Table of Contents s115

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4498 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 7 June 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 4498 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 7 JUNE 2016 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS______i PRESENT:______1 OPENING OF MEETING:______1 APOLOGY:______1 MINUTES:______1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:______2 QUESTION TIME:______3 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:______15 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE______15 A TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 04/16 PROTECTION OF THE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE SEAVIEW HOTEL, 65 PIER AVENUE, SHORNCLIFFE______40 B CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020-21______41 C CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN______42 D TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 03/16 REDEVELOPMENT OF BULIMBA BARRACKS__43 E ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2016______44 F WIDENING OF MILTON ROAD, TOOWONG______45 PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE______47 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT______49 B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT ALL WORK ON THE GLADSTONE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CEASE AND DESIST UNTIL FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED______50 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE______51 A PETITION – REQUESTING SUPPORT FOR THE KOOKABURRA QUEEN: 1) A PERMANENT TOURIST BOAT FACILITY, 2) RENOVATION WORK AND 3) RIVER ACCESS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF BRISBANE AND OUR ATTRACTIONS______58 B PETITIONS – REQUESTING THE LORD MAYOR COMMIT TO CONSTRUCTING THE LINDUM RAILWAY CROSSING OVERPASS BEFORE THE END OF THIS TERM OF COUNCIL, WHICH IS MARCH 2016_____59 C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RELEASE THE DETAILED DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED WYNNUM ROAD – SHAFTSON AVENUE UPGRADE______60 D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL FAST TRACK THE WYNNUM ROAD UPGRADE IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR______61 E PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL INSTALL TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LYTTON ROAD, APOLLO ROAD AND THORPE STREET, BULIMBA, TO IMPROVE SAFETY OF THIS INTERSECTION______62 F PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TAKE ACTION TO RECTIFY HIGH ILLUMINATION LEVELS AND REFLECTIVE MATERIALS ON THE RIVER WALKWAY BRIDGE AFFECTING THE RESIDENTS OF RIVER GALLERY APARTMENTS, MERTHYR ROAD, NEW FARM______64 G PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL FOR IMPROVED SAFETY/TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON VERNON TERRACE, MACQUARIE STREET, AND POSSIBLE SKYRING TERRACE, TENERIFFE______66 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE______67 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – OVERVIEW OF PLANNING REFORM______72

[4498 (Ordinary) Meeting – 7 June 2016] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 600 CORONATION DRIVE, TOOWONG, TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BIKEWAY (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003953028)______73 C PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE RECONFIGURATION OF 1 LOT INTO 14 LOTS, A NEW ROAD AND A DRAINAGE RESERVE AT 53 CUBBERLA STREET, FIG TREE POCKET (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004076253)______75 D PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL PROTECT THE CUSTOMS HOUSE PRECINCT FROM THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 443 QUEEN STREET, BRISBANE (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004228551)______76 ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE______78 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM______81 B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL MAXIMISE GREEN SPACE IN THE WEST END PENINSULA_____82 C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER GRANTING THE INDOOROOPILLY MEN’S SHED INC A LIMITED LICENCE TO PARK MEMBERS’ VEHICLES IN KEATING PARK, INDOOROOPILLY, WHEN USING THE SHED______83 D PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS______84 E PETITION – REQUESTING INPUT INTO GREEN SPACE IN WEST END______85 FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE______85 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FLEET SERVICES BRANCH OVERVIEW______87 B PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF STREET TREES IN FRONT OF 7 RAPHAEL PLACE, MACKENZIE______88 C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE TREES IN A DRAIN ADJACENT TO NORTHERN SUBURBS BOWLS CLUB AT WAVELL HEIGHTS______90 LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE______90 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE EMILY SEEBOHM AQUATIC CENTRE – FITZGIBBON______91 FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______92 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LORD MAYOR’S BUSINESS AWARDS 2016______94 B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 29 APRIL 2016______95 C PETITION – REQUEST FOR STREET PREACHERS TO BE BANNED FROM THE INNER CITY______95 PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:______97 GENERAL BUSINESS:______97 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______101 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______102

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 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) Independent Councillor (and Ward) Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale) Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) 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.

APOLOGY: 552/2015-16 An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, and he was granted leave of absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Kim MARX, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.

MINUTES: 553/2015-16 The Minutes of the 4497 meeting of Council held on 31 May 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.

[4498 (Ordinary) Meeting – 7 June 2016] - 2 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Francesca de Valence – Winning the 2016 QUBE Effect People’s Choice Award File number: 137/220/701/261

Chairman: I would now like to call on Ms Francesca de Valence who will address the Cha mber on winning the Council 2016 QUBE Effect People’s Choice Award. Order ly, please show Ms de Valence in. Welcome to the Chamber, Ms de Valence. You have five minutes; please procee d. Ms Francesca de Valence: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors; my name is Francesca de Valence. I am a musician and an artist based in South Brisbane, and I am the wi nner of the 2016 QUBE Effect People’s Choice Award and the City Hall Perfor mance Award. In its second year, the QUBE Effect was held as part of Youth W eek, where 24 artists are chosen to perform in the QUBE, which is a 4˗metre by 4˗metre by 4-metre metal structure, to make a live music video with 360 degree camera functionality. I had a few weeks leading up to the festival to organise how I would visually pre sent this. The song I was to perform, called All the Love, a song from my recent album release, is a song about loving openly and without condition. I asked my f riends and fans and family to get on board to help me create the set that I wante d; papier-mâché love hearts. In two weeks, and with so much help from around t he community and pretty much using all the old newspapers that existed in Grea ter Brisbane, we created about 70 papier-mâché love hearts of various sizes, and these were strung up along the perimeter of the QUBE to decorate the set, frami ng the performance of All the Love which I sang and played on piano accompani ed by my string quartet. When the videos were launched, so did the competition part of the QUBE Effect program, which was getting people to vote for their favourite video performance. Over the course of the three week campaign, I came up with an idea to give awa y the love hearts as people became more enthusiastic with the voting. Of course, this is all done via social media and my website and mailing list. I signed person al messages on to the hearts and sent them out through the post and hand deliver ed them to thank people for their efforts. As the competition closed in, I had some radio interviews with Brisbane stations, including 4ZZZ, 612ABC, as well as stations in other states. I took the hearts, w hich now proudly hang in those stations. Spencer Howson from 612ABC did thr ee interviews with me, including a live outside-broadcast performance to help m e spread the word about QUBE Effect and my video. The third interview was th e time that Councillor MURPHY called in to announce that I had won the QUB E Effect People’s Choice Award and its $4,000 cash prize, live on air. Spencer t ook the liberty to record a video of this for posterity, and it is quite humorous be cause I am never speechless. The official awards were held last Wednesday at the Powerhouse where I had th e honour of performing after Councillor BOURKE announced the prize. The cas h prize will offer me the opportunity to inject capital into the creative projects I am most passionate about, including some community projects that I look forwa rd to sharing with you more in the future. But what I am most excited about is n ot the cash but the opportunity to use this music industry and Brisbane City reco gnition as a platform to take my creative projects to the next step. I have created projects that I seek to take to the international stage, and I am excited about the people that I will meet and the skills that they have and the questions that I will ask so that I can learn and be mentored—an indirect opportunity that this award recognition can offer me. Brisbane is an energetic, expressive and creative city, and I am so excited to hav e started to grow my relationship with the Brisbane City Council. I would love t o have a strong relationship with this beautiful city as my career progresses. I w ould also love to be heard as a creative youth in this New World City. Thank yo

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 3 -

u for hearing me today. I would like to conclude my presenting to the Brisbane City Council and the LORD MAYOR this papier-mâché love heart that was feat ured in the All the Love music video as part of the QUBE Effect. Thank you for t his wonderful opportunity, and I will make the most of it. Thank you Madam Ch airman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors. Chairman: Thank you, Ms de Valence. Councillor BOURKE, would you like to respond?

Response by Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you very much, Ms de Valence for coming in and talking to us today. It was a pleasure to meet you last Wednes day night down at the Powerhouse for the awards ceremony. It was a great eveni ng with many of the acts in attendance and also some of last year’s winners of th e QUBE Effect as well. This is the second year that we have run the QUBE Effe ct, and it has gone from strength to strength. There were about 26 entries last yea r, and of course this year we saw 135 entrants into the QUBE Effect, which is a f antastic outcome for what is the premiere music event in Brisbane that we run as a Council. Obviously you were successful in winning the People’s Choice Award. There w ere over 6,000 votes cast, and you snared quite a significant part of that vote. It i s a testament, I think, to your particular song, All the Love, that you put out, and thank you very much for the CD and the personalised message inside it; it is a gr eat listen. If anyone hasn’t gotten their hands on one of these, or wants to, catch Francesca on the way out; it is a good listen. It’s a great promotion of everything that this Council does in helping to promote young people and the creative arts i n the City of Brisbane. You also won the prize that enables you to do a concert here in City Hall, and I know that you had a tour just before you came in to speak to Council, and you h ad the opportunity to stick your head into the Auditorium. One of the prizes that Council was able to offer is that concert here in City Hall, which I think is a grea t opportunity for any young artist to be able to perform in what is probably one o f the premiere and most prestigious venues that we have in this city. Other winners on the night, of course, were some friends and some of your fello w artists, so MKO Sun won the Best Original Song, Omegachild won the Best N ew Talent, and Graham Moes won the QPAC Gig on the Green Award. It is grea t to see so many great artists coming out of Brisbane, and we just wish you all th e very best for your future endeavours. In any way that Council can, we look for ward to being able to support you. Ms Francesca de Valence: Thank you very much. Chairman: Thank you, Councillor BOURKE. Thank you, Ms de Valence. Congratulations on your success, and we appreciate you coming in today.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any Standing Committee? Councillor ALLAN. Question 1

Councillor ALLAN: Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, you hav e previously said that your Administration is aiming to turn Brisbane into a pre-e minent world city by 2022. As part of this discussion, you have committed to ini

tiatives that will help build a competitive and globally connected, modern, livea ble and prosperous city that attracts and retains the world-class talent and capital needed to help realise this ambitious goal. For the benefit of the Chamber, can y ou please detail some of these initiatives, and outline how local residents stand t o benefit? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor ALLAN for th e question. It is true that a while back now we put forward, with the help of abou t 1,000 businesses in this city, including people from academia and also the no-f or-profit sector, the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan. In this Plan, the re are some 101 recommendations for action, of which it contains about 40 prior ity actions. It is a blueprint for making sure that, as a city government, we do all that we can to produce and help to create a jobs environment. As I have always said, local government today is becoming a more and more so phisticated level of government. It is long past the days when it was simply abou t roads, rates and rubbish, as important as those things are and will continue to b e. I do recall the words of Rudy Giuliani when he was in this city a few years ag o where he said that cities make countries; countries don’t make cities. He said t hat cities are the economic powerhouses that drive nations. So it is that the Brisb ane 2022 New World City Action Plan is very much about that; us doing the thin gs that we can to stimulate activity. One of the areas in which we did stimulate very significant activity was that in t he area of hotel investment. As we know, there was not one new four or five-star hotel built in this city in the decade leading up to 2011. It was only after we had created an incentive around removing infrastructure charges for the purposes of building four and five-star hotels that we saw not only domestic activity stimulat ed, but we also saw a significant amount of investment from overseas in the hote l sector. What has happened since then? Well, we have had some 1,583 new hotel rooms come on board, with 1,544 currently under construction. As well, we’ve got mor e in the pipeline. So, Madam Chairman, it has gone from a zero to a very, very si gnificant new offering in terms of that hotel space. Why is that important? It is i mportant to jobs, not just the jobs in the construction sector, but it is also very, v ery important that we have this new fresh offering available for tourism. Before the G20, again out of the Economic Development Plan that we had set fo r the city, we were out there across the globe with 3,000 billboards advertising B risbane. It was on the back of that old saying that I have; if people don’t know th e name of your city, they won’t visit it, and they certainly can’t invest in it. So what we have seen since the G20 World Leader’s Summit in this city is some very strong growth in tourism numbers. Growth that is filling up those hotel bed s, and that is very, very important. It is more than just about filling up beds; it is about creating the jobs that go with that hotel sector, creating jobs in the retail se ctor and the restaurants, all of those subsequent expenditures that occur from the visiting public. Let’s just have a look at some of the growth numbers. In the last year alone, tour ism from China has increased by 33%. It is up from the United States 14.4%; Ge rmany is up 7.6%; Japan is up 21%; Korea is up 27%; up 10.7% out of Hong Ko ng; up six per cent from Taiwan; and up around 10% from India. So these are ve ry, very significant numbers. China, now, for the very first time, has edged ahea d of New Zealand visitors to our city. We know that that is a trend that will conti nue, and we know that, as the offering of South East Queensland continues to gr ow, that will mean more and more job opportunities for our city. At the time when this Plan was put out, the Opposition described it as ‘blah, bla h, blah’. That is all that they had to say from a group of more than 1,000 busines s people, not-for-profits and people from the various universities and other educ ational sectors that were engaged in the development of this document. It is imp ortant that we as a city government do what we can. We owe the people of this c ity and the jobs sector that at the very least.

Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 2 Councillor CUMMING: Thanks Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. On the front page of last week’s North-West News, Councillor Andrew WINES was accused of giv ing his Enoggera constituents the cold shoulder over your Administration’s failu re to protect a pre-1946 character house at 8 Quarry Road, Alderley. Despite a promise from Councillor WINES and your Administration in August 2 014 that the Council was moving to protect that house, it has been omitted from the City Plan 2014 amendments brought to this Council just last week. Since tha t time your Administration has approved a 10-unit development in what remains a demolition control precinct. Why has your Administration failed to deliver the promised protection of 8 Quarry Road, and why is Councillor Andrew WINES t elling the residents of Enoggera Ward that heritage properties are being protecte d when they are not? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. But, o f course, what Councillor CUMMING fails to appreciate is that since the 2014 C ity Plan, this city now has 130,000 allotments in this city that are in the pre-1946 lists of the Traditional building character areas. That is up from the 95,000 that e xisted before the 2014 City Plan. So, by any measure, this Administration is con tinuing to make sure that we cover, by way of protection, more and more housin g stock. Councillor CUMMING is able to pull out this one particular site, and use it as a n example. But— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! LORD MAYOR: —Madam Chairman, the reality is that, under legislation we have to examine ea ch and every site on its merits. I note, for example, as one clear example, that th ere was a heritage listed house in terms of Council’s heritage listing, called Abb otsleigh House at Bowen Hills. It is a good example, because you were going to have the Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) coming in and ignoring tha t, despite the fact that Council had heritage listing on it. Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order. Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: The question was very specific, Madam Chairman, on relevance. The question was; why is Councillor Andrew WINES telling the residents of Enoggera Ward that heritage properties are being protected there— Chairman: And the LORD— Councillor CASSIDY: —when they are not. Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, section 51 of the Meetings Local Law, Precedence of the Chairman. When I speak, you cease. The LORD MAYOR was providing contex t in relation to character and heritage housing. LORD MAYOR, please continue. LORD MAYOR: Well, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I was providing a context to it, and I would also like to provide this context to it. As I recall, Councillor CUMMING’ s own home was a pre-1946 home. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: ‘Was’—‘was’ being the operative word. It is the old story of people in glass hou ses shouldn’t be out there throwing stones because—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: The rules about questions say the LORD MAYOR cannot debate the question, b ut he must answer it. I for one would be interested in an answer to the question, given the issues I have raised in this Chamber over recent weeks. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, this is a question from the Leader of the Opposition. T he LORD MAYOR was providing context in relation to the homes. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Front pages come and go. I have a front p age of my own, and this was Councillor CUMMING’s own home that was demo lished. Again, I think it is relevant to say that people in glass houses shouldn’t th row stones, particularly when, in their own circumstances. It could have saved a pre-1946 home but elected to go to an application to Council, and there were not great cries about the approval on that particular site. I make this point for one reason only; that is to say that every pre-1946 home in this city is not going to be saved. That is never the intention of character overlay s. Never the intention. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! LORD MAYOR: It is not. It is not, and you know it is not, Councillor JOHNSTON. You know it i s not. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman— Chairman: Just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON, you have been told every week in this place not to yell out across this Chamber. Do not defy my direction today. LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: I dissent in your ruling. I was not yelling.

