change. There was 50 kilometre an hour speed markings painted on the road as well at the same time, so people should have been fully aware of the changes to the speed limit. Madam Chairman, the petitions we have before us, there is one for and one against. The one against the increase of the speed limit actually was calling for another section of Sumners Road to be reduced to 50 kilometres an hour as well. The recommendation that we have before us has been put there in consultation with the Queensland Police Service and with the Council officers, and also in line with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the appropriate speed limits after the review that was carried out again by Council officers, and the conversations that we've had with the Mount Ommaney Police Branch. So the recommendation is to leave the current arrangements in place with the 50 kilometres an hour past Horizon Drive in place and the 60 kilometre an hour section from Wacol Station Road to Horizon Drive in place. I have to note that there is also a school zone on that particular section, so for large parts of the day the speed limit on that 60 kilometre section is actually 40, which means that the drivers are moving slowly. So, Madam Chairman, with that I just support the recommendation that we have before us and that petition. Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor SUTTON? Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just rising to speak on items C and D of this report. Just on item C which is a request for some road improvements in Railway Parade, Norman Park, I just wanted to thank the Council officers and Councillor COOPER for the response to this petition. I was happy to support Council's recommendation in this instance, and I'd like to thank the officers for their work on that and publicly acknowledge them for that. Just with regards to item D which is a petition requesting improved safety and reduced congestion at Royal Parade, Banyo, this relates to the Banyo open level crossing. I'm sure Councillors who were here prior to the last election will recall Councillor Flesser had very, very strong views about this before his retirement. You will also know that the Labor Councillors have a different position when it comes to open level rail crossings in this city, and in particular I know that Councillor QUIRK and the LNP Councillors like to speak ad nauseum about the history of open level rail crossings. I’m not trying to invite another presentation on this topic by raising this as part of the debate, but just to say that if Council was keen to actually progress improvements to this intersection for this open level rail crossing, I know that they would be able to find the money and commit to it, like they have with the other rail crossings that they have funded in the past few years. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ALLAN? Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise today to speak briefly on item D, a petition to improve safety at the open level crossing at Royal Parade, Banyo and I thank the petitioner for the petition. This has been a long term issue in Banyo and this could be said of a number of open level crossings across Brisbane. Since becoming the Councillor for Northgate Ward, I've had a chance to research this issue. While historically a number of options have been considered, including overpasses, underpasses, relocation of the crossing, extra turning lanes, installing traffic signals and alternative signage, none of these options have prevailed. Consultation has been conducted with the community and none of the options have emerged as the preferred solution. Some solutions have been rejected by the community, others have not passed internal feasibility hurdles, and during the last consultation process, approximately 20% of respondents didn't want to change at all. Madam Chairman, my predecessor, Councillor Flesser, had a range of fanciful solutions as opposed to feasible. In fact, one of his proposals was rejected by Council officers twice. At any rate, all of his proposals ignored the key requirement that the State Government commit to funding. Open level crossings are primarily a State Government funding responsibility. This is outlined in the State Government's infrastructure plan; however, open level crossings are not a priority for this State Government and Deputy Premier Trad confirmed this in a recent interview where she stated and I quote: Level crossings are a significant project. We have not earmarked level crossings as a huge priority at this stage. We know our biggest priority in terms of spend, in terms of prioritisation, in terms of focus, is actually about getting a second river crossing for heavy rail from southside to the CBD. So there you have it. It is not a priority for the State Government who would need to provide approximately 85% of the funding on this project. The elimination of open level crossings is listed by this State Government in their infrastructure plan as a future priority. Given this outlook, and the very low likelihood that— Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair? Chairman: Point of order against you Councillor ALLAN.

Councillor SUTTON?

Seriatim – Clause D Councillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause D, PETITION – REQUESTING IMPROVED SAFETY AND REDUCED CONGESTION AT ROYAL PARADE, BANYO, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Chairman: Thank you. We will take it seriatim. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you. Chairman: Councillor ALLAN please continue. Councillor ALLAN: Given this outlook and the very low likelihood that funding will be forthcoming, it is difficult to see a practical way forward with this project. However, if it becomes a priority for the State Government at some point in the future, then we will be there to have a discussion about any sensible proposal and provide support in line with other competing infrastructure upgrades across the city. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER anything further? Councillor COOPER: I'd just like to particularly thank those who contributed to the debate in the report, and I'd like to thank Councillor Adam ALLAN. I think that his very well- prepared debate shows quite clearly that the really—the only option for this open level crossing is for a full removal, and the only people that are basically in a position to make a decision about undertaking a full removal of this proposal are the State Government, as they would be the 85 per cent funder of this particular proposal. There has been a real and I think a very disappointing recent statement by the Deputy Premier that these are not a huge priority for the State Government. I think that that position is a very short term thinking type solution, and I would urge them to work with Council to prioritise these particular projects so that we can get on with removing the 45 open level crossings that are causing safety and congestion issues across our beautiful city. Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. I will now put items A, B, C and E.

Clauses A, B, C and E put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B, C and E of the report were declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put item D for Delta.

Clause D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B, C and E of the report were declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Shayne SUTTON and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

AYES: 18 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors

Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Shayne SUTTON and Jonathan SRI.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Kim Marx, Ryan Murphy and Shayne Sutton.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CBD PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 303/2016-17 1. James Jennings, Senior Programs and Projects Manager, Transport Network Operations; Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on CBD Pedestrian Safety. He provided the information below.

2. Road crashes involving pedestrians in Brisbane cost the community approximately $107 million per year between 2005 and 2014. In Brisbane’s CBD, road crashes involving pedestrians costs the community approximately $14 million each year.

3. Pedestrian safety strategies provide a safer environment and reduce the number of crashes involving pedestrians. The safety measures stimulate street activity in the CBD, promote active and healthy lifestyles whilst improving the economic prosperity of businesses.

4. Pedestrian refuge islands are a staged crossing facility which allows pedestrians to cross the road in two parts, while only having to judge one direction of traffic at a time. Kerb extensions are a crossing facility which aims to narrow the width of the crossing point, reducing the distance pedestrians need to walk and their exposure to approaching traffic.

5. Zebra crossing facilities are suitable for use at mid-block locations on two-lane roads with limited road width. Children’s crossings are supervised crossing facilities which are used at schools during morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-ups. 6. Traffic signals control vehicular traffic, allowing pedestrians to cross the road without the need to judge gaps in approaching traffic. Overpasses and underpasses are grade separated pedestrian crossing facilities which physically separate pedestrians from traffic.

7. Pedestrian malls give pedestrians full right-of-way over vehicle traffic and are suitable in locations where no vehicle access is required. Shared zones give pedestrians full right-of-way over vehicle traffic and are suitable for locations where pedestrian volumes are very high, and limited vehicle access is required

8. Key initiatives for CBD pedestrian safety were discussed and included use of an ongoing education program with ‘WALK – DON’T WALK’ crossing signage. In 2008, Council commenced the replacement of old incandescent traffic lights with high intensity LED lighting. In 2009, the speed limit in the CBD was reduced to 40 kilometres per hour. From 2012 to 2015, Council commenced the installation of pedestrian countdown timers to enhance pedestrian safety and awareness.

9. Findings from pedestrian safety studies include: - violation of the Queensland Road Rules by pedestrians is one of the most predominant contributing factors in all crashes involving pedestrians - knowledge of pedestrian rules does not seem to be the issue, rather pedestrians want to cross where it is convenient for them, and with as little delay as possible - engineering measures tend to be resisted, with measures such as overpasses, underpasses and pedestrian barriers having little effect on illegal crossing behaviours - enforcement of the rules by police is infrequent and considered by the public to be unwarranted - there is a lack of awareness about the risks involved in illegal crossing behaviour.

10. A map displaying the top 10 high-risk locations in the CBD was displayed.

11. A pedestrian behaviour study was undertaken in 2009 in Brisbane’s CBD by Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety which identified the percentage of total crossing movements: - legal crossings – 79% - pedestrians crossing against red person – 5.4% - pedestrians crossing against flashing red person – 7.3% - pedestrians crossing away from signals (within 20 metres) 8.3%.

12. In 2016, Council has undertaken pedestrian safety monitoring and compared its data to the QUT study in 2009. The results were provided which included: - 9% increase in the number of pedestrians that lawfully use signalised pedestrian crossings (86.1per cent of all pedestrian crossing movements) - 86% decrease in the number of pedestrians that unlawfully cross against the steady red person at signalised pedestrian crossings (0.7% of all pedestrian crossing movements) - 76.5% decrease in the number of pedestrians that unlawfully cross outside of the designated pedestrian crossing path at signalised pedestrian crossings (1.9% of all pedestrian crossing movements) - 54% increase in the number of pedestrians that unlawfully cross against the flashing red person at signalised pedestrian crossings (11.2% of all pedestrian crossing movements).

13. Council is proposing a CBD pilot to promote education, utilise enforcement and install infrastructure to enhance pedestrian safety. The pilot will involve the installation of pavement legends on non-slip stickers at 50 high-risk locations across the CBD, and develop information flyers that businesses can provide to employees to promote safe crossing. Council will request increased police presence and enforcement at high-risk locations across the CBD. A review of signal timings at high-risk intersections to determine if conflicting left and/or right turns can be restricted while the green and flashing red person is displayed.

14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Jennings for his informative presentation.

15. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING A SPEED LIMIT REVIEW ON SUMNERS ROAD, RIVERHILLS CA16/535506, CA16/535337 and CA16/878586 304/2016-17 16. Petitions from residents, requesting a speed limit review on Sumners Road, Riverhills was received during the Winter Recess 2016 and a further petition presented to Council on 25 October 2016 by Councillor Matthew Bourke.

17. The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure provided the following information.

18. Council has received three petitions: two petitions requesting an increase in the speed limit from 50 km/h to 60 km/h on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive and one petition to extend the 50 km/h zone on Sumners Road, between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road.