The dissent motion lapsed for want of a seconder.

Chairman: There being no seconder to your dissent, it is not upheld. LORD MAYOR, please continue. LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, the point being that each site is assessed on its merits. Th at has always been the case. But there is greater protection in this city today than what there has ever been. But if the Opposition want to stand up today and say t hat they are going to protect every single character pre-1946 home in this city, I dare them. Because it will be in complete contradiction— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: We’ve had a motion in this place that the Labor Party and I supported to have all pre-46 houses protected, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON— Councillor JOHNSTON: The LORD MAYOR is misleading the Chamber. Chairman: —that is not an acceptable point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON. Order! Coun cillor JOHNSTON, I remind you of section 21(1)(a) of the Meetings Local Law

that, if you continue to obstruct the proper conduct of this meeting, it will be con sidered an act of disorder. I don’t uphold your point of order, and it was an incor rect point of order as you raised it. LORD MAYOR, please continue. LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, the point is very clear; there will always be a circumstanc e where a pre-1946 home will be demolished. There is a range of criteria and stri ct circumstances around which that can occur. There no doubt would have been some circumstances in the case of Councillor CUMMING’s home, so what diffe rentiates that home from other homes that he asks about today? I just simply say this, again; this city has far greater protection now than what it has ever had in it s history. In the 2014 City Plan, we brought forward the 2000 year protection to 2011, which brought another 400-plus homes into the net. I think I have answere d that quite clearly for Councillor CUMMING. Chairman: Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Further questions? Councillor TOOMEY. Question 3 Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chairman of Finance and E conomic Development, Councillor ADAMS. The LORD MAYOR has outlined recent trends in tourism in Brisbane and across Queensland. Can you please outl ine what this Administration is doing to capture the growing international touris m market and some recent successes? Chairman: Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Councillor TOOMEY, for the questio n, because it is my great pleasure to talk and expand on what the LORD MAYO R is talking about, those great numbers in tourism, and what we are doing in Co uncil through our Economic Development team and through Brisbane Marketing to make sure that we are delivering new jobs for Brisbane. One of the great way s to do this is make sure that we are working on those tourism numbers and not t aking them for granted. We are always talking about creating a liveable city where we encourage our Bri sbane residents to come out and spend their money and support local business. B ut that only gets us so far. This is really about recycling money when we are aski ng people to come out, moving it from one precinct to another and enjoy it. It do es make Brisbane more liveable. But what we need to do now is encourage peop le from outside Brisbane to come in and spend their money. That is where the re al value and the achievements lie in attracting people to come and holiday or inv est in Brisbane. So this is new value for our economy, when they are coming from outside, and we have seen this recognised as the importance that it is for economic developm ent and jobs creation across all levels of government. In this year’s budget, Coun cil actually invested $3.52 million in championing Brisbane to make sure that w e were going out there and telling people it was a place to visit, a place to invest in, and more than anything, a place to enjoy, whether it is just to visit or to come and live here. As the LORD MAYOR stated, the State Government are crowing very loudly ab out the investment that they are putting into the State to bring visitors to Queensl and. In particular, the State Government’s work in attracting additional air servic es, and we are right behind them. It is very exciting to see Air Canada flying stra ight to Vancouver now, and we are looking at some of the Chinese airlines comi ng in and increasing their visitation to Brisbane as well. This was actually secured through Minister Jones’ Government attracting aviatio n investment funds, which we thoroughly support. They are also working on ma king sure that Brisbane is a high priority destination for Asia. She also noted the great work the Brisbane City Council is doing in attracting hotel investment. She said that investors recognise the potential for growth in our tourism industry. Mo

re than $11 billion in new hotels and resort projects planned for Queensland, and we are getting a large chunk of that, as the LORD MAYOR said, with our infras tructure deals that we had for our five-star hotels in the last couple of years. Interesting to see that even Labor’s Lord Mayoral candidate Rod Harding recog nised the importance of these fundings, because he was committing to providing $40 million to tourism funding if they got into administration. Even Bill Shorten is creating a $1 billion tourism fund if he gets elected. So I think it is pretty clear across all three levels of government, and with bipartisan support, tourism is a v ery big economic development factor in this country and, of course, obviously in this city. I am hoping when the budget comes down next week that we will see, maybe, Labor in Council may change its tune in wanting to eliminate Brisbane Marketing and the work that they do in this sector, and maybe give it the recogni tion of the important work that it does, like the State and Federal Governments a re doing as well. But let’s have a look at some of those recent successes that we are seeing. The Tourism and Events Queensland figures are obviously definitely up for our visit ations. The LORD MAYOR mentioned that Chinese are now the biggest visitors to Brisbane. That is on investment and on holidaying. The Chinese holiday visit ors are up by 49.2% over the last 12 months. That is enormous. The USA is up 2 2.7%. I am sure the dollar value had something to do with that, but we welcome them in to spend their American dollars over here in Queensland as well. We need to make sure that we optimise these opportunities by giving them reaso ns to stay longer in Brisbane. We have been speaking about these over the last s everal weeks. We are talking about our New World Action Plan. The 1.5 action i n that Plan talks about signature major events. We are aiming for 12 major event s per year on our calendar. We have talked about the Brisbane International, Wo rld Science Festival, Brisbane Racing Carnival—it is not going to rain this week end, LORD MAYOR, and we will be right—the Brisbane Festival, and all of th ose events which make people want to come to Brisbane, stay longer and invest their money in this beautiful, liveable city. We have also seen, as I mentioned, the World Science Festival—the first time o utside of New York—in Brisbane, and we have just got the confirmation for the Ashes Test in 2017 as well. So now is not the time to let up on the successes that we are seeing across Council and Brisbane Marketing. We need to continue the good work that we are doing, and we need to do that in partnership across all lev els of government, and not let politics and cheap political point scoring get in th e way of what is best for Brisbane ratepayers. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor SRI. Question 4 Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. In its most recent report, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) warns that the sharp rise in the construction of new apartments may be the cataly st for a dramatic and destabilising end to the current housing boom. Analysts fro m JP Morgan have said that nationally there is already an oversupply of roughly 70,000 inner-city apartments, not including those currently under construction or awaiting approval. Even the Reserve Bank of Australia has noted that the market is overheated, and the international monetary fund has raised similar concerns. A range of fund ma nagers, banks and independent think tanks have stated that the rapidly growing n umber of new inner-city apartments in Brisbane risks precipitating a property m arket collapse. They say that such a collapse would hit lower income Australians the hardest, leading to job losses, a higher rate of mortgage defaults and foreclos ures, and rising housing insecurity and homelessness. The more private apartments we build, the harder it will be to ensure the propert y market has a soft landing rather than a hard fall, which would have significant negative flow-on impacts throughout all sectors of South East Queensland’s eco

nomy. Does the LORD MAYOR agree that, under such conditions, it is not in th e long-term interests of the majority of Brisbanites for Council to continue appro ving so many new private apartment development applications? Chairman: LORD MAYOR, just before you provide a response, Councillor SRI, even thou gh you are a new Councillor, I just remind you that, during your questions, it mu st be asked without argument or discussion, there was a significant proportion of your question which was actually discussion. So, LORD MAYOR, would you c are to respond, please. But just for future questions, if you can tighten them up, please. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor SRI for the questi on, and note his commentary around the OECD and other commentary associate d with the property market. The nub of the question was; shouldn’t Council stop approving applications? The reality is, Councillor SRI, that we can’t, because w e are, by State planning law, we as with every other local authority in Queenslan d, are required to assess applications that are lawfully made. What I can say to you is that, whether these get built is another matter altogether. The reality is that only about one in every two applications approved by this Co uncil ever actually see a shovel go into the ground. That is a statistical fact from over many years. What we are about to see in this financial year, at the close of t he 2015˗16 financial year, is it would appear a higher number of applications tha t have been assessed by this Council than occurred at the peak of the boom in 20 14. We had around 4,500 applications in 2014, and that is looking like this finan cial year it will just edge slightly higher than that. That is about 1,000 above wh at would be the norm. The thing about this sector, property and construction, as with mining and resour ces, is that they are boom bust industries. They always have been, and the marke t has always determined essentially what happens. Again, if there is no demand f or purchase out there, people will stop building. It is as simple as that. Until suc h time as the demand catches up with supply. I waved this document around earlier. In answer to Councillor SRI’s question al so, I would refer him to this document. The importance of this document is that i t says that we can no longer continue, and should no longer, continue to be totall y reliant on building and construction and resources and mining, because they ar e boom bust industries, and we have to create a broader base of our economy aro und the knowledge based industries, the creative and digital sectors, advanced e ducation, around advanced manufacturing and the agri-food business. These, I believe, are the industries which will help support and underpin the Bris bane economy into the future, to take away our dependence on those two major sectors which are boom and bust sectors. They will always be important to us, as I have said here before, but the reality is they will go up and down. I am not going to argue with Councillor SRI in terms of the commentary he mad e in his question. But what I can say in answer is that we simply cannot put pens down and say, well, sorry folks, we are not going to assess your applications, be cause under State law, it would be unlawful to do so. We have to undertake our actions in line with that State planning law, and that requires us to assess every a pplication; no matter how silly that application might be, we are required to mak e an assessment of it. So it is with property and construction, whilst applications may continue to com e in, and approvals may continue, a lot of those will in effect sit in the bottom dr awer. If there is no demand out there, if demand is slowing, then those plans, ap proved or otherwise, will simply stay on hold. So, Madam Chairman, again that is the reality of the market situation. I think it is fair to say that things will slow. I think we are seeing a tightening of the banks in terms of their lending policies as well, and I think it is fair to assume that we will see some slowing happen, pa rticularly in the unit market. I am not so sure that will be the case in the detache d dwellings. That market is still extremely strong. Then we are back to the argument; do we want to have urban consolidation, whi ch means that we have to see less and less bushland or non-urban areas carved u

p for development. Then you are back to the environment footprint question. So we’ve got a choice to make, and it is a pertinent debate to be had in this Chambe r. It is one of the reasons why you have a Regional Plan to determine where the f uture growth is going to be, and how that might be limited to make sure that we don’t just become a total carve up of South East Queensland. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor WINES. Question 5 Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the DEPUTY MAYOR, Counc illor SCHRINNER. I am aware that you recently joined the LORD MAYOR in hosting Council’s industry briefing on the Brisbane Metro Subway System proje ct. I understand that this event was a great success, attracting over 250 industry r epresentatives, including several international representatives. Can you please d etail for the Chamber how this transformative project, which is already gaining s ignificant interest, will not only provide a public transport solution but also help drive local job creation and boost economic growth for our city? Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor WINES, for the question. It is a shame that Labor Counci llors laughed about this project rather than supporting something that is good for Brisbane and will create an economic boost for the city and fundamentally creat e jobs for our city. The industry briefing you referred to was absolutely a great success. I have not s een any industry briefings, either at Council or State level, that have attracted so many people. The reality is this project is a project that the industry in Brisbane and across Australia is very interested in, and it is a project that has also attracte d interest internationally. There were representatives from Europe and also Asia in the room the other day when we had the briefing. The reality is the industry is hungry for this project. They are hungry for a council or a state government that invests in public transport infrastructure, and indeed, any form of infrastructure. We have a situation at the moment where the State Government seems to think t hat projects are funded by words, because they keep talking about Cross River R ail but they are yet to put a single dollar into the project, yet they want Tony Ab bott or Bill Shorten to pay for their project— Councillor interjecting. DEPUTY MAYOR: Not Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull— Chairman: Order! DEPUTY MAYOR: —or Bill Shorten; they wanted Tony Abbott to pay for it as well. They just keep going around cap in hand— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! DEPUTY MAYOR: —for money for their project they are not prepared to fund. In fact, they are so d esperate that they came cap in hand to Council as well to fund their project. So it is fascinating. But the reality is Brisbane Metro is a project which we have been very clear abo ut that we are prepared to back, and we are prepared to back it with financial inv estment. We are not going to go and say the State Government needs to pay for t his project, or the Federal Government needs to pay for a majority of this project; we are prepared to put in the majority of the funding. While any responsible State Government would also put in funding, and we wou ld hope that the Federal Government would also put in funding, the reality is w e’re backing it; we’re backing it. Why are we backing it? Because public transpo rt infrastructure is critical for the future of our city. It is critical for our economy, and it will create jobs.

I can announce today that, based on preliminary estimates, we expect that this pr oject will create more than 7,700 direct and indirect jobs for the City of Brisbane —7,700 direct and indirect jobs for the City of Brisbane. Where did we get that f igure from? Did we just pull it out of thin air? Did we make it up? We got that fi gure from the Queensland Treasury’s own construction multiplier index. So, bas ed on Queensland Treasury’s estimates of employment multipliers, they believe that every million dollars of construction investment and expenditure creates 6.7 FTEs, or full-time equivalent jobs. They are direct and indirect jobs. So, using the Queensland Treasury’s own construction multiplier, we can expect approximately 7,700 direct and indirect jobs to be created by this project. We ha ve seen projects in the past—Legacy Way; we saw around 9,000 different worke rs come through that site during the project. We saw with Clem7 there were 13,0 00 different workers that came through the project, and jobs that were created bo th directly and indirectly. We know that with Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade, more than 3,000 jobs will b e created. So these are real jobs. These are real figures. They are based on not on ly existing projects that have been delivered in the past but they are based on the Queensland Treasury’s own construction employment figures. So this is a big bo ost for the City of Brisbane, and we are prepared to back it. We are prepared to p ut the money in and create more than 7,000 jobs for Brisbane. But more importa ntly, these are construction jobs; this project will allow the city’s CBD to contin ue growing and creating jobs. If people can’t effectively get in and out of the CB D and inner-city areas to work, then the jobs will go elsewhere; that is a reality. Brisbane doesn’t want to miss out on those jobs. So by providing high quality pu blic transport infrastructure, our city’s CBD and inner-city can continue to grow as an employment hub for our city going forward. So we’ve got the short term b oost of construction jobs— Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired. DEPUTY MAYOR: —and a longer term boost as well. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 6 Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. On 3 May in t his Chamber, I asked you to please explain $101,430 paid by this Council to the State Penalties Enforcement Register (SPER) for unpaid infringements. In the Fi nance Committee Accounts for Payment from 31 May, there are cheques for ove r $60,000 to SPER for unpaid infringements, and in the 3 June Finance Committ ee Acounts for Payment, there are cheques of over $30,000 to SPER for unpaid i nfringements. Initially you said these payments were for unpaid tolls; then you s aid they were amounts Council has to pay to SPER to chase unpaid tolls. You said, “So SPER actually does the follow-up. It reaches a certain point in the process where SPER does the follow-up in relation to unpaid tolls. So we have t o pay fees in association with that.” My question is; why is the Brisbane City Co uncil paying SPER to chase unpaid tolls when Brisbane City Council receives n o tolling revenue? Given the tolling companies ultimately receive this revenue, why isn’t the cost of chasing these unpaid tolls being paid by the tolling compan ies themselves rather than the ratepayers of Brisbane? LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. It is a fairly simple explanation around this. Under the issue of enforcement within the se facilities, it can be carried out by a couple of entities, one of those being the Q ueensland Government or, in this case, its delegated authority. So, in this particu lar case, Brisbane City Council has got that delegated responsibility from the Qu eensland Government. That is why we are involved in it. It is the only reason we are involved in it. Again, I am not sure I can offer much more by way of explana tion to your question. Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, obviously the enforcement of the facilities is important so we have got that responsibility. So it is that, in the cases where people are no t responding to our enforcement actions, SPER then becomes the next line of act ion. As you would know, Madam Chairman, it was Minister Cameron Dick who put in place certain outcomes when people do not comply with SPER. That invo lves even the removal of a person’s driver’s licence. I can recall the press conference when Minister Cameron Dick at the time when he was not Health Minister, but previously, put those matters in place. He said y ou either pay the fine or you pay a price, and that price was losing the driver’s li cence. That is why SPER get engaged. If people do not pay what is rightfully the ir amounts to pay in relation to this infrastructure, then that is the consequence. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HOWARD. Question 7 Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chairman of City Planning, Councillor SIMMONDS. Brisbane has transformed over the years with recent d evelopment interest in key renewal areas, and recently we have also seen more i nternational investment in the property market throughout Brisbane. Can you ple ase update the Chamber on how international investment supports growth and jo bs within Brisbane? Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you very much to Councill or HOWARD for the question. It ties in very well with Councillor SRI’s previou s question as well, and the LORD MAYOR’s answer, because of course the con struction industry and the development industry in general is cyclical. It goes thr ough highs and lows. It is something the market is looking at right now, particul arly in response to the banks’ current discussion about tightening lending arrang ements around foreign investment. But it is important that we as a city and we as a Council send a message to the b ank and the market that Brisbane is not Sydney or Melbourne. Brisbane is uniqu ely placed to take advantage of foreign investment to grow and renew our city. T here is a couple of reasons for that. First of all, the Brisbane 2022 Action Plan th at the LORD MAYOR was talking about before. That includes, as one of the ke y industries that it is looking at to drive growth in Brisbane—and growth of cour se means employment—is the construction and development and renewal sector within Brisbane, along with others that the LORD MAYOR has mentioned, incl uding food and agri-business, medical, education and the like. We shouldn’t forget that this was the same strategy that the London Financial Ti mes awarded the number one foreign direct investment strategy—number one. O f all the cities—against Hong Kong, against every other Australian capital city, a gainst Dubai, against the great centres of the world, our foreign direct investmen t strategy was number one, because, as the LORD MAYOR said, we have made incentives. We have talked about particularly around hotels and student accomm odation, but as a benefit of being one Council, we have spoken with one voice to the international market, and we have welcomed foreign direct investment to gro w and renew our city. There are some fantastic examples that we have already se en with that. We know, of course, that we have the Shayher Group constructing the new W H otel up on the old State Courts site. That came about through some international education from the grandson of the owner of the company who fell in love with Brisbane when he was over here studying in Brisbane. That has translated. But more than that, with the incentives that we put in place for the hotel industry, we have seen investment from Taiwan, from the French, from Singapore, and from Chinese investors, and as the LORD MAYOR said, that has helped us grow our stock by more than 1,000 four, five and six-star beds in this city. So that has a fl

ow-on that we can attract the high quality events that we need to continue to cre ate jobs. We’ve got the Queen’s Wharf development which is, of course, a consortium be tween Star and Chow Tai Fook Enterprises creating over 2,000 jobs. We have H oward Smith Wharves as an urban renewal project which is going to push along now that the appellant is through the appeal process, so we can start to create job s. We mustn’t forget that 9.1% of all employment in Australia is driven by the con struction and development industry and employed directly in those jobs. We do n’t want to start seeing a handbrake put on this. Brisbane is not Sydney and Mel bourne. We are uniquely positioned to take advantage of direct investment. As well as the hotel investment strategy, we have done a very similar thing whe n it comes to student accommodation. As part of that, we have seen a 290% incr ease in the proposed beds for high quality student accommodation in this city in the past 12 months. There can be some great synergy that we are going to drive between the planning and development area of Council and what Brisbane Mark eting and our Economic Development team are doing. We want to encourage, th rough our Development area, design that speaks uniquely for Brisbane. When w e are selling our city nationally and internationally, that we have examples of de sign to speak for Brisbane, that we have examples of urban renewal that speak f or Brisbane, and Howard Smith Wharves is particularly one of those. At the end of the day, what the Brisbane 2022 Action Plan is trying to achieve is to make us one of the top 60 international destinations for foreign direct investm ent, to drive Brisbane jobs, which was dismissed, of course, by the Labor Counc illors simply as ‘blah, blah, blah’, yet awarded the number one foreign direct inv estment strategy in the world—something to consider. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Order! Councillor SUTTON! Councillor SUTTON, do no t speak when I am speaking. The four-year-olds at the Calamvale Early Learning Centre I visited a week and a half ago have got more self control and better beha viour than you’ve had in this Chamber— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: —since you’ve been re-sworn in. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor SUTTON, your continued, persistent and wilf ul disobedience in regards to my direction in this Chamber is appalling. I hereby caution you—

Warning – Councillor Shayne SUTTON The Chairman then formally warned Councillor SUTTON that unless she desisted from interrupting the proper course of the conduct of this meeting she would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor SUTTON was warned that, if she were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, unfortunately your time for question response has expi red. Further questions? Councillor CASSIDY. Question 8

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. In the Finance Committee Accounts for Payment document from 31 May, there is a cheque to JCDecaux City Cycle Australia Pty Ltd for $1,608,494 underwriting y ear 5 of the failed CityCycle scheme in Brisbane. Last week in this Chamber yo u tried to justify a payment of over $700,000 to Brisbane Marketing also for Cit yCycle. In just two weeks, this disastrous scheme has cost Brisbane ratepayers o ver $2.3 million. Will you today admit that your CityCycle scheme, which you c laimed would be cost-neutral, has been a financial disaster for the ratepayers of Brisbane? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, the reality is that Councillor CASSIDY is blaming all of this expenditure on CityCycle. The reality is that JCDecaux are used for a raft of initiatives, and I would refute the fact that CityCycle has been a disaster. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, on the same basis of logic—as I said here last week, on the same basis of logic, the Labor Party would close Brisbane Transport down. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY! Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: If they are talking— Chairman: Just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR. Councillor CASSIDY, do not call out in this Chamber. I have just given Council lor SUTTON a caution; you need to listen as well, and you all need to obey secti on 21 of the Meetings Local Law which relates to good order in this Chamber. Councillor SUTTON, you have a point of order. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair; it is misrepresentation. Only the LNP presented CityCycle a s being a cost-neutral proposition when they introduced the scheme. It has since cost us in excess of $8.3 million. Labor Councillors or State members— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, you do not debate a point of order. Councillor SUTTON: —have never said public transport should be subsidy free. Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON! Section 51 of the Meetings Local Law; when I spe ak, you cease. That was not an appropriate point of order. You do not debate or discuss contextually in relation to a point of order. It is not upheld. LORD MAYOR, would you like to continue with your response. LORD MAYOR: Well, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. The reality is that Labor, in their Tr ansport Plan of 2002-16, which they brought into this Chamber just prior to the m leaving Office, also promoted a CityCycle scheme. Former Councillor Abrah ams over there was continually promoting a CityCycle scheme. So we have a Ci tyCycle scheme in this city, as do some other capital cities around this nation. Again, it seems that it is all right for CityCat services to lose substantial moneys every year; it is all right for buses to lose substantial moneys every year. But so mehow or other, it is not okay in the case of CityCycle which forms part of an o verall transportation system. The numbers around CityCycle, as I have said previously, are continuing to gro w, and to grow significantly. If you look at it, and I don’t have very, very recent figures, and I do need to get some more recent ones, but what I can say is today we have 1,126 trips being taken on CityCycle and that is 90% up on where it wa s in 2012. So, what we are seeing—and I’ve got figures here which go back and

show that each and every year we are seeing around the 20-25% growth in the n umber of people utilising the CityCycle scheme. It is the case that we do believe that this scheme will, if you look at it in its narro w perspective as a bike hire scheme, it will become revenue-neutral, and that is s till a few years away, but it will. But I just say to the Labor Party this; that, for t heir own purposes, they look beyond this. They need to also take into account th at there are other aspects of JCDecaux which are involved in the advertising of c ampaigns which bring big job opportunities to this city. I will continue to say it, because it is absolutely the case. So when we have, for example, major promotional campaigns, we advertise the m. We advertise them in other states of this nation, particularly the eastern seabo ard in Sydney and Melbourne. I have indicated previously, in answer to the ques tion last time, how we were out internationally in the lead-up to G20 on 3,000 bi llboards around the globe through JCDecaux billboards. There is a differential h ere. Some of the advertising that we undertake within Australia through JCDeca ux is paid advertising. It is not all free advertising. That is in the same way as if you sometimes pick up your Sunday Mail here or your Saturday newspaper; wha t do you get? You get a massive brochure advertising the Livid Festival in Sydn ey or whatever it might be. So, promotion of these festivals is important in driving tourism. We have just be en talking about tourism. How do you get tourism? You don’t get it by sitting on your backside. You get it by being out there and advertising the fact that this cit y has a wonderful program of events, and attracting people to make the flights fr om Sydney and Melbourne, and to fill those hotel rooms and to create the jobs i n the restaurants and the retail sector and within the hotel itself, and enjoying thi s city and seeing what it has to offer. So, Madam Chairman, that is what it is about. If you look into it, I say though yo u, Madam Chairman, to the Councillor, it is important that you understand that it is far more than just looking at a set of bicycles when you look at this scheme. 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 30 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to report firstly, if I may, on a few things that I have been involved in over the last week. I undertook some cov erage in relation to responsible pet ownership. This is a very, very important part of our city’s work. We have around 101,000 dogs registered in our city. But eac h year we receive around 31,000 complaints. People often say, what do I get for my registration fee for my companion dog? Well, the reality is that we are out th ere servicing those complaints each and every year. We see in this city still too many dog attacks. It has come down over the years, b ut still too many. So we are about promoting animals being microchipped. For e xample, there is, of those 31,000 complaints, the overwhelming majority is wher e animals have been lost. We have had a significant number of animals that get l ost every year, and we need to make sure that we try to get them back to their o wners. Again we remind people that they need to get their animals either microchipped or at least have a collar with a clearly identifiable tag saying how we can contact the owners. There is nothing worse, particularly for young children, when a fami

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 16 - ly companion animal is lost, and of course it is so easy to have them retrieved if we’ve got a tag or a microchip. We again just appeal to people to please do that. Animal noise is another issue. We had 6,100 complaints around animal noise, an d wandering dogs, 4,000. There is a whole host of things. It is very important if you are going to have a pet to make sure that you are responsible with that pet, t hat you treat it as a family member, and everybody then in the urban environme nt can get the joy and benefit out of a companion animal while at the same time being respectful of those others in the community around you. Some of the Councillors and visitors to City Hall over the last week might have seen a film set down operating in the foyer of City Hall and the surrounds. That i s to do with the Paul Hogan biopic. Josh Lawson, a Brisbane boy now living in Hollywood, is the main actor associated with that; he plays Paul Hogan. City Ha ll has been used for the purposes of Logies. It was used as the venue for the pre miere of Crocodile Dundee, and other Council venues around the city, including a property at Burbank, have been utilised as part of the set for that Paul Hogan b iopic. I had the opportunity late last week to be out with Kevin, who is one of the selle rs of The Big Issue in Brisbane. I thank Kevin for his hospitality and for looking after me during a period of sales on the streets. I take my hat off to Kevin and ot hers like him who are out there. They could be sitting at home, but they are out t here selling The Big Issue. It’s the 20th year edition just out, and I commend that edition to all Councillors as I do all editions. These are people who are out there trying to make it happen for themselves and earning a dollar. They are simply as king for a hand up, not a hand out. So I very much thank Kevin again for his hel p in undertaking the sales that morning. With respect to the storm on Saturday, we didn’t cop what was being predicted, thankfully. But to summarise, we did hand out some 37,000 sandbags at each of our depots. Most of those were at Zillmere and Newmarket, though there were st ill significant numbers of sandbags given at Morningside and Darra, so quick nu mbers—Zillmere, 11,400; 6,200 at Morningside; Lota was just 916; Newmarket was 12,500; and Darra, 6,100. We have those four sandbag making machines th at can make around 1,200 per machine per hour. Again, a big thank you to the S ES. They had a total of 199 requests for assistance, and over 190 of those were f or roofing jobs, so obviously leaking roofs associated with the heavy rains. On Sunday we welcome the Qantas Wallabies to Brisbane. They will, of course, be playing England in the Cook Cup series; three matches, the first of which will be in Brisbane next Saturday night at Suncorp Stadium. It was great to have the boys in town, and they spent a lot of time signing material—jerseys and other fr anchise material, note pads and all sorts of things for their fans. So we thank the m for that. Ice skating is coming back to King George Square. This is a great activity that h as been held in previous years. It hasn’t been there for the last couple of years. I guess that was to give it a chance to let the grass grow back, I don’t know. But n onetheless, ice skating will be returning, and that will be from 17 June. It was a great spectacle in the previous years that it has been here. The Council of Mayors today gave a call for all candidates in the Federal electio n to sign up for infrastructure—road, public transport and freight infrastructure a round South East Queensland. I was joined with some other mayors and councill ors from the south-east sector today in a broad call for all candidates to make sur e—and indeed, it was a call for the people of South East Queensland to make su re that they contact their candidates. We are very much about fighting for the be st possible deal we can get for infrastructure in the south-east corner. We’ve got several items on the agenda today. The first of those, item A, is the S eaview Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI). The Seaview Hotel was b rought to Council in June last year. It was subsequently adopted and effective in August 2015. The Temporary Local Planning Instrument was introduced to ensu re that the Seaview Hotel was protected during the period Council undertook the Major Amendments package. As we know, this process for making major amen