19. The three petitions contain a total of 543 signatures. The two petitions requesting an increase in the speed limit from 50 km/h to 60 km/h on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive contain 474 signatures. The petition requesting a reduction in the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h on Sumners Road, between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road contains 69 signatures. Out of the petitioners, 233 residents live in Riverhills, 298 live in other suburbs in Brisbane and 12 live outside Brisbane.

21. In October 2013 due to a previous petition, Council undertook a speed limit review on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Queensland Government's

Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The review recommended that the 60 km/h speed limit be reduced to 50 km/h. This recommendation was presented to the Speed Management Committee which includes representatives from TMR and the Queensland Police Service. As a result, the reduced 50 km/h speed limit was endorsed and implemented in January 2014.

23. Sumners Road west of Horizon Drive is predominantly a two-lane median divided road designed for local resident access with a 50 km/h speed limit. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location with the relevant section of Sumners Road highlighted in blue. Due to receiving two new petitions, in August 2016 Council conducted a new speed limit review on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The speed limit review recommended that the speed limit remain at 50 km/h.

24. In addition to the August 2016 speed limit review, a portable speed warning sign was installed outside 377 Sumners Road between 3 August 2016 and 12 October 2016. The portable speed warning sign was located within the 50 km/h speed limit zone on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive. While installed, the portable speed warning sign recorded a total of 135,682 vehicles. Portable speed warning signs record two speeds, the initial speed (Speed 1) and the speed after the warning message is displayed on the sign (Speed 2). The average speed of vehicles recorded at Speed 1 was 47.2 km/h. The average Speed 2 recording was 40.2 km/h, a reduction of 7 km/h. The speed limit on a road is commonly set at or below the 85th percentile operating speed, being the speed which no more than 15% of traffic is exceeding. The 85th percentile speed recorded at Speed 1 was 53 km/h and the Speed 2 recording was 47 km/h, a reduction of 6 km/h.

25. Sumners Road west of Horizon Drive is mostly accessed by local residents as Horizon Drive is the last main connecting road for residents living north of Sumners Road. The traffic volumes obtained in the recent traffic counts highlight this with the two-way average weekday traffic volumes being 2,747. In comparison, the two-way average weekday traffic volume on Sumners Road, between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road is 10,086. Taking into account the results of the October 2013 and August 2016 speed limit reviews and portable speed warning sign data collected between 3 August 2016 and 12 October 2016, Council does not propose to increase the speed limit to 60 km/h on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive.

26. In November 2016, Council contacted a senior representative at the Mount Ommaney Police Station to query their view on the 50 km/h speed limit on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive, since the speed limit was reduced from 60 km/h in January 2014. The senior representative at Mount Ommaney Police Station advised Council that the Queensland Police Service endorsed the speed limit to remain at 50 km/h and did not support the speed limit to increase to 60 km/h on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive.

27. Sumners Road between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road is a median divided road designed for traffic movement through the suburb with a 60 km/h speed limit. Three hundred metres of the median divided road is four lanes and 570 metres is two lanes. Attachment C, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location with the relevant section of Sumners Road highlighted in blue.

28. In August 2016, Council conducted a speed limit review on Sumners Road between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The speed limit review recommended that the speed limit remain at 60 km/h.

29. As previously stated, the two-way average weekday traffic volumes on Sumners Road, between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road are 10,086. In comparison, the two-way average weekday traffic volumes on Sumners Road, west of Horizon Drive are 2,747. Sumners Road west of Horizon Drive has a 50 km/h speed limit and is mostly accessed by local residents as Horizon Drive is the last main connecting road for residents living north of Sumners Road.

30. Taking into account the results of the August 2016 speed limit review and that Sumners Road between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road is designed for traffic movement through the suburb with two- way average weekday traffic volumes of 10,086 vehicles; Council does not propose to reduce the 60 km/h speed limit.

Consultation

31. Councillor Matthew Bourke, Councillor for Jamboree Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

32. Accordingly, the Branch Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

33. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSES, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONERS ADVISING THAT COUNCIL DOES NOT PROPOSE TO INCREASE THE 50 KM/H SPEED LIMIT TO 60 KM/H ON SUMNERS ROAD, RIVERHILLS WEST OF HORIZON DRIVE AS THE SPEED LIMIT REVIEW CONDUCTED IN AUGUST 2016 HAS DETERMINED THE 50 KM/H SPEED LIMIT IS SUITABLE FOR THE ROAD TYPE AND USE. COUNCIL DOES NOT PROPOSE TO REDUCE THE 60 KM/H SPEED LIMIT TO 50 KM/H ON SUMNERS ROAD, RIVERHILLS, BETWEEN HORIZON DRIVE AND WACOL STATION ROAD AS THE SPEED LIMIT REVIEW CONDUCTED IN AUGUST 2016 HAS DETERMINED THE 60 KM/H SPEED LIMIT IS SUITABLE FOR THE ROAD TYPE AND USE.

Attachment A Draft Response 1 (CA16/535506 and CA16/878586)

Thank you for your petition requesting for Council to increase the speed limit from 50 km/h to 60 km/h on Sumners Road, Riverhills, west of Horizon Drive.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by Council at its meeting held on (DATE). It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.

Council does not propose to increase the 50 km/h speed limit on Sumners Road, Riverhills west of Horizon Drive as the speed limit review conducted in August 2016 has determined the 50 km/h speed limit is suitable for the road type and use.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr David Clarke from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch on 3403 8888.

Draft Response 2 (CA16/535337)

Thank you for your petition requesting for Council to reduce the 60 km/h speed limit to 50 km/h on Sumners Road, between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road.

Council does not propose to reduce the 60 km/h speed limit to 50 km/h on Sumners Road, Riverhills, between Horizon Drive and Wacol Station Road as the speed limit review conducted in August 2016 has determined the 60 km/h speed limit is suitable for the road type and use.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr David Clarke from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch on 3403 8888. ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON RAILWAY PARADE, NORMAN PARK CA16/733275

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 80 - 305/2016-17 34. A petition from residents, requesting road improvements on Railway Parade, Norman Park, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 6 September 2016, by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.

35. The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

36. Council has received a petition requesting for Council to investigate increasing the road widths along the split roadway sections of Railway Parade, Norman Park. The petition proposes that this would: improve access by enabling vehicles to pass parked cars easily; help with passing parked vehicles by improving the ability to drive on a sealed road surface; improve the quality of the road surface therefore reducing the amount of rocks, dirt and mud on unsealed narrow sections.

37. The petition contains 25 signatures: 20 from residents who live on Railway Parade and five who live in two adjacent streets.

38. Railway Parade is a 20 metre wide road corridor that contains two split level road sections due to the natural lay of the land. The 280 metre split road section between 69 and 121 Railway Parade, Norman Park, has a height difference of up to two metres between the upper level and lower level of the road. Due to this height difference a crash safety barrier separates the two sides of the split road. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows the locality map of the location.

39. A second 120 metre split road section is located between 42 and 62 Railway Parade, Norman Park. This is a different split road type as it still allows for two way function on both sides of the split roadway, with one side used as the through route and the other side used as a 10km/h shared zone. Attachment C, submitted on file, shows the locality map of the location.

40. In October 2016, Council investigated the possibility of widening Railway Parade and determined that any remodelling of the roadway for widening purposes would need to utilise the existing 20 metre road reserve. The purpose of installing a retaining wall would be to increase the available road reserve, to enable the widening of the sealed road area to a width which allows a vehicle to pass a parked vehicle without using the unsealed road shoulder located in the centre of the road reserve.

41. The sealed road surface measures five metres wide on the upper level of the 280 metre split road section. Apart from one intersection and three bends which have yellow lines installed, parking is permitted on the sealed road to allow for adequate space for through traffic. Due to the location of the crash barrier being on the upper level of the split roadway, there is no possibility to widen the road on the upper level. Therefore there is no further road changes intended for the upper level of the 280 metre split road section.

42. The sealed road surface measures between 4 and 5.5 metres on the lower level of the 280 metre split road section. Council had previously listed Railway Parade, Norman Park for future road resurfacing works however due to the priority of other projects, the resurfacing works will not be completed until the 2019/20 financial year. As part of the investigation into this petition, Council determined that the lower level of the split road can be widened to provide a minimum sealed width of 5.5 metres, except outside 85 Railway Terrace where the road narrows to four metres on a bend and parking is not permitted. Should Council support the recommendation, this work to extend the width of this part of Railway Parade will be scheduled to be completed by April 2017.

43. As widening the sealed road surface would provide the same benefit as installing a retaining wall, Council has determined this is the preferred option. The blue outlined section on Attachment B, submitted on file, shows where the road widening will occur.

44. The through route side of the 120 metre split road section has a varying width of between 6.5 and 7 metres. One side of this road is marked with a yellow line which still allows for parking on one side of the split roadway, except for the bend where parking is not permitted due to safety.

45. The shared zone side of the 120 metre split road section is less than four metres wide. Formalised parking restrictions have not been installed within the shared zone though generally under the Queensland Road Rules, license holders should know they are required to park in a manner that leaves three metres of clear roadway to the driver’s side of the vehicle. This is to ensure access is maintained

for even larger vehicles such as waste collection trucks or emergency services. This means that only a motorcycle or scooter could legally park within the shared zone of the 120 metre split road section.

46. An assessment of parking conducted in October 2016 identified that a majority of parking concerns at this location occurred while properties were being constructed in 2015. Attachment D, submitted on file, shows the locality map highlighting the difference between parking use at the location in October 2015 and September 2016. As the current parking demand at the location is low and the current parking restrictions allow for safe vehicle access, Council does not propose to make any further changes to the 120 metre split road section.