dments to the City Plan is a lengthy process, and can take as long as two years, b y the time it goes backwards and forwards, with State interest checks and then St ate approvals and so forth. It is a long process. Obviously public comment and t he provision for submissions and assessing those submissions by the general pub lic is a part of that. In this Chamber last week we saw the Major Amendments come through, which included the heritage listing of the Seaview Hotel. So it is clear that the process i s well and truly on its way to have it formally recognised in our Brisbane City Pl an. The TLPI before us today is to ensure that it remains protected until the Maj or Amendments are finalised and adopted by this Brisbane City Plan. Item B is the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21. The Corporate Plan is Counci l’s principal medium-term planning document. It has been refreshed in line with the requirements of the City of Brisbane Act. The 2016-17 to 2021 Corporate Pl an outlines progress made towards achieving Brisbane Vision 2031 goals. It reit erates our commitment towards tackling traffic congestion, fostering economic d evelopment and enhancing our lifestyle and leisure opportunities. It also emphas ises a number of key priorities for Council which include delivering major cong estion busting projects such as the Kingsford Smith Drive and Wynnum Road u pgrades, increasing public transport options by growing the CityCat fleet, and de livering the Brisbane Metro. It looks at growing our Active Transport network with 35 new bikeway projects; enhancing our city’s liveability with 10 new outdoor gymnasiums; delivering en hancements at Mt Coot-tha, including new walking trails and a zipline; maintain ing our position as one of Australia’s most sustainable cities by continuing to pr omote effective energy and carbon management schemes with the aim of achievi ng a 100% carbon neutral status. Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. 554/2015-16 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: LORD MAYOR, please continue. LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank the Chamber. It also goes to protectin g land with significant present and potential ecological value, by purchasing 75 0 hectares of land through the Bushland Acquisition Program; partnering with L one Pine Koala Sanctuary to deliver a new koala research centre; continuing our support for local festivals and events as well as support for Brisbane’s striving ar ts and cultural scene; working with regional partners to improve waterway healt h and security; building the infrastructure needed for a growing digitally enabled economy, with a roll out of Wi-Fi at key suburban centres; and delivering worl d-class economic precincts. Item C is the City West Neighbourhood Plan. The City West Neighbourhood Pla n before us today is a statutory amendment to the Brisbane City Plan. Following endorsement from Council today, it will proceed to its second State interest revi ew. Once the State has confirmed that Council has adequately addressed any and all State interests within the area of the Neighbourhood Plan, it will proceed to p ublic consultation on the proposed amendment. However, it is worth noting that, to get to this point in the process, Council has already undertaken extensive enga gement with the community. In February last year we kicked off the process here in Council with the start of t he statutory process. Following this step, we progressed to seeking nominations to be part of the Community Planning Team. During this period, we also held th ree Talk to a Planner events, and we received a lot of positive feedback on how t his precinct could be renewed. The feedback was used to create a draft City Wes t Renewal Strategy which was released in August 2015 for further community c onsultation. The draft City West Renewal Strategy focused on key transformatio

n areas; the Normanby Renewal Site, Neal McCrossan Park, the Stadium Plaza, Caxton Street, Victoria Barracks, and Petrie Terrace. This draft Strategy document was taken out for public consultation and received 42 submissions. The feedback we received from the Renewal Strategy was used to draft the Neighbourhood Plan we have before us today. This Neighbourhood Plan focuses on renewal of three key precincts—the Caxton Street area, the Nor manby site, and that of the Victoria Barracks. The rest of the Neighbourhood Pla n boundary is focused on recognising the significant character housing within th e area, and increasing the protection of these homes. Item D is the Bulimba Barracks Temporary Local Planning Instrument. I know Councillor SUTTON will be eager to see the TLPI returned to Council. It is a sit uation where the Deputy Premier has approved the TLPI for the Bulimba Barrac ks, and if Council resolves to approve the TLPI today, it will then be adopted for a period of one year. The TLPI was originally introduced to ensure that a future development proposal would be assessed against the community expectations ou tlined in the Master Plan. The Master Plan was a result of extensive community consultation with the residents of Bulimba and Balmoral. The Master Plan, as this Chamber will recall, included provisions for sport and r ecreation land, allocation of heights with low density buffers to surround residen tial. In addition, Council is progressing an amendment to the City Plan to ensure that provisions for zoning are reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan. However, I u nderstand that if things progress well, EDQ will be the owners of the site who w ill undertake to develop the site in accordance with the Master Plan. So that wou ld be a great outcome, but we will wait and see what happens over time. The next one, item E, is the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Fin ancial Report for the period ending March 2016. As you can see from the metric s, this Administration is effectively managing Council’s finances, in particular n et debt, which has reduced due to the Queensland Urban Utility (QUU) loan rest ructure some time ago. The metrics, if you have a look at them, shows as follow s; the interest coverage, which should be less than 10, is actually 5.23; the debt s ervicing as a percentage of total income, which should be under 33, is 8.3. The net debt as a proportion of total income, which we seek to be under 150%, i s currently at 73.5%; the working capital, which should be more than 1 when yo u redraw all working capital facility, is actually at 3.07. The total assets as a pro portion of total liabilities, which should be more than 3, is at 8.7 and the average debt maturity, which we strive to have at under 15 years, is currently at 13.97 ye ars. So against those ratios, the health of the organisation is fine and, God bless, will continue to be so. The last item is that of the widening of Milton Road at Toowong. This is a matte r that goes back virtually to 2003, I think it started, it terms of negotiations, back when Tim Quinn was Mayor. That is how long it has been going. This final item, Milton Road, is obviously a very important road corridor in Brisbane, and Coun cil is rightly investing in future congestion busting projects. So it is about makin g sure that we have got land available for a time when that is required. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING.

Seriatim - Clauses A,C and D, and B and F Councillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause A, TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 04/16 PROTECTION OF THE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE SEAVIEW HOTEL, 65 PIER AVENUE, SHORNCLIFFE, Clause C, CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, and Clause D, TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 03/16 REDEVELOPMENT OF BULIMBA BARRACKS, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes, and that Clause B, CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020-21, and Clause F, WIDENING OF MILTON ROAD, TOOWONG, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Councillor CUMMING: In relation to item A, obviously we support this TLPI. Councillor CASSIDY, in whose ward the building is found in, will speak on that one.

In relation to item B, my general comments on this one are that unfortunately it i s full of motherhood statements and very short on detail. I did a comparison bet ween this Corporate Plan and the Corporate Plan from four years ago, and unfort unately the detail that was in the previous Corporate Plan of objectives of Counc il, you know, numbers and percentages, most of them have disappeared in this C orporate Plan, which is a bit sad. I guess if you haven’t got any targets, then you can’t be pulled up for not reaching your targets, I suppose. I refer to a few of them here. At 1.6, Focus on the River, Bay and Waterways, ba ck in the 2012 Corporate Plan, it said one of the medium-term objectives was “8 5% of Brisbane’s community will recognise and value the contribution Brisban e’s waterways make to the liveability of the city.” The 85% has disappeared; no w it is “Brisbane’s community recognise and values the contribution Brisbane’s waterways make to the liveability of the city.” So that is one that has disappeare d. In relation to 1.9, Managing and Reducing Brisbane’s Waste and Litter, in the ol d Corporate Plan there were specific targets there for the Valley. There was redu cing “on-ground litter levels to less than 60 pieces of litter per litter count area b y 2017. This equates to a minimum 37% reduction in on-ground litter compared to July 2009.” Well, that has all gone from the new Corporate Plan. Again, it is disappointing to see that happening. In relation to 4.1, Thriving Arts and Culture, the old Corporate Plan had specific targeted objectives. “Achieve 75% resident satisfaction with Council’s provision of arts and cultural facilities and events; Achieve 75% resident satisfaction with significant festivals such as Brisbane Festival and the Queensland Music Festiva l”, and also that “the Brisbane Powerhouse will attract more than 300,000 visitor s per year.” In the current Corporate Plan, the one proposed that we are bringing to Council today, those two 75% targets have disappeared. In relation to the Powerhouse, all the Corporate Plan says is, “the Brisbane Powe rhouse is a key destination for visitors to participate in the culture of our city.” I n other words, they don’t really care how many people turn up or don’t turn up, but it is a significant destination, so that’s the target. I think it is fairly poor that t hat should be the case. I would have thought if you were aiming to improve your performance, you should have a concrete target. The next one is libraries. Under the old Corporate Plan, Council libraries will ha ve 400,000 members, and there is no membership target in the new Corporate Pl an. That has gone all together. So that is disappointing, I think. The Council has looked at visits, but I would have thought it is important to have as many people, as broad a section, a cross-section of the rate-paying public and people living in Brisbane attending libraries rather than just perhaps a smaller number of people attending more often. I would have thought the wider you can make it, the better, and having a target relating to the number of people who are actually members of the library is an important target. So it is disappointing to see that one has dis appeared as well. At 4.3, Active and Healthy Communities, again there were specific targets; “Ac hieve 75% resident satisfaction with Council’s provision of fitness activities in which residents can participate; Achieve 70% resident awareness of Council’s A ctive and Healthy Lifestyle program; 80% of sporting and recreation clubs leasin g Council properties are positive about Council’s engagement with them.” Thos e three percentages have all disappeared altogether. In the first one, the Brisbane community is satisfied with Council’s provision of fitness and recreation activities. That is what it says; the Council will “provide s upport to sporting and recreational clubs leasing Council properties”, but it does n’t say anything about the clubs having to be happy with the treatment they’ve g ot. Again, that has disappeared. I know a few clubs that don’t like the way they’ ve been treated by Council, and perhaps that is more widespread than I would be lieve. In relation to 4.5, Community Sport and Recreation Facilities, again there was a specific target of “80% resident satisfaction with Council’s provision of sporting

and recreational facilities, such as pools, golf courses, halls and sports grounds”, and also “80% of customers satisfied with Council’s management of major venu es, such as the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium, Riverstage, Council pools and golf courses.” Under the new plan, those percentages have disappeared again. The old plan also had an “80% of leased Council facilities achieve a Council ‘C’ rating and are fit for purpose”, and “condition audits are completed on 20% of le ased Council facilities each year. Council audits are completed on 25% of Coun cil’s sports fields annually; Uundertake an annual review of 95% of all sporting, recreational and community lessees of Council facilities”, and “75% of lessees a re satisfied with Council’s management of its community facilities.” Well, all of those percentages have disappeared from the new Corporate Plan. Perhaps someone can explain why this is the case, why there have been so many changes made in terms of reducing targets and putting in a vague form of words instead. Perhaps the Administration is a bit complacent and feels they don’t have to be tested like that anymore. In relation to other parts of the Corporate Plan, I was disappointed right from the start, I guess, in terms of the stats used for the City of Brisbane. This is all about the City of Brisbane, and yet right on page 4, the stats used are for the Greater B risbane economy and the Greater Brisbane population, which I would understan d to be not only Brisbane but the surrounding local authorities of Redlands, Log an, Ipswich and Moreton. It is disappointing; this is the Brisbane City Council C orporate Plan, not the regional corporate plan, and we should be able to get stats that relate to the City of Brisbane. I query why that was done. I am assuming the medium-term objectives are all to be completed within this te rm of Council. I think that follows as logical, but it doesn’t actually say in the do cument that that is the case. On page 6, the Brisbane Vision 2031 states the obje ctive for Brisbane is to be regarded as a top 10 lifestyle city worldwide. I am just concerned how this is to be measured; what objective criteria are used for that, whether there is some measuring agency that is regarded as the organisation that can make that sort of judgment. In relation to the zipline which the LORD MAYOR mentioned as well, we think it is a good project, but we are concerned about whether trees will have to be re moved for the project to be undertaken, and if so, how many trees, and how old t he trees will be. That is a concern that we have. On page 18, there is a big call under the heading, Pollution Free— Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your time has expired. 555/2015-16 Councillor Peter CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, please proceed. Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the Chamber. Under the heading, Pollutio n Free City, under the objectives, it says, “Brisbane’s air quality improves.” No w, Madam Chairman, I guess this is an objective, but I would have thought, if th ere is to continue to be growth in Brisbane, and growth in the region—and the re ason I reference the region is that, of course, most of the jobs in the region are in the City of Brisbane; they are in the CBD of Brisbane; they are in the port area a nd the airport area. The TradeCoast area and the big universities all have their ca mpuses in Brisbane, the big hospitals, et cetera. If there is going to be continued growth in South East Queensland, I would have thought the number of cars on the road is going to increase, and that will mean more air pollution and worse air quality. So I would be interested to know how t he Administration are optimistically believing that Brisbane air quality will impr ove. We would love to see people flooding in to using public transport—the bus es and the trains, getting off the road and improving air quality—that would be g

reat if that could occur, but I think Brisbane probably would be a bit of a world f irst if it achieved that objective. The only thing that I can think of that would make that occur would be if there h ad been some sort of disastrous collapse in the economy and unemployment up t o about 10%, because you don’t need to drive your car to work if you haven’t go t a job. We all hope and pray that that won’t be what is going to happen in South East Queensland. So I am interested to know how Council came up with that pro posal, and an explanation as to why Brisbane is not giving people sort of false h ope by making such a claim. On page 20, we are dealing with bus patronage, and it is to increase to more than 90 million trips a year. Again, this is another big call. We have been discussing t his in the Committee recently. Currently there is about 75 million trips, so that means in four years there will be an increase of 15 million, and 15 million on 7 5 million is a 20% increase in patronage on the buses in four years. As I said, tha t is another very big call as well. CityCat passengers will increase to seven million passengers. I think I asked the relevant Chair today at Committee what CityCat current patronage is, so I am int erested to know what that is at present, so how big an increase seven million is. There is another point that I would like some comment on. It says that Council will work with TransLink to pursue ticketing options that are better suited to ferr y customers. I am just interested to know what that is. Also, under the information about traffic management planned around schools, t he Corporate Plan says that Council will install improvements to schools that co mplete a Traffic Management Plan. I am just wondering on what basis that has b een offered. I know there are a number of my schools in my area that are keen a ctive school transport schools, but I can’t recall any of them telling me they had been offered the chance to get better facilities if they undertook a Traffic Manag ement Plan. On page 22 is reference to the pedestrian countdown timers. I think they are a w orthy objective, but I just wonder whether they are going to be installed in the o uter suburbs or just inner-city. On page 24, at 3.1, Planning for a Growing City, the medium-term objective is provisioning to “provide a range of attractive hous ing options for Brisbane residents.” The second objective is, “promote a range o f housing choices to facilitate affordable housing.” I am interested to know how this is to be done, as I haven’t seen any interest in affordable housing from the c urrent Administration. Page 26 of the Corporate Plan deals with Approving Quality Development. One of the key objectives is “carry out compliance and enforcement of planning, buil ding and plumbing legislation requirements.” I am a bit sceptical about this one from what I see around the city with developments. They are being approved by private certifiers. There is very little compliance being done, especially compare d to the old days. The Council approach, when they are queried over buildings t hat don’t comply with the approved plans, the wording used is; as long as the bu ilding is generally in accordance with the approved plan, then that is sufficient f or Council. Often, ‘generally in accordance’ means a long way short of being str ictly in accordance with it. That is not something that leaves neighbours to devel opments very happy at all. The infrastructure charges and liabilities are referred to, and I would be intereste d to see whether in the budget again this year the amount of revenue raised from those infrastructure charges on particular topics like drainage well and truly exce ed what Council is spending on drainage, which I think is quite wrong. Councillor interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: Massively, that’s right, which effectively means the money is being used to cros s-subsidise other services which the developer wasn’t intending to be paying for, but that is what happens with the money because it is not spent on drainage. At page 26, “maintain and enhance Brisbane heritage and traditional building ch aracter”, this is a matter of some debate. We have always had a question on that,