Consultation

47. Councillor Shayne Sutton, Councillor for Morningside Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

48. Accordingly, the Branch Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

49. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL WIDEN THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE 280 METRE SPLIT ROAD SECTION TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM PAVEMENT WIDTH OF 5.5 METRES AT AREAS WHERE VEHICLES CAN BE PARKED. THIS WORK WILL BE SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 2017. COUNCIL DOES NOT PROPOSE TO INSTALL A RETAINING WALL BETWEEN THE TWO SPLIT ROADS AS THE PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING WILL PROVIDE THE SAME BENEFIT. COUNCIL DOES NOT PROPOSE TO ALTER THE 120 METRE SPLIT ROAD SECTION AS THE CURRENT PARKING DEMAND AND VEHICLE ACCESS HAS BEEN DEEMED SUITABLE FOR USE.

Attachment A Draft Response

Thank you for your petition requesting Council to increase the road width along the split roadway sections of Railway Parade, Norman Park, to improve parking, safety and amenity for local residents.

Council will widen the eastern side of the 280 metre split road section to provide a minimum pavement width of 5.5 metres at areas where vehicles can be parked. This work will be scheduled to be completed by April 2017. Council does not propose to install a retaining wall between the two split roads as the proposed road widening will provide the same benefit. Council does not propose to alter the 120 metre split road section as the current parking demand and vehicle access has been deemed suitable for use.

D PETITION – REQUESTING IMPROVED SAFETY AND REDUCED CONGESTION AT ROYAL PARADE, BANYO CA16/788601 306/2016-17 50. A petition from residents, requesting improved safety and reduced congestion at Royal Parade, Banyo, was received during the Spring Recess 2016.

52. In September 2016, Council received a petition requesting Council to upgrade the Open Level Crossing (OLC) located at Royal Parade, Banyo. The petitioner requests the upgrade to reduce traffic congestion and to improve safety for vehicles using the OLC. The petitioners requested a range of options including installing traffic signals; putting in an overpass or clearer give way signage.

53. The petition contains 15 signatures: one from a resident who lives in Banyo; 11 from residents who live in other Brisbane suburbs; one who lives in the Redland City Council and two from people who live outside of Queensland.

54. During the 2004-08 term of Council, Council commenced preliminary planning work on open level crossing replacement projects including St. Vincents Road, Banyo.

55. The Banyo OLC upgrade options included three options of concept plans to address traffic safety and congestion concerns at the OLC which were presented to the community for feedback in November 2007.

56. Feedback did not indicate strong community support for any one of the three particular options, with twenty per cent of respondents not supporting an upgrade at all. Due to the lack of support, no further investigation was undertaken at that time.

57. Since then, the Department of Transport and Main Roads commissioned consultants to review level crossings throughout Brisbane to determine a program for addressing safety issues. Council was consulted as part of the review in 2015. To date, the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) has not advised Council of any intention to prioritise this OLC.

58. In October 2016, Council conducted an intersection survey at the intersection of Royal Parade and Royal Parade East.

59. The intersection layout gives priority to traffic entering the OLC from Royal Parade East. This is to ensure vehicles do not queue through the OLC by enabling them to exit freely onto Royal Parade in either direction. The intersecting legs of Royal Parade are both controlled by give way signage. Council considers the existing environment of two ‘give way’ signs on the approaches to be generally favourable for access into the OLC as it helps to moderate vehicle speeds and increases motorists’ awareness of their surroundings before entering the OLC. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location.

60. The intersection survey was undertaken on a typical working weekday between 7am-7pm. The survey noted 5,347 vehicles entering the OLC from Royal Parade East with 4,308 turning left (south) into Royal Parade and 1,039 turning right (north) into Royal Parade.

61. It has been proposed previously to install a no-right turn ban for vehicles turning right (north) from Royal Parade East into Royal Parade (north). This would make the left turn (south) movement into Royal Parade the primary route. The survey confirms that on average a no˗right turn ban would affect almost 20% of road users wishing to perform this manoeuvre. The no-right turn ban would be inconvenient for approximately 500 households that live in the area just beyond this location (north) and they would need to take an alternate route through other local streets (‘rat running’). Attachment C, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the affected location outlined in blue. There are also a number of local businesses this would affect including a large medical centre located within 100 metres of the right turn movement from Royal Parade East.

62. The October 2016 survey also noted 1,382 vehicles entering the intersection from the north with 396 travelling straight ahead (south) and 986 turning left crossing the OLC into Royal Parade East.

63. In comparison, 4,296 vehicles entered the intersection from the south with 334 travelling straight ahead (north), 3,961 turned right crossing the OLC into Royal Parade East and one vehicle performed a U- turn, continuing in a southerly direction on Royal Parade.

64. In conclusion, Council does not propose to install a no-right turn ban at the intersection from Royal Parade East into Royal Parade (north). Although this may increase ease of use by defining Royal

Parade (south) as the primary through route, the benefit outweighs the additional issues the no-right turn ban would create, both for local residents and local businesses.

65. Council’s preference is that an upgrade to this intersection should be made in conjunction with an upgrade to the OLC by the State Government. TMR must confirm first that this is a priority for TMR and that there is funding committed. Previously, Council, in conjunction with TMR, have been involved in a process of removing and upgrading OLCs across Brisbane. The OLC upgrade program is primarily funded by TMR, with the split being traditionally 85% State Government contribution and 15% Council contribution.

66. At this time, the OLC at Royal Parade, Banyo is not on the list of proposed OLC upgrades and therefore, there is no funding available as part of the OLC upgrade program for works to occur. As there is a high demand for infrastructure upgrades across the city each year, Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity. Unfortunately without TMR support and given the previous results on community consultation, the Banyo OLC upgrade is not considered a high priority at this time.

67. The head petitioner requested for clearer ‘give way’ signage to indicate which leg of Royal Parade must give way first. Signage is not intended to be used as a guide to who must give way first but as a reminder of the Queensland Road Rules. Under the Queensland Road Rules, motorists must give way to vehicles to their right or vehicles that are crossing their path. As such, motorists waiting on the southern approach to the OLC on Royal Parade must give way to all other traffic before entering the road. Banyo Police Station is located on the intersection of Royal Parade and Royal Parade East and as such, in conjunction with Council, a diagram of the priority of the intersection has been drafted. Attachment D, submitted on file, shows this diagram.

Consultation

68. Councillor Adam Allan, Councillor for Northgate Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

69. Accordingly, the Branch Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed with Councillors Steve Griffiths and Shayne Sutton dissenting.

70. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL DOES NOT PROPOSE TO ALTER THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE INTERSECTION. AT THIS TIME, ANY UPGRADE TO THE INTERSECTION MUST BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT’S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (TMR). SHOULD TMR IDENTIFY THE BANYO OLC AS AN UPGRADE PRIORITY AND CONFIRM THEIR 85% FUNDING CONTRIBUTION, AS HAS BEEN THE NORMAL COST- SHARING ARRANGEMENT, COUNCIL WILL PRIORITISE ITS 15% FUNDING FOR THE BANYO OLC UPGRADE IN LINE WITH OTHER COMPETING INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE PROJECTS ACROSS THE CITY.

Thank you for your petition requesting for Council to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion by upgrading the Open Level Crossing (OLC) located at Royal Parade, Banyo.

Council does not propose to alter the current configuration of the intersection. At this time, any upgrade to the intersection must be done in conjunction with the State Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR). Should TMR identify the Banyo OLC as an upgrade priority and confirm their 85% funding contribution, as has been the normal cost-sharing arrangement, Council will

prioritise its 15% funding for the Banyo OLC upgrade in line with other competing infrastructure upgrade projects across the city.

E PETITION – REQUESTING EIGHT PARKING BAYS ON REYNOLDS STREET, CARINDALE CA16/838232 307/2016-17 71. A petition from residents, requesting eight parking bays on Reynolds Street, Carindale was received during the Spring Recess 2016.

73. Council has received a petition requesting for Council to install eight parking bays in Reynolds Street, Carindale. The petitioner requests the parking bays to formalise parking locations for visitors to Araluen Place and Reynolds Street. 74. The petition contains 19 signatures: five from residents who live on Reynolds Street; 11 from residents who live in Araluen Place and three from residents who live at Prudence Court, Carindale, two kilometres away from Reynolds Street.

75. Where a street is 5.5 metres wide, parking is generally permitted if there is three metres of clear roadway from the driver’s side of the vehicle. This ensures access is maintained for even larger vehicles such as waste collection trucks or emergency services.

76. In October 2016, Council investigated both Reynolds Street and Araluen Place and can confirm they both measure 5.5 metres wide. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows the locality map of the location. Both roads have been constructed to comply with Council’s planning standards for road widths on a local road. Attachment C, submitted on file, shows the typical section of a local road.

77. As Reynolds Street and Araluen Place are no through roads, it is considered the majority of traffic would be local residents or regular visitors familiar with the conditions. The traffic volumes would be low, consistent with it being a local residential access street. Vehicles can park along either one side of the road or in a staggered formation so as to allow three metres of roadway for vehicles to pass. Council acknowledges that this may require a vehicle travelling in an opposing direction to pull over to allow another vehicle to pass, however this is not considered undesirable as it regulates speed producing a safer environment. Provided due care and attention is taken, parking is unlikely to cause a hazard.

78. Council acknowledges that on-street parking availability on Araluen Place may be limited due to the close proximity of houses and driveways. Although this may be the case, all residents have double garages with most having double width driveways with the ability to park two additional vehicles off- street. During the investigation, Council observed there was a high availability of on-street parking in both Reynolds Street and Araluen Place. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows the locality map of the location and was taken in September 2016. As a guide, looking back at aerial imagery taken of the location over the past 12 months, Attachment B is an average representation of daily on-street parking availability in the local area.

79. In November 2016, Council assessed illegal parking complaints in Reynolds Street and Araluen Place that were reported to Council within the previous 12 month period. In Araluen Place, there were three reports of vehicles blocking driveway access at 24 Araluen Place. Council is aware that the area located directly in front of this property is a problem area for the head petitioner and is actively working with the head petitioner to resolve this matter. In Reynolds Street, there were five reports of illegal parking with four of these being for vehicles parked on the footway and one for a vehicle parked on yellow

lines on the intersection with Holland Place. There were no other illegal parking reports that were causing property access or street access issues reported within the previous 12 month period.