but I notice in a newspaper article in The Courier-Mail the other day 900 house s, I think, have been demolished in the last 10 years. That was their estimate of h ow many houses had been demolished. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillors interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: But what I do know, having had a neighbourhood plan in Wynnum Manly, and my colleagues and everyone else knows as well, when you get a neighbourhood plan, you get hundreds and hundreds of houses taken off the list of protected hou ses, every time as a neighbourhood plan goes through. So, it is a one-way trend s ort of thing. It’s a one-way trend. On page 28, under the topic, Thriving Arts and Cultures, it says Council support s “high quality accessible festivals that celebrate Brisbane’s diverse culture, arts and creativity and which will attract more than two million attendees.” I am inte rested to know whether these are festivals which Council gives grants to or whet her it is like Brisbane Marketing, where they wave the magic wand and support t he Wallabies game as though they’d actually helped to fund it rather than just so me other organisation having organised it and paid for it. So I am interested to k now who counts the numbers and who audits the counters. Council libraries will have six million visitors each year. I am interested to kno w what the current level is, so what sort of objective that is compared to—this is not members but this is visitors to the libraries each year. One I found interesting, and I know it’s an election promise for the Administrati on, on page 30, Active and Healthy Communities; delivering new BMX tracks a t Darra and Fitzgibbon, and that is great, but Wynnum Manly has a BMX track, and I think this is the only one in the City of Brisbane. This club has had to scra pe and save and apply for grants and rely on assistance from the local Councillor to survive, and they have done brilliantly over the years, but they compete again st clubs from surrounding councils whose tracks are fully built and maintained b y their local council. I know that the Bayside BMX Club do not resent Council establishing other club s in the City of Brisbane, but I think if they ever need to have any more work do ne on their track, or any extensions, I think they would like to see some Council money rather than it all going to Darra and Fitzgibbon. I would also be intereste d to know what budget has been allocated to those two tracks. I would be interes ted to see what a Council project costs, whereas good old Wynnum has done all the work on the track themselves with working bees. On page 32, Community Sport and Recreation Facilities, with respect to the Cou ncil pools, the object is the maintaining patronage of two million people per year for Council pools. I decry the lack of ambition here. Why aren’t they aiming to g et a higher level of patronage at the pools? Why are we sticking at the two millio n? There is all this talk about new pools and improved pools; why shouldn’t we be expecting a higher patronage? I would like an explanation of that. On page 34, on Public Health, the objective is to increase the number of register ed dogs. Is this happening at present? I would be interested to see a bar chart ove r the last 10 years on the dog registration numbers. Also, as to the 1,400 properti es being checked for compliance with pool safety laws, is that an increase— Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your extension has expired. 556/2015-16 Councillor Peter CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of the LORD MAYOR, seconded by Councillor David McLACHLAN.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, you have the floor.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think I’ve got about half an hour to go, s o that’s great. No, I’ll be finished within this 10 minutes, I am sure. On page 35, there is reference to SES membership numbers. The aim is to have, I think, 1,000 members in Brisbane each year, but I just wanted to know how ma ny SES members there are in Brisbane at present. Also, there is an objective of maximising a higher level of safety in the community through safety audits and educational activities. I am interested to know what type of venues this is done a t. Is it nightclubs or what is it? What is Council looking at, because I think poten tially that is an important program, but I would really like to know what it is bei ng directed at. In relation to page 38, there is delivering the Brisbane New World City Action P lan, and the target is to get 12 major events in the city within the next five years. I would like to know how many major events Council claim at present. Councillor interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: Yes, but you didn’t have 12 of them. The person who gave the presentation said the target was 12, but they didn’t say how many they claim to have at present an d how many more they needed to get. But anyhow, Councillor ADAMS, if you would respond to that. Some of the percentages were kept—very few of them—but on page 41, there is one in relation to Service Delivery and Council’s dealing with business and resi dents, and the objective is “85% of businesses and residents surveyed agree that it is easy to get in contact with Council.” I am interested to know what it is at pr esent. The next target is that “83% of residents and businesses surveyed are satis fied with Council’s service delivery (across all channels of contact).” I am a bit i ntrigued why it is 85% above and 83% are below, and I just want to know what i t is now and what is the science behind the percentage. I am sure there is no scie nce at all. Perhaps it is a growth figure and added into the existing satisfaction le vel. With respect to City Parking—good old City Parking—on page 52, one of the k ey actions is “identify new cleaning contracts and provide new improved signag e and maintenance of cleaning assets such as scribblers and sweepers.” That is v ery intriguing; I would like to know a bit about that. Also there is reference to Ci ty Parking maintaining its current market share. I would like to know what the c urrent market share is and how it is measured. That’s the first part I’ve finished now. The City West Neighbourhood Plan will be dealt with by Councillor SUTTON, as will item D, the TLPI for the Bulimba Barracks. In relation to the Annual Ope rational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report, where the previous report came before Council not too long ago, I do have some questions on that. One wa s the level of liabilities—it is on one of the early pages at page 13—total liabiliti es; actual to date liabilities are some $400 million above the approved annual bu dget. I am just interested to know how that should come about, and some explan ation of that from Councillor ADAMS would be appropriate, I would have thou ght. On page 24—and I have seen this on a number of occasions recently about the C ouncil’s 100% GreenPower project, and the comment is that the renewable ener gy market has risen greatly over the past six months and Council requires additi onal resources to meet the commitment. That raises the issue whether there has been a commitment to provide those resources, and I am interested to know if th at is the case, and if so, how much extra it is costing Council this year to meet th at commitment. If it is not being met, I would like to know about that as well, ob viously. I couldn’t find the figure on the Cannon Hill Community Links projects. There i s a permanent leachate disposal system proposed, which seems a good idea, but I couldn’t find a figure on how much that is actually costing. On page 45, I have just a quick query about the Community Facilities Development and Maintenanc e service. There is a variance of $1.5 million due to rephased grant funding reve nue for the skate facilities project from the Queensland Government. My query i

s whether there is a problem there, whether the Government is not happy with h ow the project is progressing or what it is, or if it is just a timing issue. I would b e interested to know that. Just below that, with respect to Community Halls Service, a variance of $1.249 million due to rephased expenditure for SunPAC funding to meet contractual ti me frames. Pardon my ignorance, but I haven’t heard of SunPAC funding before in relation to community halls, but I am sure— Councillor interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: Not Suncorp; SunPAC. Councillor interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you very much. Sports Complexes, on page 47, there is quite a large unfavourable variance for Sports Complexes of $321,000—a permanent figure, and I am just interested to know how that has come up. Also, we have the golf is sue which I raised last time this came to the Chamber, on page 48, with a big dro p, $347,000 unfavourable figure for revenue from golf leasing and golf green fe es for obviously the public courses, but it is claimed to be temporary. There will have to be a flood of people coming to play golf at the Council cours es in the next three months, I would have thought, to get rid of an unfavourable variance of $347,000. I understand that golf is tending to struggle in Australia an d worldwide a bit for players, and I just hope that is not the start of a trend for th e Council courses. The question I asked Councillor ADAMS this morning at Committee was just a bout the wording on page 59: the Management of Financial Systems and Proces ses has a variance of $11,039,000 due to rephased commercial rates revenue and a lower than anticipated general rates revenue. So some explanation there would be very useful. Last but not least, the bus patronage on the Brisbane Transport business activity results for the first three quarters of the year is 56.1 million which on my calcula tion means 74.8 million would be over the four quarters, and as I said, referring t o the earlier target of 90 million is an extremely generous target to reach. Counci llor SUTTON will talk on the widening of Milton Road as well. I would like to t hank you for giving me two extensions. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak in regard to item C, which is the— Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: I don’t think I can, Councillor SUTTON. Nor will I try. Item C, the City West N eighbourhood Plan, is an important plan for the ward because it covers the area of Petrie Terrace which also includes Normanby and Caxton Streets within there. This is one of the oldest suburbs in our city, and certainly for the residents that l ive there, they love it with a passion. For them it is about making sure that a lot of the important aspects of it are greatly protected. That, Madam Chairman, is o ne of the most important things that this plan does. There is so much great heritage within that precinct of local architecture within t hose local homes that people actually live in, but also within commercial charact er buildings such as the Victoria Barracks. This document is so important about being able to protect those pre-1911 buildings and those character homes, and it is a clear indication of this side of the Chamber’s strong commitment to that pro cess and making sure that we do value and protect those things in our precincts t hat so greatly encompass what Brisbane is about. I want to acknowledge the work that the officers have put in to this process and all of the residents who attended and were part of this as well. There was a great engagement that took place around not only the protection of the character of co mmercial and residential buildings but also about the entertainment precinct that is Caxton Street, the discussion about the Normanby, Suncorp as well, and the o

pen space opportunities that are available down there within the piazza—all of t hese things were thrown on to the table. There were a lot of residents there that do utilise active modes of travel, such as cycling and walking, because of the close proximity to the city, and providing th ose opportunities also for green space within those local areas. Certainly when y ou look at where we are, it is literally a stone’s throw away from the city, just ab ove Roma Street. The Hardgrave Park and some of the other small pocket parks within there are such an important part for those open space opportunities for res idents as well. But also within the precinct of Petrie Terrace itself, looking at the parking, how we can best maximise it, retaining that on-street parking along the terrace and fi nding that balance is an important part of what this document has also solved. T he Plan itself has ticked so many boxes in regards to those local residents, and to the planning process. As we move forwards with this, the aspect of Victoria Barracks I think cannot b e understated. Council in the past has done significant and great work in regards to the police barracks and the outcomes that were achieved out there. We have ta ken an old site and turned it into such a vibrant local area with restaurants, cafes, the cinema complex, and the retail outlets. The police barracks up there are alwa ys busy, and they are always activated. It is such an important opportunity, depe nding on what the Federal Government decides to do with the Victoria Barracks in the future, to be able to protect the values of such an important site in the hist ory of our city while at the same time providing activation and open space oppor tunities I think is something that Council has embraced well within this plan. So, Madam Chairman, I look forward to the opportunities that arise from this an d finding that balanced outcome for residents and traders out there. But I also gr eatly embrace the real opportunities within this plan to protect those pre-1911 bu ildings and character homes, and retain the character and the wonderful era of hi story that is Petrie Terrace. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chair; I am going to speak on items A and B thi s evening. First to item A, the Seaview Hotel Temporary Local Planning Instru ment. Of course, I rise to speak in support of the extension to the TLPI. The Sea view Hotel has stood for the past 135 years, give or take a couple of months, in Pier Avenue in Shorncliffe, which was formerly Kate Street in Sandgate. While the Seaview Hotel wasn’t the first hotel to have been established in the lo cal area, it was certainly established very early on after European settlement in 1 881, just 20 years after the bridge was built linking the southern side of Cabbage Tree Creek which is now modern day Boondall to the town of Sandgate. Robert Todd, who established the Seaview Hotel, certainly had a lot of foresight in esta blishing this hotel, given the rail line was due to be constructed in 1882. Following this, the Sandgate area of course became known as a tourist mecca. Fl inders Parade was dotted with guest houses; children and old people alike were brought out for rest and recuperation in the sea breeze. The Shorncliffe area bec ame a holiday destination for people of all walks of life, and the Governor, of co urse, at the time had a holiday house which now forms the centre of St Patrick’s School there in Pier Avenue. What is now Pier Avenue was the centre of Sandgate’s commercial activity in th ese early days. The original Town Hall was located up there near the Seaview H otel, and it wasn’t until fire destroyed that in the early 1900s that the business ce ntre for Sandgate itself shifted down to Brighton Road, and the Town Hall was r econstructed there in 1911. For almost all of the past 135 years, the Seaview Hotel has served as a meeting p lace for locals and visitors alike, and it became much more than just a pub for m any people in the local area, not just Shorncliffe. It still retains the original facad e of the building, and while there have been many additions over the years, it cer