80. Given that Reynolds Street has been constructed to the appropriate Council standard, there are no facilities in the local area which would generate additional parking demand, off-street parking options are high and on-street parking availability is high, the construction of formalised marked parking bays is not supported by Council.

Consultation

81. Councillor Adrian Schrinner, Deputy Mayor and Councillor for Chandler Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

82. Accordingly, the Branch Manager therefore recommended as follows and the agreed unanimously.

83. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL DOES NOT INTEND TO INSTALL EIGHT MARKED PARKING BAYS IN REYNOLDS STREET, CARINDALE.

Thank you for your petition requesting for Council to install eight parking bays in Reynolds Street, Carindale.

Reynolds Street has been constructed to the appropriate Council standard. There are no facilities in the local area which would generate additional parking demand and off-street parking options are high and on-street parking availability is high.

Council does not intend to install eight marked parking bays in Reynolds Street, Carindale.

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just before I get to the substantive item I just wanted to add my comments to the pre-1911 homes TLPI that we adopted a little bit earlier in the afternoon. To add to the LORD MAYOR's comments of thanks to the State Government and particularly the Minister for Planning for turning around the TLPI so quickly so we bring it back while we are still in sitting. No, credit where credit's due, the Deputy Premier turned around very quickly and we appreciate that. Also appreciate the fact that she—as part of her recent items that she introduced to parliament—those include what we previously discussed which is the TLPIs becoming effective from the time of the State interest check. So that will make the turnaround even more efficient.

What I simply wanted to correct—and I'll do it quickly because it wasn't much more than a political dig from Councillor CUMMING, but just for the record we won't let it pass—and the fact that they're trying to rewrite history on this particular issue. In fact it is only this administration that has mapped not only the 147 pre-1911 homes in this particular TLPI, but in fact the other 400 individually-mapped properties. Not to mention all the other tin and timber character homes which are part of the Traditional building character overlay. When Labor was last in Administration they mapped none of them. Not a single one did they individually identify, and of course the failure of that particular policy was that those properties then only fell under Council protection in terms of triggering an application when the property owners admitted to their age. The failing of that was borne out very clearly in the examples we had at Highgate Hill where those were pre-1900 properties. They should have been protected since 2000 under Labor Administration's City Plan, but they failed to implement a policy that actually worked. So it's left to this Administration to be the greatest friend that heritage and character in this city has ever seen. In relation to the item before us, the Committee considered the brewery—or microbrewery I should say—at 15 Palomar Road, Yeerongpilly. It's for a microbrewery and cellar door. The application was received on 14 July 2016. It's a Medium impact industry. The application was impact-assessable for the Chamber's knowledge, but that was in relation to the cellar door component. The brewing component actually suited the site as Low impact industry. The applicant lodged and Council considered very completely an air quality impact and noise impact assessment, both of which are available as part of the application. A number of items were put in place and conditioned, such as carbon filters and vapour condenser systems to minimise the noise and air quality and smell impacts of this particular microbrewery. It should be noted that it is in the industry area but it does have residential surrounding and that's why they were very important components of the approval. In addition, production has been limited to less than 200,000 litres a year. That volume was the basis on which the air and noise impact things were done so that we could mitigate those impacts, and the cellar door trading hours have been set at 4pm to 9pm Thursday to Saturday so that those nearby residential uses have surety about the times that this will be operating. The application had 27 submissions. I should say the submissions were both for and against. I know the local Councillor, Councillor JOHNSTON, does not support the application. In fact she campaigned against it. I'm sorry that she couldn't be here to debate it, but I guess it's a lesson for all of us in why you should follow the directions of our very capable chairwomen. The Committee agreed with the recommendation that the application come forward. Councillor SUTTON abstained. She in fact at the meeting reserved her right and we are waiting with bated breath to see what she'll do. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON? Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well I do like to keep Councillor SIMMONDS in suspense. Look as he indicated—as Councillor SIMMONDS indicated—I did reserve my right to abstain. The reason why I wanted to do that is I wanted to check the submissions because some of the discussion in the debate at the Committee was around what the submission said and who said what and what were they all saying. So I did take the time to read all of the submissions that were online, and I also want to note in her absence Councillor JOHNSTON's opposition to this DA. Look, part of this DA and part of the reason why it's here and it's impact-assessable because it is taking a currently Low industry zoning and turning it into a Medium industry zoning. As one of the submissions quite

rightly reminded me—is that if the brewery moves on that use remains in place for any other business wanting to run Medium industry type development. Whilst this particular DA has got a whole range of conditions on it to mitigate the impacts on residents, which I support, the fact is that property will have a Medium density zoning use over it. It also sets a precedent for other low industry in the area of that Low industry zoning to argue for Medium density. So pretty much for that point alone, we aren't going to support the application. Love the idea of the brewery, love the idea of the cellar door style of offering that it was offering, but again once that hotel is approved—that hotel use is approved over that site—that stays even if the current operation moves on. That is I guess where we have concern. There was a lot of discussion in the Committee about the fact that this is going to be a cellar door operation, but reading through the submissions I'm not quite sure that that's what the general community think and the people who visit the area think, because I mean I quite enjoyed reading these submissions but I just want to read a couple of the submissions to you to explain why I make that claim. This is submission number—one of the submissions: “I play golf regularly at the Brisbane Golf Club with my father and his friends just around the corner from this proposed development. This seems like a great alternative venue to wind down after the game. There is nothing anywhere near local to drink after golf. We can have one or two after the round and grab a growler to take home.” There's nothing wrong with that, Madam Chair, but it's just not the cellar door style of operation that was talked about at the Committee. Again, this is another submission: “I strongly support this application. I'm a Fairfield resident who already supports bar and dining establishments in the area. We need places for the growing number of residents to socialise.” Again, nothing wrong with that, but again it's not consistent with the cellar door style of arrangement that we were told about at the Committee meeting. Again, this is the third one I'll read and this is the one that I guess resonated the most with me. It said: “While I do like the idea of having a brewery up the road, I'm strongly opposed to the area being redesignated as Medium industry from its current status as Light industry.” I guess what reading those submissions said to me is you know what, the residents are possibly open to changing this Low industry area to something else. I just think that we need to do a more strategic and comprehensive review and discussion of that particular area, rather than dealing with the DAs as they come in this ad hoc manner. Perhaps if we wanted to—and I appreciate that you can't do that in retrospect once a DA comes in, but I think what the residents are saying is they like the idea of having something like this in the area, but they just want it with zoning that actually supports that use and not a use such as Medium industry that would allow, if the brewery moves on, something else that could have more of an impact to take place on that site, and something that could cause a precedent for other medium industry expansion in that area. I know Councillor SIMMONDS might get up and say well we won't let that happen, but the reality of it is precedent is precedent and the Planning and Environment Court has shown that it looks at precedent when it makes decisions. So I think we have to be careful with that. So whilst I love the idea of the DA, whilst I love the general vision, on those planning grounds and consistent with our position about supporting a plan that is the plan, and if you're going to change the plan you need to fully engage with residents about the best way to do that, we can't support this application today. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS?

At that time, 6.09pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So just to close off the debate, well look this is what performance planning gives us the opportunity to do—is to consider applications for uses that don’t fit perfectly in the box, but we consider it on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, we have what is normally considered a Medium industry use in respect to the brewery but which is a code and Low impact industry, and then we have something that would not normally be considered in low impact industry at all, which is the hotel use which is the cellar door which we've also considered. So just for clarification of the Chamber, this development application and the approval of it provides a permit for this particular use in industry impact site, does not change the zoning as perhaps the residents feared or were misinformed. I won't comment any further about who might have misinformed them. But it doesn't change that zoning. What it allows is this particular use, which doesn't fit squarely within that box and that's why it was impact assessable, to be given a permit on that particular site. So further if the brewery was to move on and somebody wanted to do something that was outside of the normal Low industry, they would have to come back for a normal development application. I hope that clarifies the situation for the Chamber. It's a great outcome in terms of both a new use for the local community, a better use than perhaps would have normally been provided under Low impact industry, which can be quite significant activities and this is, as I said, right next to residential. Also the fact that again it provides great employment and opportunities for young entrepreneurs within Brisbane to do something a little bit out of the box. We're seeing more and more of this across the city, which is helping to add to the vitality and life of the city. Thank you. Deputy Chairman: I will now put the report.

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

Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

AYES: 17 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Shayne SUTTON, and Jonathan SRI.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Angela Owen, Jonathan Sri and Shayne Sutton.

A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 (SPA) – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR MEDIUM IMPACT INDUSTRY AND A HOTEL – 15 PALOMAR ROAD, YEERONGPILLY – G BOON HOLDINGS PTY LTD A004429799 308/2016-17 1. The Team Manager, Planning Services South, Planning Services, Development Assessment, City Planning and Sustainability, reports that a development application was submitted on 14 July 2016 by Tam Dang Planning Pty Ltd on behalf of Helios Brewing Company. The application was properly made on 12 September 2016, as follows:

Development aspects: Material change of use – development permit General description of proposal: Medium impact industry – Brewery with a gross floor area (GFA) of 200 m² and Hotel with a GFA of 100 m² Land in the ownership of: G Boon Holdings Pty Ltd Geoffrey and Kelly Boon Address of the site: 15 Palomar Road, Yeerongpilly 20 Pulle Street, Yeerongpilly Described as: Lot 50 and Lot 51 on SP234185 Containing an area of: 1,055 m2.

2. This impact-assessable application is over land currently included in the Low impact industry zone under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). The site is located within the boundary of the Moorooka- Stephens district neighbourhood plan (no specific precinct).

3. Details of the development are summarised below: - Medium impact industry (being Medium impact industry – B) for producing less than 200 tonnes per annum (brewery) - hotel with a GFA of 100 m² - existing building height – 8.5 m - on-site car parking – nine spaces (including one double disabled bay) - hours of operation – 7am-5pm Monday to Friday (Medium impact industry) and 4pm-9pm Thursday to Saturday (hotel).