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 26 - tainly retains its original purpose as a community meeting place. The building h as a history and a place there in Shorncliffe and the wider community on the nor thside. Its continued protection in the City Plan is something that the community fully supports. I think most people—and I say most people—likely will accept the likelihood of its returning as a pub is very, very low. Some hold out hope. What people gener ally want is for this building to be retained in its current state, and that is why w e are supporting the extension of the TLPI and its inclusion in City Plan as a heri tage listed place. I do want to acknowledge also that St Patrick’s College have sa id that they intend to maintain the building as it stands, using it as ancillary servi ces for the school. They have committed to working with the community in term s of detail and future plans for the school as a whole. I do just want to touch on item B, the Corporate Plan. I don’t think I will speak a s long as Councillor CUMMING did on that, but I will give it a red hot go. First to Program 4, Your Brisbane. I will just reiterate some of the things that the Lea der of the Opposition has there, and the most glaring omission I think is those ke y metrics. In the previous Corporate Plan, there was a way in which Council’s a ctivities were measured against expectations and experiences of people in Brisba ne. So those KPIs in most cases have been dropped from this Corporate Plan. So we don’t have any way necessarily of measuring outcomes there. It says here, Council libraries will have six million visits each year. That is no in crease on the previous Corporate Plan. I would have thought that with all the libr ary upgrades that have happened and are planned to happen, and the constructio n of new libraries, that we may have aimed for more than exactly the same amou nt of visitors that we have had over the last four years, I would have thought. In terms of Council pools, we see here that patronage is expected to be maintain ed at two million people per year for Council pools. Again, that is no increase on the previous Corporate Plan. Considering that we have had a new pool construct ed at Bracken Ridge, and pool upgrades that are planned to happen, I would hav e thought again that we would perhaps have an increase or at least aspire to attra ct more people, whether it’s the same people visiting pools more or new people coming to our pools in fact. Moving on to Program 2, Moving Brisbane; first of all Promoting Active Transp ort. There is a lot of talk about increasing the number of trips being taken by bic ycle and walking, but there is a lot of failure in delivering key suburban connecti ons for cycling infrastructure here. The budget, what we know, will be $20 milli on less this term for bicycle infrastructure, down from $120 million last term, ye t with that $120 million last term, time and time again we have seen that the mo ney is wasted on painting yellow pictures of bikes on roads rather than investing in key infrastructure that will actually provide well connected and safe cycling r outes. Not once does this Corporate Plan actually talk about consulting with bicy cle user groups at all to determine the priority for this infrastructure, so I think th at is a key failing. When we talk about Public Transport at 2.2, the LNP say one thing when it com es to this, but they do another thing all together. One of the few remaining KPIs in this Corporate Plan that hasn’t been binned from the previous Corporate Plan is bus and ferry patronage, which was touched on by the Leader of the Oppositio n earlier. The Administration is certainly reaching for the stars in saying that we are going to have 90 million patrons on our buses by 2021, and seven million on ferries by 2021. The only problem is that is the exact same number that was quoted in the previous Corporate Plan, so there have been no increases whatsoever. Not only t hat, what are we seeing, instead of reaching the KPI in the previous Corporate Pl an, bus patronage has fallen from over 80 million in 2011-12 to just 75.6 million passengers in 2014-15. It looks as if we may be on track for an even lower numb er this financial year. There has been a consistent decline in this area under the LORD MAYOR’s wat ch. So ferry patronage has fallen from 5.9 million in 2012-13 to just a little bit o

ver five million in 2014-15. We have also seen a significant decline in the numb er of services. Since the LORD MAYOR came to Office, there are 94 less buses on Brisbane’s roads; there are 270,913 less bus services provided annually, 4.5 million less people using our buses, and 1.2 million less people using our ferries. These figures are damning, yet we see in this Corporate Plan that there is no pla n to build on anything there. They have just simply copied and pasted the last as piration and no plan to reach it whatsoever. When we look at CityCats in this Corporate Plan, there is exactly half the numbe r of proposed new CityCats than the previous one over the next four years. We s ee there that the Corporate Plan says; Council will “promote ferry services as a f ast and efficient public transport option.” What we know, though, with ferry ter minals having dual moorings in many cases in new ferry terminals, as we saw in the Public Transport Committee this morning, yet we have seen a massive reduc tion here in the acquisition of new boats. We have seen petitions just in recent w eeks come to this Chamber around increasing ferry terminals, particularly in We st End to cater for the explosion in local population, yet this Administration says no. When it comes to CityCats, just like buses, it is very much saying one thing and doing another entirely, and of course the LORD MAYOR has skin in this game, having voted against the introduction of CityCats, all those years ago, into our ri ver. So I suppose reading the Corporate Plan, at least maybe the LORD MAYO R realises he made a mistake back then, perhaps. Of course, the most interesting one in here is just the one little line there; “Plan a nd commence delivery of Brisbane Metro”—what do they call it—“Subway Sys tem”. Plenty of people rightly point out that there are going to be significant issu es with this so-called Brisbane Metro Subway System. We hear the LORD MA YOR spruiking about this being a subway, yet we know it will have something li ke 300 metres of underground—300 metres of underground. That is not much of a subway. We have even seen the LORD MAYOR struggle to explain the capacity of this — Councillor interjecting. Councillor CASSIDY: No, I am not going to sit down, Councillor BOURKE; I won’t do that. We have seen the— Councillor interjecting. Councillor CASSIDY: —absolute capacity of any train system like this one in service, so any train syst em like this one—and that is what a metro is; it’s an underground train system g enerally— Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak on items B and E that are before u s today, and probably won’t take 30 minutes because it is very easy to sum up th e Corporate Plan and the answers to all of the questions. I am sure everybody go t every one of those ones down from Councillor CUMMING as well. The Corporate Plan is a five-year plan. It is a short to medium-term plan that is d eveloped on the basis of Vision 2031, a vision that Council worked through very clearly with the community, with Council officers; a lot of consultation to come up with the themes of that vision, and where we want to be in 2031. This Corporate Plan is about how we are going to meet those themes of Vision 2031. As said, it is a period from 2016-17 to 2020-21, and it outlines—it does not give specifics. There has obviously been a change from when this was brought four y ears ago, but there’s a very, very simple answer on where to find the numbers fo r the library, the numbers for the pool, the numbers for the SES; it comes every s ingle year to this Chamber in the form of the Annual Report. Every single year t

he Annual Report has all of these reflected with the numbers. Every year in sessi on three, before we go into recess, the Annual Report, comes to this Chamber wi th all of those answers that Councillor CUMMING took 30 minutes to read thro ugh for us. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor ADAMS: I ask anyone in this Chamber to find a Council officer that works in Brisbane Cit y Council that is going to sit back for the next five years and go, ‘Uh, two millio n people at the pool—done; don’t need to do anything. Over 470,000 members i n the libraries—done; don’t need to do anything.’ The Council officers in this pl ace aggressively pursue the highest attendance and outcomes for the people of B risbane. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor ADAMS: They are always striving for the highest level of satisfaction. It does not matter if there is a percentage in the Corporate Plan. It is measured in the Annual Report, and it is there for everybody to see through our community surveys that we do f or the Annual Report, and all of those questions that Councillor CUMMING lab oriously went through for 30 minutes are clearly there in the Annual Report. Yo u can go back to last year’s Annual Report and have a look at them, and you can compare them to what comes through in September in the Annual Report as well. As I said, a document that came from our Vision. This has now come to the Cha mbers four years later after the last election term to actually implement our elect ion commitments, because the people of Brisbane let us know in March that the y liked our Vision. They liked what we put forward for them— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor ADAMS: —and we are implementing— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor ADAMS, please continue. Councillor ADAMS: We are implementing those election commitments into the Corporate Plan to ma ke sure that they are clearly seen as important for us as a Council organisation to deliver in the next three to five years. Yes, it does include the Metro as was men tioned by Councillor CASSIDY, and it does include making sure we work throu gh Kingsford Smith Drive, the Wynnum Road upgrade, all of those election com mitments that we committed to over the last six months are in this Corporate Plan; a medium-term planning document that is definitely delivering on major c ongestion busting projects, public transport options, growing our active transport network, and remaining one of the most sustainable cities in Australia. I will now go to item E, which was the Financial Reports. We had some questio ns about the Financial Reports in front of us. The LORD MAYOR summed up —it seems like a long while ago now—that our ratios through our Quarterly Rep orts are very, very strong. We are proving time and again that we have effective financial management and we are well within our targets in this organisation. Bu t there are a number of factors that need to be noted, and I am happy to respond t o the questions that were put before us today. The first one was about total liabilities. Yes, QUU payments were not made unti l April, so that did reduce our debt by $471 million. It does look uneven, but that is through the timing of the QUU debts that we had before us. There was a quest ion about the community halls. It was a bit of a ‘where can you find the window s of opportunity’ book that I got from Councillor GRIFFITHS a couple of years ago; where is SunPAC? Never seen that. It has been a line item in the budget for the entire four years that I was Chair of Lifestyle.

It is being delivered by the Sunnybank Rugby Union Club, an $11 million perfor ming arts complex that will be officially opened later this year. What we have be fore us is clearly outlined there in those reports. We have $1.249 million left in t he contract within the Community Halls line to deliver to Sunnybank Rugby Uni on to complete that project on our behalf. What we are going to see is that magni ficent community hall that will have the capacity for 300 people in an auditoriu m to share their cultural experiences on the southside of Brisbane. We had a question about the sports complexes and the higher than anticipated ex penditure. We did go out to tender for the Hibiscus Sports Centre over the last 1 2 months. It is no longer run by Council. It is run by a lease operator, and obvio usly we needed to make it fit for purpose to go out to tender. It did need a refurb of about $321,000; hence the higher than anticipated expenditure. We talked about the skate parks, the $1.5 million from the Government. Councillor interjecting. Councillor ADAMS: Yes, well there is something very concerning about this delay in the $1.5 million The concern is that it took 18 months for us to get that grant. It was announced t hree times by two different sports ministers, and took 18 months for us to get the money finally, to the point where we couldn’t even use it for Bracken Ridge bec ause it was so long waiting for it to come out of the organisation down the other end of George Street. So yes, absolutely embarrassing for those at the other end of George Street. But we did finally get the money, and we can now put that into stage 2 at Paddin gton and the other works that we are doing in small skate spots around Brisbane as well to deliver those world-class facilities that we have in skating. Obviously we are also doing the same for BMX in the next term as well. The other question was about the golf lease where we had dropped $250,000 un der our lease revenue. It is not because golf is dropping off—no way, Jose! Wha t it is, we had five months of closure due to a storm in November 2014 and we h ad to refurbish the site. I presume St Lucia was the site that we had to do the wor k on, Councillor SIMMONDS, and it was closed for five months. Obviously the revenue goes down while it is closed. Yes, we are expecting that revenue to com e back on line. That five month period is now finished, and we know the revenu e will come back up to the same as where it is now that we have worked on the r efurbishment of that building as well. We also had the question on notice from Committee this morning. The $8.3 mill ion in the rephased commercial rates revenue will be recovered by the end of the year. This is due to commercial rates bills not being levied and paid within neat financial quarters. So they don’t actually fit neatly into every quarter that Counci l has, especially as some are issued monthly, some are issued before the end of t he quarter, and some are received afterwards, so there is a variance in the comm ercial rates revenue. With the general rates revenue, there has been an increase in the result of new d wellings, but it is not as high as forecast because it has generally been in propert ies that have a lower average rateable value, so namely within units. We are seei ng the growth in the units rather than the houses as well. I think that touches on all the questions we had, and I commend both these reports to the Chamber. Chairman: Councillor MARX.

ADJOURNMENT: 557/2015-16 At that time, 4.06, 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 4.08pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item B, item E and possibly item F if I have time. But I would like to first and foremost speak about the Corporate Plan for 2016-17 to 2020-21. Now, Madam Chairman, I listened to Councillor ADA MS with great interest about the Corporate Plan and I don't think she and I have read the same document. Because the document that I see before us, Madam Ch airman, is a low ebb for this Council. It sets the benchmarks very low for the next five years of our city and it certainl y raises a lot of questions about how this Administration plans to deliver for the residents of the city against their own budgets, against their own election commi tments. I think there are some really serious issues in this Corporate Plan and I'd like to discuss a few of those here today. Now the first matter I'd like to raise is our values, Madam Chairman. Those valu es are ‘get things done’—which used to be the slogan of the former Vice Mayor of Brisbane, by the way—‘responsive customer service’ and ‘courage to make a difference’. Now, Madam Chairman, those three, I think, we're having trouble d elivering on. Getting things done, definitely. As the Quarterly Financial Report before us today shows very clearly, the only thing this Council is getting done is raking in millions of dollars in forecasted revenue from developers and not actua lly spending it on the services, infrastructure and facilities that our city needs. Now that's what our financial management document here today shows us. That not only is this Council not getting things done, they are increasingly not getting things done at a greater rate than previous years. I'll come back to the Quarterl y Financial Report in due course. Responsive customer service, well I'm going t o give an example of this in a minute with respect to the forward plan. Courage t o make a difference; I think that's one thing that this Council lacks in the extrem e and that's courage. I see poor decision making holding this Council back from delivering on the nec essary infrastructure because people don't want to rock the boat, they don't want to argue for a better outcome. I'll ask a question and Chairmen don't know the an swer, they couldn't be bothered to find out. All they want to do in this place, Ma dam Chairman, is endorse the recommendation of whichever Council officer tol d them what to do. There's no interrogation, there's no discussion, there's no goo d planning, Madam Chairman. It is a tick-the-box Administration that we have b efore us today. So, Madam Chairman, they have set the benchmark extremely low. I would like to talk about an example of where we are not delivering our values and where th ere are some serious issues with respect to this Administration's Corporate Plan. Firstly, that's Program 1, Clean, Green, Watersmart City. Now, Madam Chairma n, given the issues we have with drainage, stormwater drainage, flooding and its adverse impacts on our communities—which we saw only again on the weekend —those Councillors like me who have low-lying areas, all the usual spots were f looded, up into people's yards, under their houses in some cases and certainly m ultiple roads and parks. Now you would think, Madam Chairman, that over the next five years, we migh t have a program here that actually delivers on improvements in stormwater drai nage. I read through it and I read through it again and I thought, oh well there's g ot to be something in here that talks about how we're going to deliver. Well ther e's not, Madam Chairman. About the only thing is a vague reference to impleme nting projects that demonstrate multiple values of waterways and stormwaters in contributing to liveability in our urban environment. It references Norman Creek. Now, Madam Chairman, I would have thought that one of our key priorities as a city in the next five years is to deliver on the necessary stormwater drainage infr astructure that this city needs. We know in my area, in Fairfield and Yeronga, th at there are independent reports out there from 2000 calling on that infrastructur

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 31 - e to be developed. There's not a single qualitative or quantifiable goal or objecti ve in this report about stormwater, and that is not good enough. What we do have, though, Madam Chairman, is for the first time, a little hint of what is to come. That is focus on the river bays and waterways. This Administra tion is noting for the first time that it wants to, and I quote, implement projects t hat demonstrate multiple values of waterways in contributing to the liveability in an urban environment, including progressing the Oxley Creek vision. Now, Madam Chairman, this is the first time other than during the election, that the Administration have articulated what's going to happen. It's not like we have n't been asking, I've been asking in Committee and so has Councillor GRIFFITH S; because the Oxley Creek vision referred to in this document is an election co mmitment of the LORD MAYOR's to develop along Oxley Creek. Now, Madam Chairman, Oxley Creek is the largest tributary in the Brisbane Riv er catchment. It is the most highly-degraded creek in the Oxley Creek catchment, Madam Chairman. Instead of aiming to rehabilitate, revegetate and improve the environmental values of this creek, the Administration lists as its key action for Oxley Creek over the next five years, is to deliver on its $100 million to develop Oxley Creek. Now what is this Oxley Creek vision? Madam Chairman, the Oxley Creek visio n is a $100 million plan to do the following. Create Eat Street Markets, professio nal-standard sporting fields, high-wire ropes, ziplines, there's going to be kayaki ng trails, dedicated rowing facilities, a public aviary and who knows what else. Who knows what other structures they are going to develop in this waterway cat chment area. My concern, Madam Chairman, like the Oxley Creek Catchment Association is, they weren't consulted about this prior to the announcement. They have describe d the Oxley Creek vision as over the top. The President of the Oxley Creek Catc hment Authority rightly said that the focus should be on the need for revegetatio n, rehabilitation and focusing on the natural environment and wildlife habitat at Oxley Creek. I could not agree more. Now, Madam Chairman, the big problem that we have with this is we know that this Administration is not interested in actually making sure this waterway is hea lthy, which contributes to the health of the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay. We know this because when I have raised issues with them, like for example in rece nt weeks, submerged debris in Oxley Creek, this Council took six weeks to even give me a basic response about how the project was going to be handled and it w ill be up to another five months before they can remove the debris in Oxley Cree k. Now this is supposed to be one of this Administration's new key premier areas a nd they cannot even safely manage to remove debris in the creek which is a kno wn safety threat to children who row, to the Pamphlett Sea Scouts, and it's on th e public canoeing track. So, Madam Chairman, this Administration's priorities ar e all wrong. We don't need $100 million spend on developing along one of the most highly-degraded waterways in this city, we need it spend on restoring and r ehabilitating the environmental values of this important area so that we can mini mise flooring and ensure that the wildlife, that the bird life—200 migratory birds through the Oxley Common, it's an extraordinary area. What do we want to see there? We want to see high-wire ropes and eat street ma rkets? I don't think so. This Administration has got this wrong. Now, Madam Ch airman, that is why dot points in this Corporate Plan expose this Administration so much. So much. That's not a real priority, that's not the right priority for our c ity. I can tell you now that they absolutely will find opposition everywhere out my way, everywhere. It probably reflects the fact that their chief advisor on the Oxley Creek taskforce has been a developer for the past I don't know how many years. A major developer in Queensland has run the Oxley Creek taskforce that t he LORD MAYOR set up.

What have they done? Their objectives from 2006 were to rehabilitate and reveg etate Oxley Creek. It's 2016 and I can tell you now, it's in a worse state than whe n I started. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor SRI. 558/2015-16 At that point, it was moved by Councillor Johnathan SRI, seconded by Councillor Shayne SUTTON, that Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON be granted an extension of time. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared lost on the voices.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Division.

The motion for a division lapsed for want of a seconder.

Chairman: There being no seconder for your division, Councillor JOHNSTON, it can't proc eed. Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak about a number of item s, particularly items A, D and C. So firstly to item A. So this is the Seaview Hot el Temporary Local Planning Instrument. This is a very good example, Madam Chairman, of something that we've been discussing in the last few weeks, and th at is the difference between character and heritage. Pre-1911 homes, pre-1946 h omes are protected for their character and we are looking to preserve not every h ome, not every pre-1946 home can't be demolished, but we are looking through t hat process to preserve the best examples of that character. Heritage is a higher bar again. With the Seaview Hotel, this is worthy of that hig her bar in terms of heritage. As Councillor CASSIDY mentioned, the Seaview H otel was built in 1881 as a hotel and accommodation during the tourist boom yea rs in the 1880s. There have been Seaview Cottages to let on the site since further back than that even, to the 1860s. Seaview Hotel was planned to have six sitting rooms and 22 bedrooms but by 1901, it had over 100 rooms, a bath, reading and billiard rooms; as well as the telegraph and telephone and five comfortable furni shed cottages for rent. So, Madam Chairman, this is the TLPI that will provide it temporary protection. We are of course moving its heritage listing as part of the major amendments. W ell, I hear Councillor CUMMING talking, I know he isn't a fan of heritage and c haracter. This is an important part, Councillor CUMMING, because what I was about to say is that this heritage listing for this particular property was moved as part of the major amendments last week and of course the Councillors opposite, the Labor Councillors, couldn't even bring themselves to support it. Which was very, very disappointing. I'm disappointed that Councillor CASSIDY couldn't bring himself to support the major amendments package, despite the fact that we were heritage listing such a n important icon within his ward. I am certain that that may come back to revisit him in the future. Of course, Madam Chairman, this all came up and about beca use of St Patrick's, are looking at a school to expand. This is worthy of some co mment as well. In particular, we see the Labor Government, the Labor State Government up in George Street more and more using Community Infrastructure Designations (CIDs), in order to bypass the City Plan when they want to expand schools. Now we know that schools are an important piece of community infrastructure, nobod

y would be against, particularly where enrolment numbers are increasing, them i ncreasing their facilities. But, by bypassing the City Plan, there isn't the ability to look at the community e ffects, the amenity effects that would normally come as part of a normal develop ment assessment process. We always urge the Labor State Government wheneve r they are putting in place a CID on a school, to undertake a master plan in conju nction with the local community so that some of those amenity impacts can be l ooked at. Of course, I'm delighted to hear that this item will be supported by the Labo r Councillors and look, I want to thank particularly—I can't take any credit for t his or the next item, the Bulimba Barracks—but particularly the close way the pr evious Chairman has worked with the relevant Labor Councillor and how well t he State has responded as well. Councillors interjecting. Councillor SIMMONDS: It's yet another example, Madam Chairman, of why this Administration is the be st friend to heritage and character in this city, that it has ever had. Councillors interjecting. Councillor SIMMONDS: Because we know that this is just one of over 2,200 heritage listed properties, al ong with more than 420 pre-1911 homes which are individually listed, on top of the many hundreds of dwellings that fall within the Traditional building characte r overlay and are protected also. In terms of item D, Madam Chairman, the Bulimba Barracks TLPI. Again, I lea ve more debate to the relevant local Councillor, except to again thank the previo us Chairman and the way that she worked with both the State and the local Councillor to see this through. This Master Plan that we're all familiar with will ensure that future development on the site corresponds with the community's wis hes and takes that into account. I understand that of course the site hasn't been sold as it was meant to be, and th at Economic Development Queensland is currently requesting to purchase the sit e. Of course, if this can be achieved by the Labor State Government, we look for ward to them implementing the Master Plan as it's currently laid out. Madam Chairman, in terms of item C, the City West Neighbourhood Plan. So th e City West Neighbourhood Plan provides a clearer direction for this important part of Brisbane's suburbs. The current neighbourhood plan is over 30 years old and has needed to be refreshed. There's been a number of significant changes as the suburb has grown over that time, in Caxton Street, around the Normanby Ho tel and Suncorp Stadium have all helped play a role. Not only in this particular s uburb, in this particular area's identity, but the identity of the city as a whole. That we hope that through this Neighbourhood Plan, Victoria Barracks, the Nor manby Precinct and Caxton Street can continue to play an even bigger role in th e renewal of the city and definition for our city. Caxton Street of course is a wel l-established dining, accommodation and entertainment precinct and future deve lopment within this area will ensure appropriate integration with the surrounding residential homes. The precinct promotes the retention, conservation and reuses of character and he ritage places. This is a theme throughout this particular Neighbourhood Plan, M adam Chairman. I'm going to touch on it a little further in. The Victoria Barrack s precinct then also includes broad plans for the outcome if the Department of D efence decides to dispose of the site. We've seen them do similar with the Bulim ba Barracks and also the Witton Barracks out at Indooroopilly. So this is an option that we should be very aware of and plan for. Significant wo rk was undertaken during the neighbourhood planning process to assess the valu e and nature of the buildings on site and how these could be retained and reused for any future development. Finally, the Normanby Precinct—looking at the renewal around that precinct. W e know we've got the Sunny Queen eggs site there and also the site next to the N

ormanby Hotel. What we're now able to do, through this Neighbourhood Plan, is to ensure that we have the right pedestrian connections and activated streetscape s and plaza spaces. So that when the renewal does come, it's done in a planned w ay that caters for the amenity of the local residents, which is obviously quite a c ontrast to the development application that was refused by this Chamber previou sly. Finally, the draft City West Neighbourhood Plan goes even further, Madam Cha irman, to protect our heritage and our character. There are a number of areas wh ere residential character and heritage areas between Petrie Terrace and Hale Stre et have been rezoned from character residential infill housing to character reside ntial character homes, reflecting the detached nature of these individual properti es. Nine sites have been added to the Pre-1911 building overlay and two local herita ge sites have been added to the Heritage overlay and these are of course in additi on to the properties covered by the Traditional building character overlay. Finall y, pre-1911 buildings, Madam Chairman, have been further considered. This bei ng such an important character precinct that rather than the standard provisions a pplying to those homes where they can either be demolished if they are structura lly unsound or removed to another site in recognition of the particular tight-knit character of this area, we've removed the provision that they can be transferred t o a different site. So those properties, as with all applications, they'll come to Council for an appli cation but it can only come on the basis that they are beyond any form of structu ral repair. I note Councillor CUMMING's comments that we have moved a whol e lot of properties out of this particular plan. You can quite clearly see that isn't t he case—in fact we've added. The person who on a wholesale basis ripped prope rties out of character protection was of course none other than the previous or th e last Labor Councillor to hold this particular office as Chairman for City Planni ng, Councillor Hinchliffe, when he ripped over 250 properties out of the Lutwyc he Neighbourhood Plan which were then currently receiving protection. Only 35 of those because they didn't meet the criteria for protection, the rest he f elt he just wanted renewal and some growth in that particular area. So he made t he decision to take— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, unfortunately—Councillor SUTTON, when I am spea king—

Warning – Councillor Shayne SUTTON The Chairman then formally warned Councillor SUTTON that unless she desisted from interjecting, it would be considered an act of disorder under section 21 of the Meetings Local Law 2001. Furthermore, Councillor SUTTON was warned that, if she continued to interject and disobey the Chairman’s direction, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for a period of eight days.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, unfortunately your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS: Oh time flies, thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm going to attempt to speak on items B, C, D, E and F i n 10 minutes without an extension in time. So I'm going to stay focused and quic k on these ones. Firstly, item D, the local one. The Temporary Local Planning In strument on the Bulimba Barracks. Labor Councillors obviously support this ite m today. It's a collaborative effort of all parties from across three levels of Gove

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 35 - rnment and both sides of politics. That doesn't happen very often and it deserves to be noted in Council today. Firstly, I'd like to thank my local colleagues Terri Butler MP, Federal Member f or Griffith and Di Farmer MP, State Member for Bulimba for lobbying with me to make the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan a statutory document to afford it mor e protection than it would otherwise have if it was just a master planning docum ent without statutory effect. I'd like to thank Deputy Premier Jacky Trad and Minister for Planning and Local Government, for supporting our call. I'd also like to thank the former Chairman, Councillor Amanda COOPER, for agreeing to our request and listening to our c oncerns all the way through this process. So thank you. This puts us in the best p osition possible to achieve the development outcomes contained within the Buli mba Barracks Neighbourhood Plan and I am grateful for that. There are three things I still think need to be done better, as I have indicated in p revious debate on this subject matter. Firstly, I really do believe we need more i nfrastructure funding to help with the local traffic congestion issues on Wynnu m Road, on Hawthorn and Riding Roads, and on Lytton Road. The traffic studie s that were commissioned as part of the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan show tha t all of these roads, Hawthorn Road, Riding Road and Lytton Road, are currently operating over capacity and several intersections along these routes are also oper ating over capacity. Not near capacity, over capacity. So I will continue, as the local Councillor, to lobby for more funding for this loc al infrastructure so we can deal with the issues we currently have as well as the ones that will come with the extra traffic. I also think that we need to ensure that the three hectares of land currently nominated as sport and recreation land beco mes public land and does not end up in private ownership. I want to again thank Councillor COOPER for making sure that that three hectares was in the master p lanning document to start with. But it's not publicly owned yet and we need to m ake sure it is publicly owned. Thirdly, we need a Park and Ride facility at the Apollo Road ferry terminal. Thi s is something I think is even more important now that this administration will b e encouraging more people to us this terminal through the introduction of their n ew SpeedyCat CityCat service. I'll continue to lobby this Administration to achi eve these three things, but for the time being I'm very happy to support this TLP I here today.

Just on a quick note with regards to the EDQ’s offer—State Government's offer to buy the Bulimba Barracks from the Federal Government that has been mentio ned, to buy the Bulimba Barracks, I note the comments made by both the LORD MAYOR and Councillor SIMMONDS on that note and I just say to both of the m that I would appreciate any support this Council can give in terms of supporti ng EDQ's offer to the Federal Government and anything you can do at this level to lobby your political counterparts and have the Council officers lobby their res pective departmental peers in the Federal Government to try to achieve that outc ome would be fantastic. So I will leave that item at that. Item F, the widening of Milton Road, Toowong. Look, Labor Councillors will n ot be supporting this item today simply because I don't believe we've been given access to all the information regarding why Council is purchasing this land here today, through land resumption. To be sure, Madam Chair, we don't believe the LNP Administration is telling us the full story in this report, and I'll explain why. No doubt that this land is required for the proposed Milton Road, Croydon Stree t and Morley Street intersection upgrade that is currently in the Priority Infrastructure plan (PIP) for construction in the next five years. However, what I don't understand is that normally this kind of road widening would be achieved t hrough the Development Assessment process and would not need to come to Co uncil and Council would not need to have to part with the money up front. The interesting thing is that there is currently a development application (DA) o ver three of the four parcels of land that are in the report for purchase and acquis

ition today. Those are 546, 550 and 554 Milton Road. That DA is to build 16 uni ts and to demolish pre-1946 Queenslander homes. Councillors interjecting. Councillor SUTTON: That actually looks quite good quality at this point in time. Anyway, so my ques tion is, why isn't Council getting this land as part of a required land dedication th rough the DA process and the infrastructure charges regime? Why do we need th is resolution to come here today as a land resumption? Why is this Council prep ared to pay more than $1.74 million for these properties and, as noted in the repo rt, take on the responsibility for paying for the demolition and removal of these pre-1946 houses and the associated costs. Now, there may be a very simple explanation to these questions but I think that we here in this Chamber today, and Brisbane residents, deserve to hear that expl anation. These are reasonable and relevant questions to be asking as part of this r eport and I ask that Councillor COOPER in her debate today or the LORD MA YOR in his summing up answer that question as to why this isn't being done thr ough the DA process as opposed to the land resumption process. Item C, the City West Neighbourhood Plan. Firstly, can I say that Labo r Councillors support the work this Council has done on the City West Neighbou rhood Plan and the accompanying urban renewal strategy. This is an interesting and exciting part of the city and the Neighbourhood Plan and Urban Renewal Sr ategy identify a range of opportunities to make sure this area continues to add to the cultural life of Brisbane. The content of the Plan also seems to be largely reflective of the community pla nning team discussions, although I note the planning outcomes for the area were n't actually raised with the CPT, community planning team, members until the s econd half of the very last meeting. Which I don't think is very appropriate to lea ve those significant issues to the last half of the last meeting. I also note that neither the local Councillor nor the then Planning Chair were in a ttendance when this discussion took place. I also note the very relatively low nu mbers in terms of engagement on this Plan by the community. There were 150 p eople who attended one of the three events that were held and only 80 people co mpleted the survey. Now given my experience of neighbourhood plans, I would assume the bulk of those 80 survey respondents were made up of the 150 people who also attended the engagement events. I don't believe that's very many and I do understand and appreciate how hard it i s sometimes to get people to engage with people in the planning process. But I t hink that's a pretty low number in terms of engagement on this Plan. I will be int erested to see how many submissions are received as part of the public notificati on period when this Plan goes out to notification and consultation and I look for ward to seeing the content of those submissions when it comes back through Co uncil. At this stage, we're supporting it but on the basis of any concerns that may be rai sed, legitimate concerns that may be raised during the submission process, we re serve the right to change our minds if the Administration hasn't appropriately de alt with the issues raised by those submitters. There are two key things that worr ied me about this part of the Plan, even though we're going to support it today. B ut I do want to make a record of this. The first is that there is no proposal to amend the Priority Infrastructure Plan or t he coming Local Government Infrastructure Plan to leverage infrastructure char ges specifically for some of the transformational projects included in the urban r enewal strategy. In particular, I'm concerned that there is nothing specific to leve rage infrastructure charges against the proposed pedestrian bridge to the Roma S treet Parklands as part of the development on the Victoria Barracks proposal. This is a significant piece of infrastructure and it is a transformational piece of i nfrastructure as well. It really needs to be built and we need to make sure it happ ens by using every statutory tool at our disposal. I believe that putting this projec t in the PIP would have sent the strongest message to the development communi