4. The site is bounded by Palomar Road to the south, Varley Street to the east and Pulle Street to the north.

5. The site is located within the Major industry area. The site is also located along a Selected Transport Corridor and near a Growth Node as identified in the Brisbane Selected Transport Corridors and Growth Nodes Strategic Framework Map.

6. More specifically, the site is located within the Low impact industry zone with industrial zoned land to the north, east and west. Land within the Low density residential zone is located to the south west of the subject site.

7. The use is consistent with the overall outcomes of the Low impact industry zone code as it would avoid or minimise noise and air emissions to meet noise and air quality criteria at sensitive zones. Furthermore, the hotel is ancillary to the scale and operation of the primary use of the site as a brewery and would not therefore compromise the long-term use of the land for industrial purposes.

8. The proposal is subject to impact assessment and public notification was carried out between 6 October 2016 and 31 October 2016 in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). Twenty-seven submissions were received.

9. The Councillor for Tennyson Ward, Councillor Nicole Johnston, does not support the application.

10. The Team Manager advises that relevant reports have been obtained to address the assessment criteria and decision process prescribed by SPA appropriately justifying the proposal and outlining reasonable and relevant conditions of the approval.

11. It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the approved plans and conditions included in the attached Development Approval Package, submitted on file and marked as Attachment A. The Committee agreed, with Councillor Shayne Sutton abstaining.

12. RECOMMENDATION:

(i) That it be and is hereby resolved that whereas—

(a) A properly made development application was made on 12 September 2016 to the Council pursuant to section 260 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, as follows:

Development aspects: Material change of use – development permit General description of Medium impact industry – brewery with a gross floor proposal: area (GFA) of 200 m² and Hotel with a GFA of 100 m²

Land in the ownership G Boon Holdings Pty Ltd of: Geoffrey and Kelly Boon Address of the site: 15 Palomar Road, Yeerongpilly 20 Pulle Street, Yeerongpilly Described as: Lot 50 and Lot 51 on SP234185

Containing an area of: 1,055 m2.

(b) The Council is required to assess the application pursuant to Chapter 6, Part 5, Division 3 and section 314 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and decide the application under section 324 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

The Council—

(c) Upon consideration of the application and those matters set forth in section 314 and section 324 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 relevant to the application considers that:

1. the site is within the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, and is within an established industrial area 2. the proposal does not cause conflict with the State’s planning policies, planning regulation provisions or regional plan 3. the site is located within the Major Industry Area and adjoins a Selected Transport Corridor and Growth Nodes as identified in the Land Use Strategic Framework Map 4. the development supports the Strategic Framework outcome for Clean and green leading environmental performance 5. the proposal is consistent with the general intentions of Brisbane City Plan 2014 6. the proposal is consistent with the Moorooka-Stephens district neighbourhood plan 7. the proposal would not detrimentally affect the amenity of the surrounding area 8. the development can be accommodated within the existing essential infrastructure networks and 9. the development would have sufficient on-site parking.

(d) Accordingly considers that where reasonable and relevant conditions imposed on the development, it would be appropriate that the proposed development be approved on the subject land.

(e) Considers that a Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice should be issued for the development pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and

Brisbane Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 5) 2015, for the transport, community purposes and stormwater trunk infrastructure networks.

(ii) Whereas the Council determines as in (i) hereof, THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION referred to above and subject to the conditions in the attached Development Approval Package and directs that: a) the applicant be advised of the decision b) Queensland Urban Utilities be advised of the decision c) the submitters be advised of the decision d) the Councillor for Tennyson Ward, Councillor Nicole Johnston, be advised of the decision. ADOPTED

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, Deputy Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted. At that time, 6.22pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Chairman: Councillor WYNDHAM. Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I just briefly would like to mention the report that we had last week on the environment grants program, which was presented very well by Anna Barnes, the program officer for NEWS (Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability) branch. Madam Chair, there's four grants that fall under the NEWS program here. Since 2012, there has been approximately $1.2 million funding into 300 applicants of grants across this area. Those areas are, of course, come under the LORD MAYOR's Sustainable Community Grants for environment, et cetera. The environment grants funding that goes to, I guess, bushland restoration, creek catchment groups, et cetera, et cetera, which we all support very much within this city of ours, because of the work they do is extremely important, and when you look at the volunteer hours and the grant money that we've put into this, it is extremely good value for money for our environment, for the people of Brisbane, but also for—I guess, for the environment across the whole State, that we're setting an example. Madam Chair, other grants, of course, are the community garden grants. There's around 42, I think, community gardens, but there's also a host of other community gardens across this city that aren't registered as specific Council community gardens and some of those, of course, get grants too. So a community garden is a great way to bring communities together and I implore anyone out there who's interested to go along and have a look at your local community gardens, because the work they do, quite often, it's not about necessarily growing fruit, veggies, et cetera, but sometimes it's more about the community than the garden and it's great to mix with these people and share ideas and their thoughts on what they're doing, why they do it and what led them to do it. Madam Chair, we also have the wildlife carer grants, which was introduced— I'm assuming now—it was probably about six or seven years ago where we looked at supporting groups for protection of injured wildlife, because prior to that, I know myself several instances where I've rung up the RSPCA to get native wildlife sort of sorted out, if it was injured and I was referred to some private provider, because it wasn't catered for by the RSPCA. But they have now come on board and we also have these grants that cater for our injured native species.

The last one that I'd like to mention also is the energy audits with community groups, mainly where we have energy audits for their clubhouses, et cetera, et cetera, where they can apply for grants to have solar power or hot water systems or something to offset their costings towards running their community, I guess, base or place where they're set up. Scout groups, that sort of thing. So, Madam Chair, that's all I have to say on this. Thank you. Chairman: No further debate? Councillor WYNDHAM, nothing further? I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steve Griffiths, Steven Huang, Nicole Johnston and Andrew Wines.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LORD MAYOR’S COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS PROGRAM 309/2016-17

1. Anna Barnes, Program Officer – Community Initiatives, Waterway Health and Community Partnerships, Parks and Natural Resources Team, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability (NEWS), City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on the Lord Mayor’s Community Sustainability and Environmental Grants program. She provided the information below.

2. Council offers approximately 20 types of grants that are administered mainly by Brisbane Lifestyle. Council’s 2016-17 budget allocated approximately $7.5 million to the Brisbane community for grants. NEWS administers Council’s environmental and sustainability grants. These grants support Brisbane’s community groups, non-profit organisations, schools and individuals. Since 2012, NEWS-administered grants have been operating as the Lord Mayor’s Community Sustainability and Environmental Grants program. This program has provided approximately $1.2 million of grant funding to over 300 applicants.

3. The Lord Mayor’s Community Sustainability and Environmental Grants program currently offer four different grants: - Environmental Grants to fund on-ground bushland restoration projects. These grants also fund the day-to-day administration and operating costs for many non-profit organisations that promote the city’s natural environment and biodiversity, such as the Creek Catchment Groups. These core running costs are particularly important as the Australian Institute of Grants Management found in their 2015 survey that grant seekers reported that there has been a substantial decrease in the number of grants towards supporting core operating costs. - Cultivating Community Gardens Grants which assist with the establishment and maintenance of community gardens. There are 42 community gardens registered on Council’s website, and many more that are not listed. - Native Wildlife Carers Grant which reimburses both individuals and organisations with expenses such as food and medicines, and also with proposed purchases such as humidicribs and enclosures. - Sustainability Grants that provide funding for energy audits and implementing energy efficiency measures identified by the audit.

4. The grants support Council priorities within Brisbane Vision 2031 and the Corporate Plan. The grants are also an extension tool to support Council programs and key performance indicators. Environmental Grants support aspects of the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, assisting Creek

Catchment Groups with their core running costs and also Habitat Brisbane Groups with on-ground restoration projects. Cultivating Community Gardens Grants support Council’s support for community gardens and food in the city. Sustainability Grants enable the Brisbane community to contribute towards reducing carbon emissions.

5. The presenter provided the Committee with examples and pictures of how the grant funding has been used across Brisbane.

6. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Barnes for her informative presentation.

7. RECOMMENDATION:

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the report of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I get to the item, as the Chairman for the Field Services Committee, I just wanted to say to the officers, to the management team and all the officers in Council to thank them very much for the extraordinary work that they do day in, day out. Field Services Group is an essential delivery arm of Brisbane City Council and, in many ways, it's the face of Council in the day to day activities we do. The officers there do an amazing job, from the most technical work of construction to the most basic work, Madam Chairman, of just maintaining the footpaths and keeping our city and our suburbs clean. I want to wish them, their families and their partners a very Merry Christmas and a very joyful holiday. They are absolutely invaluable to the organisation. I'm very proud to be part of that team. Madam Chairman, I move to the committee presentation, which was on the Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mount Coot-tha Education Program. I'd like to thank the officers for the presentation and outlining to us the great program that it is. It has evolved over time and continues to be fresh and updated. It's always made relevant to all the school children that go there, but also the different community organisations and residents of Brisbane that like to participate. As the program has evolved, they've also been able to utilise the new section of the garden, particularly the kitchen that's offered there as part of the education program, providing the children the opportunity to pick their own vegetables from the community garden located there and prepare it within that kitchen gardens. This is a practical and important part of the education program. I want to really thank Dale Arvidsson as the curator and his whole team for the program and for the great benefit that it provides to all our young people and to the city from an environmental and sustainable point of view. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate. Nothing further? I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Field Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Ian McKenzie, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE BOTANIC GARDENS MT COOT-THA EDUCATION PROGRAM 310/2016-17 1. Dale Arvidsson, Curator, Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mt Coot-tha, Asset Services, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide information on the Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mt Coot-tha Education Program. He provided the information below.

2. The Botanic Gardens Education Program supports and promotes the Our clean, green city; Our active healthy city and Our vibrant, creative city strategies of Brisbane Vision 2031.

3. The program aims to offer activities that are affordable, inclusive and accessible and caters to a wide range of ages. All activities are designed to promote an active and healthy lifestyle, together with an appreciation and love for plants and natural spaces.

4. The program’s target audience includes school students (mostly primary), kindergarten/pre˗school children, horticulture students (TAFE), the youth market (between 12 and 25 years), young families and seniors (through Council’s Growing Old and Living Dangerously [GOLD] program). An electronic media app ‘The Infected’ encourages the youth market to visit the gardens.

5. A wide range of activities are offered under the program and these include: - Lessons in the Gardens program - delivers curriculum based lessons to school classes - school holiday program - provides fun, educational experiences for kids during the school holidays - events and workshops - professional development for other staff and volunteers (e.g. Brisbane Botanic Gardens Volunteer Guide training).

6. The Education Team conducts lessons across a range of school curriculum areas covering science, geography, the Arts, cultural studies, senior biology and cross curriculum priorities (Aboriginal history and culture; and sustainability). The majority of bookings are for primary school classes and increasingly, entire year levels of up to 250 students visit at a time rather than a single class.

7. The new Kitchen in the Gardens lesson is conducted in the Healthy and Active Garden as part of the Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum. During the lesson, students learn about composting and healthy soil and they can create a sustainable garden to take back to school. They then wander and pick fresh herbs in the Kitchen in the Gardens to create a healthy and nutritious meal.

8. The program has received excellent feedback and to date, 185 schools have booked and more than 9,000 students have attended the Lessons in the Gardens program. Over 1,700 children and parents have attended school holiday activities and over 2,500 people have attended other events and workshops.

9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Arvidsson for his informative presentation.

10. RECOMMENDATION:

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, just very quickly before I get to the formal committee report, can I also thank and acknowledge the work of my Divisional Manager, Paul Salvati; my branch managers, so Sharan, Miriam, Shane, Kent, Keirstyn and Sean for all of their work and leadership and their support that they've given me since becoming the Lifestyle Chair, to the 1,200 plus staff that work in the Lifestyle division from our call centre to our libraries to our community sports officers, the festivals grants teams to the compliance officers and everyone that makes up the Lifestyle division family in Council. Can I thank you for all of your work that you've done over the last 12 months and wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Can I also acknowledge and thank my staff in my office, both of them, both offices that is —not both staff—both offices, Madam Chairman, and thank all the Council officers in Asset Services as well for the work that they do and all Council officers across the organisation. Madam Chairman, just very quickly before I actually get to the report, I spoke in question time about the Australian Labor Party's ability to perform somersaults and backflips. I just want to put on the record they've outdone themselves. It wasn't just in the space of one meeting this week. It was actually in the space of one report that Councillor CUMMING changed his position from when he spoke opposing the library lease for the Garden City to then actually voting for the new lease for the Garden City Library, so well done, Councillor. Well done. Councillor interjecting. Well, the Hansard will show that you stood up and said you do not support this lease and Hansard that one little thing there brought in by this Liberal Administration to make City Hall the most accountable Council in Queensland, Madam Chairman, it will show that you said you didn't support it, Councillor CUMMING. But massive— Councillor SRI: A point of order, Madam Chair. Councillor BOURKE: —backflip that you managed to do once again, so well done. Chairman: A point of order against you, Councillor BOURKE. Councillor SRI: Will Councillor BOURKE take a question? Councillor BOURKE: I'm going through my speech here, Madam Chairman. So in the spirit of Christmas, I will not— Chairman: The answer is no Councillor SRI. Councillor BOURKE: —Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman— Councillor interjecting Councillor BOURKE: So, Madam Chairman, I just want to put on the record that, you know, well done, Councillor CUMMING. I think you've just qualified not just for the Commonwealth Games, but you're making your way to the Olympics as well for backflips. Madam Chairman, fantastic committee report before us about the Brisbane Festival. It just goes from strength to strength, Madam Chairman. So 13 years it has been running under its current form in partnership with the State Government, but of course it has been 20 years since the first Brisbane Festival back in 1996. It goes, as I said, from strength to strength and this year's festival was another stellar performance put on right across the city, exhibiting not only local artists importantly, but also international acts.

There was literally something for everyone and there was free events as well, Madam Chairman, which is a key component of what we do as a Council with the obligation and the money that we put into the festival as we make sure that there is a range of community events that are free and, of course, the biggest of those is Riverfire, which was another spectacular display of fireworks, as well as a wonderful fly pass from the Super Hornets, Madam Chairman, as well as the helicopters. It was great to see, Madam Chairman, so many people out enjoying a lovely evening in the city for that particular event. But it's not just about that event, Madam Chairman. It is the whole festival across the four weeks in September and I just want to congratulate and thank everyone at the Brisbane Festival. To Valmay and to David, who put in so much time and so much effort to make sure that we have world class acts, but also that we're highlighting and developing most importantly that local talent here in Brisbane and putting them on the stage and giving them the opportunities to perform as well. So well done to the team at Brisbane Festival and may the Brisbane Festival thrive and go from strength to strength into the future as I know it will under the leadership of David and Valmay. Chairman: Further debate?. Nothing further. I will put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Fiona King, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE FESTIVAL 2016 311/2016-17 1. Miriam Kent, Manager, Connected Communities, Brisbane Lifestyle, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on Brisbane Festival 2016. She provided the information below.

2. Brisbane Festival was established in 1996 as a joint Queensland Government-Council initiative to support the arts in Brisbane. It continued as a biennial event until merging in 2009 with Riverfestival, resulting in the creation of one major annual arts festival that incorporated the iconic Riverfire event. Major Brisbane Festivals Pty Ltd was established in 2003 by the Queensland Government through Arts Queensland and Council; each hold a 50% interest in the company.

3. According to the deed of agreement between the parties, the business of Major Brisbane Festivals Pty Ltd is to promote and deliver its objectives by producing an annual arts festival known as Brisbane Festival that: - enriches the cultural life of Brisbane and South East Queensland - showcases to the wider community excellence in all genres of arts - curates festival programs that comprise international, Australiana and local, ticketed, free, new and existing performing, visual arts events and experiences - develops marketing and communication programs that engage and attract audiences and that encourage all sections of the community to experience and enjoy the festival - supports the development or the arts and cultural sector through commissioning new works and promoting emerging and diverse artists.

4. The box office sales for Brisbane Festival 2016 were around $2 million with over 50,000 tickets sold. During Brisbane Festival 2016 there were 457 performances, including 15 international productions,

from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Ireland, Belgium and Switzerland. In 2015 there were 400 performances with 11 international productions, demonstrating the growth of the festival. The best-selling shows in 2016 were Troppo, La Verita, Meow Meow’s Little Mermaid and Blanc de Blanc.

5. Diverse and inclusive programming is a key priority and commitment of Brisbane Festival. To ensure Brisbane Festival continues to be accessible 20% of program costs are spent on programming free events and activities. This year, a festival hub, Arcadia, was presented on the Cultural Forecourt at South Bank to enable everyone to experience the atmosphere of the festival free of charge. Ninety thousand people moved through this space during Brisbane Festival 2016.

6. Brisbane Festival also aims to: - remove barriers between audiences and artists by: - removing cultural barriers by including participatory work - removing price barriers by offering free performances and innovative ticketing - removing physical barriers by the use of public spaces and digital work - reach out to audiences who might not normally attend arts events - encourage a social as well as an aesthetic dimension to the arts experience.

7. Sunsuper Riverfire is one of the largest fireworks displays in Australia and is the largest held in Queensland. In 2016 Sunsuper Riverfire was attended by 485,000 attendees and reached a broadcast audience of 437,000. The event is delivered by 25 pyrotechnicians using 11,000 kilograms of fireworks and 2,000 kilograms of explosives. The crew presents 5,000 aerial fireworks and more than 15,000 ground-based effects. Riverfire utilises different locations in the city, including, ten rooftops, six barges and two bridges.

8. Brisbane Festival aims to connect artists and audiences in ways that lift the spirit, disrupt the conventional and open our city to the world. In this we see how Brisbane Festival aligns with Council’s Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 strategy. The Brisbane Festival Strategic Plan 2016- 2018 states Brisbane Festival’s purpose: - A festival needs to be festive. Like a feast, it provides a full experience, lifting our spirits, our awareness and our appetites beyond the everyday. - A festival disrupts the conventional. It inspires us to think differently – about art, about city spaces, about how we live in the world. Our collaborations work to make a difference. - A festival looks outwards to the world. It brings the world and its arts to us, and it showcases our city and its arts to the world.

9. Council’s current funding agreement with Major Brisbane Festivals Pty Ltd expires on 31 December 2016. A new four-year funding agreement has been approved to support the 2017-20 Brisbane festivals. A four-year funding agreement enables Major Brisbane Festivals Pty Ltd to secure corporate and media partnerships and book international acts and venues in advance. Key performance indicators for the Festival are negotiated between Council and Major Brisbane Festivals Pty Ltd. This process is under way and close to completion. Indicators are identified according to: - the objectives of the company (Major Brisbane Festivals Pty Ltd) - alignment of expectations between the two shareholders - Council’s Creative Brisbane Creative Economy 2013-22 strategy, Brisbane Festival’s own strategic plan.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Kent for her informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Deputy Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven Toomey, that the report of that Committee held on 29 November 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I don't want to hold anyone up tonight too long, but I will just speak very briefly about item A, Christmas in Brisbane. Madam Chairman, two weeks ago, we kicked off the 30 days of Christmas festivities that will be held across the city that come somewhat under our portfolio here in Finance and Economic Development and somewhat inside Brisbane Marketing. Last year we had over 650,000 visitors to the CBD and South Bank as a result of the Christmas in Brisbane activities generating over $30 million of economic activity per day, which is an incredible achievement from any one program. There are 150 events, as—that will be part of the program. We have, of course, held outside here the Gold Lotto City Hall Lights spectacular in King George Square every 15 minutes from 7.30pm to midnight from the 9-24 December. So end of the week, Madam Chairman, you'll be able to come here and bear witness to that. We have the Christmas Movies in the Park being held at Roma Street Parklands, 7pm from 10-18 December. We of course have the very wonderful LORD MAYOR's Christmas Carols being held at Riverstage from 5pm to 9pm on 10 December, which I'm sure we're all looking forward to, and the Christmas Parade, which will run nightly from 7pm from 16-24 December. Don't forget, the South Bank Christmas Markets, which will be running from 11am to 10pm each day from 16-23 December. So, Madam Chairman, there are just a handful of events that will be held under Christmas in Brisbane banner this year. For all residents who are interested, all I can do is encourage you to get onto the Council website, type in Christmas and make your way to the Council's dedicated Christmas landing page, whereupon anyone with even a passing interest in Christmas will be able to find an event that suits them. I will just give a special plug to the Christmas tree this year, because this year marks 125 years of a Christmas tree standing in King George Square. That's right, Madam Chairman. It wasn't this Brisbane City Council, but it was a Brisbane municipal authority that in 1891 first put up a Christmas tree and each year we strive to ensure that that tree goes bigger and bigger and bigger than ever before. Now powered by four truck batteries, Madam Chairman, which they certainly didn't have in 1891. So without further ado, Madam Chairman, I will just very quickly, on behalf of Councillor ADAMS, thank all of the officers within the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio for their assistance. So she wanted me to especially thank them for easing her transition into the role. So everyone from ISB to corporate comms, Strategic Procurement, Corporate Finance, the list goes on, as well as the authorities that we manage in Brisbane Marketing, CBIC and many others. We just thank them and we wish them a very Merry Christmas and a safe and a happy new year in 2017. Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further? I will put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Ryan Murphy (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CHRISTMAS IN THE CITY 312/2016-17 1. Ann-Maree Moon, General Manager, Leisure Tourism and Events, Brisbane Marketing, attended the meeting to provide an update on Brisbane Marketing’s Christmas in the City program. She provided the information below.

2. The Christmas in the City program covers the three precincts of the City, South Bank Parklands and Roma Street Parkland.

3. The objectives of the campaign are as follow: - create economic value for retailers and the tourism industry - drive social value for residents and visitors - create ‘must see’ destinations in the City, South Bank Parklands and Roma Street Parklands - create visitation behaviour and traditions - enhance visitor experience - generate repeat visitation - encourages cross-pollination of audiences across the three precincts.

4. In 2015, the campaign had the following highlights: - 650,000 visitors which was a 45% increase over the previous year - daily spend of $30.7 million compared to $22.6 million in 2014 - an increase of 68% in average spend per person.

5. The 2016 campaign kicked off with the official lighting of the Christmas Tree (25 November), and highlights include the Christmas Parade (16-24 December), the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols at Riverstage in the City Botanic Gardens (10 December) and the Gold Lotto City Hall Light Spectacular (9-24 December) featuring a story from Brisbane author, Cherri Ryan. A new addition this year will be the Enchanted Christmas Garden and Christmas Movies in the Park at Roma Street Parkland (9-18 December).

6. Activities in South Bank Parklands include Christmas markets, Christmas fireworks, Beach Cinema and Christmas Carols in The Courier Mail Piazza.

7. Roma Street Parklands activities include the Enchanted Garden, Christmas Movies in the Park, a family Christmas Concert and kids’ Christmas craft workshops.

8. Brisbane Marketing also partnered Virgin Australia and Wotif to offer travel packages that market Christmas in Brisbane along with Brisbane’s major events including Kooza (Cirque Du Soleil), Matilda the Musical, Cricket (Australia versus Pakistan) and the Brisbane International Tennis. 9. Giftopia, a new Brisbane City shopping guide (including map), has been made available. This includes detailed information on where to eat and drink while shopping, and is distributed through Brisbane's retailers, hotels, airports, libraries and Visitor Information Centres.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Moon for her informative presentation. The report is presented for noting by Council.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 28 OCTOBER 2016 134/695/317/3-04 313/2016-17 12. Paul Oberle, Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services, provided a monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 28 October 2016.

13. During the October period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per general ledger) increased by $10.5 million to $500.1 million excluding trusts (Ref:1.4). The net increase is due to rates revenue collected during the period, partially offset by repayments of working capital borrowings and payments for major projects.

14. Council funds as at 28 October 2016 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled $509.2 million (Ref:2.4+3.1). The variance relates to timing differences between transactions recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.

15. Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the period. The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.

16. Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.

17. RECOMMENDATION:

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

C COMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, RATES, INVENTORY, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2016 134/695/317/700 314/2016-17 18. Greg Evans, Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided a detailed report, submitted on file, on Council’s position relating to accounts receivable, rates, inventory, accounts payable, provisions and malls for the period ended September 2016.

19. The Chairman and the Committee noted the report. The financial report on Council’s position relating to accounts receivable, rates, inventory, accounts payable, provisions and malls for the period ended September 2016 is now presented for noting by Council.

20. RECOMMENDATION:

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

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I table a petition relating to a development at 98-100 Goldieslie Road, Indooroopilly. Chairman: Councillor McKENZIE. Councillor McKENZIE: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I have a petition here from residents requesting a parking permits scheme around the Greenslopes Private Hospital. Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Madam Chair. A petition requesting mangrove removal. Chairman: No further petitions. Councillor WINES, may I have a motion for receipt of petitions.

315/2016-17 It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Peter CUMMING, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor Topic CA16/1016536 Julian Simmonds Objecting to the proposed development of 98-100 Goldieslie Road, Indooroopilly CA16/993226 Ian McKenzie Requesting the implementation of a permit parking scheme in streets around Greenslopes Private Hospital CA16/1005396 Peter Cumming Requesting that Council contact the Queensland Government for approval to remove mangroves along the esplanade from Lota to Wynnum

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel order? There being no Councillors, rising to their feet, Councillors, are there any matters of general business? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Sorry. You guys knew I had a lot and I won't use it—I won't do them all tonight, but there are just a couple I need to mention. The first matter of general business is just to raise a few key trunk infrastructure projects that seem to have been left out of the Local Government Infrastructure Plan and —which I was encouraged by the Chair to talk about during general business today. So hopefully Councillor SIMMONDS is still within earshot or these comments will, at the very least, be passed on to his officers. Earlier today, Councillor SUTTON listed concerns about the postponement of crucial CityCat and ferry terminal upgrades. I want to add to that list the need for a new CityCat terminal at Victoria Street, West End or, if not, alternative active transport infrastructure investment, to fill the role that the Victoria Street CityCat terminal was supposed to serve. I know some Councillors out there will be thinking, but hang on, West End has already got a CityCat terminal. We're talking about the other end of the West End peninsula. It's quite separate from the existing CityCat terminal. This particular terminal would serve the many new high-rise apartment developments along that stretch of Montague Road. So I note that in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan—and I'll quote the section—it was section 7.2.19.4.2, subsection 10(b). It very clearly states that a new ferry terminal is to be located at Victoria Street and associated land uses as supported to activate the terminal. So I'm happy to have a discussion about whether a ferry terminal at that site is the best way to serve the transport needs of the inner south side. But what's very, very clear to me is that the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan has allowed very significant densification of the Montague Road precinct with multiple high density, residential and commercial developments and that increased density was justified in part by the plans for the CityCat terminal. Councillor SIMMONDS, I'm talking about the Victoria Street CityCat terminal and just so—in case you missed it. So my argument here is that all the high-rise development along Montague Road was justified in part by the inclusion of that CityCat terminal and that CityCat

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016] - 102 - terminal needs to be considered priority trunk infrastructure as part of the LGIP. I'd suggest to you that sustainable development requires that public transport trunk infrastructure is delivered at the same time as residential apartments, not 10 or 15 years down the track. I've previously suggested a green bridge connecting West End to Toowong as a possible alternative to the Victoria Street CityCat terminal. I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss that option further with the relevant Council officers, but I stress again that the Victoria Street CityCat terminal listed in the neighbourhood plan very clearly fits the definition of trunk infrastructure, as it serves several large new developments and also connects other parts of the city to the emerging Montague Road precinct. Another important piece of trunk infrastructure that seems to have been omitted is a barrier separated bike lane along Vulture Street to connect Woolloongabba to West End. This bike lane would serve a large number of new developments, would connect up several key commercial precincts, primary schools, high schools and hospitals and would help to reduce congestion by making it easier and safer for people to ride their bikes. I note that have requested many other bike lanes throughout my ward, but it is this particular lane which I believe clearly fits the definition of trunk infrastructure and needs to be prioritised. So I'll emphasise that again for the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor SHRINNER: a barrier separated bike lane along Vulture Street really needs to be considered as trunk infrastructure. This is a high priority. This is not just a local bikeway to serve local residents. This is a clear—this is an obvious cycling artery to connect the east and the west of the inner south side. It's a logical connection to the current plans for the Stanley Street Bikeway upgrade and it needs to be included in the infrastructure plan, because it's going to have to happen at some stage and the sooner we do it, the better. I don't think this is something that can be put off beyond the 10 year horizon. I —it would make life a lot better for everyone if we could include that in the current LGIP. The other bikeway I would propose for listing as priority trunk infrastructure is a barrier separated bike lane along Montague Road, which again would connect many new residential developments to the Kurilpa Bridge and the CBD to the north and to Orleigh Park in the south. So Montague Road bike lane, Vulture Street bike lane, these are key infrastructure projects. In the context of a lot of the other projects that have been listed in this LGIP, they're not super expensive. I'm not asking for the world here. They're fairly small projects and the benefits far outweigh the costs, so I implore Councillors on the other side of the Chamber to please consider including those in the LGIP. I also want to note that the proposed park acquisitions don't seem to include any new parks for the central area of Woolloongabba. This area is slated for extremely high and rapid densification. We're thousands of new apartments in the space of a few years. That part of Woolloongabba currently doesn't have any usable public greenspace beyond one small part next to The Gabba stadium. The LGIP again doesn't include any new public greenspace whatsoever and I think that's an omission. I'm not asserting that Council has deliberately or maliciously avoided delivering greenspace in that area. But given the number of new residents you'll cram into that area, given the fact that those residents won't have their own backyards or any form of private greenspace around their properties, it's crucial that we at least allocate some money towards acquiring land for use as a public park in that central part of Woolloongabba. That area is to be significantly distinguished from the southern end of Woolloongabba, where there's a small amount of money allocated towards a small park at Tottenham Street. That part of Woolloongabba is a long way away from the area I'm talking about and is separated by major roads and train lines. So I really want to emphasise that again I think acquisition of a new park in that part of Woolloongabba needs

to be considered priority trunk infrastructure, because it serves a large number of new developments and is also part—close to a key public transport hub. So I implore Councillor McLACHLAN, Councillor SIMMONDS to consider including that new park of—for Woolloongabba somewhere in that precinct as part of the LGIP. I'd also note that the West End peninsula is still grossly underserved by public greenspace and that this LGIP doesn't seem to address that. It includes a small amount of funding for a few park acquisitions and one very big pot of funding for the Parmalat site, but that looks like it's been deferred till quite a few years down the track. But there's still not enough, given the number of residents who have been moved into the area. So while I'm mindful of Councillor SIMMONDS' comments earlier today that the inner southside is getting a lot of investment in terms of infrastructure and I acknowledge that, and I'm grateful for that, but it is not commensurate to the proportional increase in population. So to—the increase—we're increasing the population by tens of thousands of people in the inner south side. The provision of infrastructure simply isn't keeping up to match. So again I understand that not all infrastructure constitutes key trunk infrastructure, and I could go on all day about small infrastructure projects that I think need to be included, but I'm just seeking to emphasise those priority infrastructure projects that should be included in the LGIP. Again, I would like to request specific briefings with Council officers who are responsible for the decisions round priority bike lanes, Council officers who have responsibility for trunk infrastructure, park acquisitions and if possible a briefing from whoever makes the decisions around which ferry terminals are prioritised. Because I think the omission of Victoria Street ferry terminal, despite its clear inclusion in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan is unjustified. If we're not including that ferry terminal, we need to be providing some other form of public transport to serve that part of West End. I don't want to be quoted the Metro. The Metro is completely unrelated to that part of the ward and will not address the public transport concerns and congestion concerns along Montague Road, so please take these comments on board. I'm not intending them as an attack. I'm simply observing that there seem to be some pretty significant omissions and I hope to be involved in further discussion on that. I'm now going to sit down and then stand up and talk about another item of general business. Chairman: Further general business? I declare the meeting closed.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: (Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 1 December 2016

Q1. Please advise the total cost of the Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre, Fitzgibbon.

Q2. Please advise the total cost of the Parkinson Aquatic Centre.

Q3. Please advise the total cost of the 2016 Christmas Tree in King George Square.

Q4. Please advise the total cost of the 2015 Christmas Tree in King George Square.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: (Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 29 November 2016) Q1. How many protected trees has Council retrospectively approved for removal from the Arbour Reach development protected by an environmental covenant as ordered under development conditions for 27 Magazine St Sherwood, DA number A003652705?

A1. ‘Tree T33’ (on the approved plans) Eucalyptus tereticornis was identified for retention as part of the development approval. During recent high winds a large branch failed and damaged an adjoining house. Inspection by the arborist revealed that the majority of the tree’s upper structure has been structurally compromised and recommended immediate removal on safety grounds.

Tree T1 (on approved plans) - Bunya Pine Amenity Development conditions were set to retain the tree in a covenant area on a residential lot. However, demolition works of onsite buildings occurred under a separate building permit prior to commencement of operational works or a development approval having been issued. Later inspection revealed that during these works subcontractors damaged the bark of this tree with machinery.

An arborist examined the wound and identified that it is on the compression side of the tree. Due to the soft nature of the timber the structure of the tree it was advised that the tree will eventually decay at this location and will in time become a failure point, despite remedial attempts. The arborist therefore recommended removal of the tree and replacement with an ex-ground (semi mature) Hoop Pine in the approved covenant area.

Whilst removal of this tree was not critical at this time it was approved for removal as the only opportunity for the developer to undertake works and establish a replacement tree under the current development approval. Council will have difficulty requiring a future owner to provide an advanced replacement specimen.

Q2. How many protected trees have been removed, damaged or impacted the protected tree root zone interfered with at the Arbour Reach development, protected by an environmental covenant as ordered under development conditions for 27 Magazine St Sherwood, DA number A003652705, without Council permission?

A2. An encroachment into the covenant area on a building site was raised with Council. Following inspection, it was determined that no damage has been incurred by the works and the builder has been advised to remove a small area of fill with appropriate regard to protection of vegetation in the covenant.

Council has not approved any encroachment into covenant areas. Any concerns of encroachment into covenant areas or interference with protected vegetation should be reported through the Call Centre 3403 8888, with a request to Council’s Environment Management Team to investigate.

Q3. What action has been taken against any owners or the developer who have removed, damaged or impacted the protected tree root zone interfered with at the Arbour Reach development, protected by an environmental covenant as ordered under development conditions for 27 Magazine St Sherwood, DA number A003652705, without Council permission?

A3. As the damage to Tree 33 was an act of nature there is no right of recourse for Council on the developer.

There is no evidence that the damage to Tree 1 was anything other than accidental and resulted in the developer agreeing to replace it with a mature hoop pine and additional planting (at significant cost) it was considered no further action is warranted.

Q4. How many applications to vary the environmental covenant as ordered under development conditions for 27 Magazine St Sherwood, DA number A003652705 are currently being assessed by Council. Please provide addresses?

A4. Two requests to vary the covenant have been received, neither of which were supported by Council with the person requesting the change advised that court approval would be required if they wished to pursue the matter. No requests are currently under consideration. The addresses are provided for Councillors in a confidential attachment to protect the privacy of those residents.

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 29 November 2016) Q1. Are Bunnings Gift Cards used by Field Officers when purchasing goods for maintenance work?

A1. No.

When Council Officers require materials for primarily urgent reactive maintenance work they do have access to Commercial Power Pass Cards. The power pass cards can be used at Bunnings stores for purchase of goods in conjunction with a Council ID card and a purchase order for the goods being raised prior to pick up. These are charged to a Council account which is subsequently reconciled.

Q2. What is the reconciliation process that accounts payable employ when reconciling purchases by Council officers using Bunnings Cards?

A2. Note: It is assumed this question relates to the use of Commercial Power Pass Cards.

An itemised docket must be signed by the Council Officer collecting the goods. The Officer allocates a cost code/job number for the purchase and includes their payroll number. The itemised docket is then processed in order to confirm receipt of goods against the relevant purchase order. Tax invoices received are then matched to the receipt.

Q3. Do Council officers using Bunnings Cards need pre-approval before making a purchase?

A3. Note: It is assumed this question relates to the use of Commercial Power Pass Cards.

Yes, a pre-approved purchase order is required before making a purchase. Depending on the financial amount of the purchase the level of internal approval required (i.e. a more senior officer) can vary. Council officers require their Council ID as proof of identity and their signed Commercial Power Pass Cards and Purchase Order number to make a purchase at Bunnings stores.

Q4. What was the total legal cost of defending Brisbane City Council’s approval of 443 Queen Street, Brisbane in the Court challenges initiated by the University of Queensland?

A4. External legal costs incurred by Council on responding to the Court appeal are $140,000 to date, however the process of formalising the Court’s decision to award costs to Council is underway.

Q5. With reference to the Courier Mail article of Wednesday, 23 November entitled School Drop Zone Row Puts Kids at Risk, please provide the list of 46 existing drop go zones the Brisbane City Council has “tried to return ownership” to the State Government.

A5. The list below contains each of the car parks being used by the school for car parking purposes. The term ‘car parking purposes’ includes short term and long term parking (staff/student or visitor). There were originally 47 schools but Inala West State School closed in 2009.

# School Suburb

1 Ashgrove State School Ashgrove 2 Aspley East State School Aspley 3 Aspley High School Aspley 4 Aspley State School Aspley 5 Bald Hills State School Bald Hills 6 Belmont State School Carindale 7 Boondall State School Boondall 8 Calamvale Community College Calamvale 9 Carina State School Carindale 10 Centenary State High School Jindalee 11 Coopers Plains State School Coopers Plains 12 Coorparoo State School Coorparoo

# School Suburb

13 Corinda State School Corinda 14 Craigslea State School Chermside West 15 Enoggera State School Enoggera 16 Everton Park State High School Everton Park 17 Forest Lake State School Ellen Grove 18 Gumdale State School Gumdale 20 Kuraby State School Kuraby 21 Manly West State School Manly West 22 Mansfield State School Mansfield 23 McDowall State School McDowall 24 Pullenvale State School Pullenvale 25 Rochedale State High School Rochedale 26 Runcorn Heights State School Runcorn 27 Somerset Hills State School Stafford Heights 28 St Flannan's Catholic Parish School Zillmere 29 St Peter Chanel Primary School The Gap 30 Stafford State School Stafford 31 Tingalpa State School Tingalpa 32 Virginia State School Virginia 33 Wishart State School Wishart 34 Wondall Heights State School Manly West Stretton State High School (split campus 35 Stretton with 37 below)

36 Brisbane Bayside College Wynnum West

Stretton College Senior campus (split 37 Stretton campus with 35 above) 38 Brisbane State High South Brisbane 39 Durack State School Durack 40 Dutton Park State School Dutton Park 41 Grand Avenue State School Forest Lake 42 Mount Gravatt State School Mount Gravatt 43 Mackenzie State Primary School Mackenzie Nudgee Junior Catholic Primary College 44 (recent name change to Ambrose TreacyIndooroopilly College) 45 Warrigal Road State School Eight Mile Plains 46 Wynnum West State School Wynnum West

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.46pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

James Withers (Senior Council and Committee Officer) Shivaji Solao (Council and Committee Officer) Emily Blake (Acting Council and Committee Officer) Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)

[4514 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 December 2016]