ty that this is a piece of infrastructure they must factor in to their plans for the ba rracks. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, your time has expired. Further debate? LORD MAYOR, would you like to sum up? LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank all Councillors, Madam Chairma n, for their comments today. Just a few quick comments if I may. Firstly, Counci llor CUMMING's raised the issue of the zipline in his speech. I thank him for ex pressing support in relation to that zipline. Councillor CUMMING, our starting position in relation to vegetation is that we don't want to lose any trees at all as p art of that program. What we will certainly be looking for is gaps in the corridor down Mt Coot-tha that will be part of the examination of trying to find a locatio n. It doesn't have to follow a straight line; it can zig-zag its way through. So the intention is to try and find a corridor that will amount to a zero loss of tre es. So that's certainly our starting position and we're hoping to be able to achieve that as an outcome. In relation to the range of housing and affordability of housi ng, well, Madam Chairman, quite clearly Councillor SUTTON's just been talkin g about the Bulimba Barracks site. It's interesting isn't it? We had put that out th ere as part of the debate when we undertook the planning around that site, we pu t out the issue of affordable housing and potentially social housing, only to find a fair bit of pushback in relation to that. Now if the State, through Economic Development Queensland purchase the site, they may well elect to introduce some of that as part of the scheme, I don't know But— Councillors interjecting. LORD MAYOR: No, no, it's not about that, I'm just saying that when we talk about affordable hou sing, it's then the question you've got to find the locations and we, Madam Chair man, as a part of our program, we have been able to achieve that at different loc ations at different times. Of course, Brisbane Housing Corporation has been part of that structure over time. SunPAC, Madam Chairman, yes SunPAC is well and truly at the pointy end in t erms of its construction. It's a joint venture we started out by allocating $5 millio n to this project. What we're going to see delivered is a project in excess of $10 million, Madam Chairman, through partnering with the Sunnybank Community and Sports Club and making sure that drive value for money. That will be a grea t asset. Not only for multicultural communities but for broader communities of Brisbane in the performing arts space. It will be a great venue for that purpose. As Councillor ADAMS did point out, it has certainly been mentioned in previou s budgets. Madam Chairman, I take on board Councillor SUTTON's comments in relation t o the Bulimba Barracks and finally, just in relation to item F, Councillor SUTT ON, we have in recent times made purchases of land around the Wynnum Road upgrade. That has been on the basis of hardship, there's been acquisitions becaus e people weren't in a position to undertake any activity in relation to that land. So of course, Wynnum Road stage 1 has only been on this agenda, what, for a c ouple of years in terms of activity, Madam Chairman. Can I say in relation to ite m F, this has been going on since Tim Quinn was Lord Mayor of this city. We ar e going back to 2003, this is 13 years down the track and these people, Madam Chairman, are in a situation where they are in a no-man's land with these sites an d, Madam Chairman, this, in so many ways, it's an acquisition based on hardship because they just simply have nowhere to go in relation to those lands and it's be en going on for far too long. So that's the issue in terms of that site. Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I just want to make sure we're taking item B seriatim. I know that a number of these have been grouped together. Chairman: They had been requested as A for alpha, C for Charlie and D for delta in one gro up. B for bravo and F for foxtrot in a second group. E for echo by itself. Council lor JOHNSTON, we've finished all of the debate, I'm about to put the items for v oting. Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you and I'm just clarifying, so B is currently grouped in with F, is that rig ht? Chairman: Correct. Councillor JOHNSTON: E is the only one that's on its own then? Chairman: Correct. Councillor JOHNSTON: Okay. Chairman: So I will now put items A, C and D.

Clauses A, C and D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, C and D of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put items B and F.

Clauses B and F put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B and F of the report 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.

The voting was as follows:

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, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 2 - Councillors Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Shayne SUTTON.

Chairman: I will now put item E.

Clause E put

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

Thereupon, Councillors Peter CUMMING and Jared CASSIDY 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, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

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 TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 04/16 PROTECTION OF THE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE SEAVIEW HOTEL, 65 PIER AVENUE, SHORNCLIFFE 152/160/1218/30 559/2015-16 1. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

2. At its meeting of 4 August 2015, Council adopted the Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI) 01/15 Protection of the building known as the Seaview Hotel, 65 Pier Avenue, Shorncliffe (TLPI 01/15). This TLPI came into effect on 7 August 2015 and is due to expire on 6 August 2016.

3. The Heritage overlay code, under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme), provides for assessment of the suitability of development of land in the Heritage overlay. An amendment to the planning scheme to include the Seaview Hotel, located at 65 Pier Avenue, Shorncliffe, on the Heritage overlay map, is being prepared. However, as that amendment will not come into effect for some time, there is a significant risk of serious cultural harm to Brisbane’s heritage, character and cultural values, should the building known as the Seaview Hotel be removed, demolished or altered in a manner that affects its cultural heritage significance.

4. As TLPI 01/15 will expire before the relevant package of amendments takes effect, it is appropriate to adopt a new TLPI to ensure continuing protection of the building. Similar conditions to those that required the adoption of TLPI 01/15 still exist.

5. The proposed replacement TLPI will be known as Temporary Local Planning Instrument 04/16 Protection of the building known as the Seaview Hotel, 65 Pier Avenue, Shorncliffe (TLPI 04/16), and is set out in Attachment B, submitted on file.

6. Section 105 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 sets out the local government powers to make a TLPI including that Council can only make a TLPI if the Minister is satisfied with the matters set out in that section. Statutory Guideline 04/14 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) sets out the process for making a TLPI.

7. In accordance with the requirements of the Guideline, Council’s reasons for the proposed TLPI are outlined in a letter to the Minister (Attachment C, submitted on file). Once approved by Council, the proposed TLPI will then be forwarded to the Minister for approval to adopt. Once adopted by Council, the TLPI will have effect for a period of one year from its adoption.

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

9. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment A Draft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO PROPOSE TO PROPOSE TO MAKE THE TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 04/16 PROTECTION OF THE BUILDING KNOWN AS THE SEAVIEW HOTEL, 65 PIER AVENUE, SHORNCLIFFE

As Council:

(i) pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Section 4 of Statutory Guideline 04/14 Making and amending local planning instruments (Guideline) made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), proposes to make a Temporary Local Planning Instrument for the protection of the building known as the Seaview Hotel at 65 Pier Avenue, Shorncliffe, and to include certain nominated adjoining lands (the proposed TLPI)

(ii) pursuant to Step 2.1 of Stage 1 of Section 4 of the Guideline has prepared the proposed TLPI as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file,

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to Step 3.1 of Stage 1 of Section 4 of the Guideline, that the Minister be sent the letter set out in Attachment C, submitted on file, which:

(a) requests the Minister’s consideration of the proposed TLPI

(b) contains a statement about why Council proposes to make the TLPI

(c) contains a statement about how the proposed TLPI complies with section 105 of SPA. ADOPTED

B CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020-21 103/590/785/9 560/2015-16 10. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

11. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (COBR 2012) requires Council to prepare a corporate plan. Council is obliged to meet a number of requirements detailed in COBR 2012 and the Queensland Plan Act 2014 around content and process in creating, adopting, implementing and reporting on the corporate plan.

12. The corporate plan is Council’s principal medium-term planning document. The plan outlines Council’s medium-term goals and objectives as well as what Council will do to deliver on those goals and objectives, working towards the achievement of the Brisbane Vision 2031.

13. Council’s programs and business units have prepared key medium-term objectives and actions for inclusion in the draft Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21.

14. As required by the Queensland Plan Act 2014, Council had regard to the Queensland Plan when preparing the draft Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21.

16. RECOMMENDATION:

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

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CORPORATE PLAN 2016-17 TO 2020˗21

(i) section 157 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires Council to prepare and adopt a corporate plan

(ii) Council has prepared a draft corporate plan in accordance with the requirements of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 and the Queensland Plan Act 2014

then Council:

(i) resolves to adopt the Corporate Plan 2016-17 to 2020-21 as set out in Attachment B, submitted on file. ADOPTED

C CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 152/160/516/401 561/2015-16 17. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

18. At the meeting of 10 February 2015, Council resolved to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the City West Neighbourhood Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan).

19. On 25 May 2015, the Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment confirmed the State interests to be addressed in the planning scheme amendment (Attachment B, submitted on file).

20. The City West Neighbourhood Plan Planning Scheme Amendment Package (the proposed amendment) has been prepared in accordance with Step 3 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 04/14 Making and amending planning instruments (the Guideline) and is set out in Attachment C, submitted on file.

21. The proposed amendment provides a blueprint to guide future development in the Neighbourhood Plan area and advances the following objectives. - To provide clarity for the community and the development industry of what development can occur in the plan area. - To protect and enhance the significant heritage and character buildings in the City West area. - To promote economic growth through mixed-use development in discrete precincts. - To enhance the role of City West as an important cultural and entertainment destination. - To encourage high-quality design that contributes to a strong sense of place and improved public realm.

22. 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 amendment.

24. RECOMMENDATION:

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

As Council:

(i) at its meeting on 10 February 2015, decided to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the City West Neighbourhood Plan and to make consequential amendments (the proposed amendment)

(ii) has received the Minister’s confirmation of State interests (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 04/14 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 C, 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 requests:

(a) a State interest review of the proposed amendment

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

D TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 03/16 REDEVELOPMENT OF BULIMBA BARRACKS 152/160/1218/19-02 562/2015-16 25. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

26. At the meeting of 8 December 2015, Council resolved to propose Temporary Local Planning Instrument 03/16 Redevelopment of Bulimba Barracks (the proposed TLPI), which is set out in Attachment B, submitted on file.

27. The proposed TLPI comprises overall outcomes that expand upon and complement the existing overall outcomes for the Department of Defence site precinct, as contained in the Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan in Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) and which align with the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan (the Master Plan), endorsed by Council at the meeting of 1 December 2015.

28. Major amendments to the planning scheme that reflect the key provisions of the Master Plan in the Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan together with associated amendments, including the making of a Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) amendment, are currently being drafted. Adoption of the proposed TLPI by Council, as an interim measure, will provide more detailed guidance for any assessment of development proposed on the Bulimba Barracks site and will ensure an appropriate level of certainty for Council, the Bulimba community and potential developers until the major amendments take effect.

29. As part of the Minister’s consideration of the proposed TLPI, the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) requested additional information about the transport modelling and traffic analysis undertaken to inform development of the Master Plan prior to providing approval for Council to adopt the proposed TLPI. Consequently, Council commissioned an independent peer review of the Bulimba Barracks Master Plan Traffic Model (BBMPTM). The peer review confirms that Council’s model is robust, has been developed to the appropriate industry standards, and that development: - will have negligible impacts on the broader external road network and will not solely trigger or bring forward any upgrades to Wynnum or Lytton Roads - may trigger the need for traffic signals at the Lytton and Apollo Roads intersection and the alteration of Lytton Road and Baldwin Street intersection to left-in/left-out.

30. By letter dated 19 May 2016 (Attachment C, submitted on file), the Deputy Premier, Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning and Minister for Trade and Investment, 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.

31. Once adopted by Council, the TLPI will have effect for a period of one year from its date of gazettal, unless repealed at an earlier date.

33. RECOMMENDATION:

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT TEMPORARY LOCAL PLANNING INSTRUMENT 03/16 REDEVELOPMENT OF BULIMBA BARRACKS

As Council:

(i) pursuant to Step 5.1(a) of Stage 3 of Section 4 of Statutory Guideline 04/14 Making and amending local planning instruments (the Guideline) made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), decides to adopt Temporary Local Planning Instrument 03/16 Redevelopment of Bulimba Barracks (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

E ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2016 134/695/317/575 563/2015-16 34. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the information below.

35. Sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 state that the Chief Executive Officer must present financial reports to Council at least quarterly. The reports are to state the progress that has been made in relation to Council’s budget.

36. The Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report March 2016 (Attachment B, submitted on file) separately identifies and reports the financial results of Council’s Core Services (i.e. Council excluding business units) and Business Units. The written commentaries provide explanation of the figures.

37. Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at least quarterly.

38. The previous financial report for the period 25 December 2015 was presented to Council on 19 April 2016. The current report relates to the period ended 25 March 2016.

40. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 2016

(i) Sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 require that the Chief Executive Officer present financial reports to Council at least quarterly

(ii) Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at least quarterly

(i) Council directs that the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending March 2016, as set out in Attachment B, as submitted on file, be noted. ADOPTED

F WIDENING OF MILTON ROAD, TOOWONG 202/11-KJ555/542(P1) 564/2015-16 41. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the information below.

42. Milton Road, Toowong is a four lane, arterial road that Council has intended to widen for many years.

43. Mr Stephen Tam owns the four properties at 542 to 554 Milton Road, Toowong, between Croydon Street in the east and Quinn Street in the west. Council requires a strip of land from these properties ranging from seven to 10 metres in width, to enable the widening of Milton Road at this location (refer to Attachment B, submitted on file).

44. All four properties are tenanted with expiry dates extending through to February 2017. Mr Tam has undertaken to provide vacant possession as soon as possible.

45. A draft Resumption Agreement, whereby Council will acquire the required land under section 15 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, together with a draft Deed of Licence which enables Council to enter onto the land retained by Mr Tam to undertake the demolition and/or removal works, has been prepared (refer to Attachment D, submitted on file).

46. Negotiations with Mr Tam have reached an agreement-in-principle to the Resumption Agreement and Deed of Licence. The basis of the agreement-in-principle is as follows: - Council to pay $1,700,000 for the whole of the property at 542 Milton Road, Toowong and the required portions of the properties at 546, 550 and 554 Milton Road, Toowong (refer to Attachment C, submitted on file) - Council to pay $45,000 on account of disturbance costs - Council to execute the section 15 Resumption Agreement and associated Deed of Licence upon being satisfied that vacant possession is available and Council then to proceed under part 2, division 3, subdivision 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 to resume the land - Council to pay all funds within 15 business days of resumption of the land - Council to be responsible for demolition and/or removal of all four houses at its cost - Council to arrange for relevant approvals for the demolition and/or removal and for survey and title correction of all affected lots at its cost.

47. It is proposed that Council: a) grant approval to enter into the section 15 Resumption Agreement and associated Deed of Licence (or such variant of those documents as may be agreed by the Chief Legal Counsel), subject to Mr Tam providing vacant possession b) grant approval to proceed with the resumption of the required land by a process for taking, set out in part 2, division 3, subdivision 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967.

48. The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

49. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT E&C RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AT ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY RESUMPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE MILTON ROAD UPGRADE PROJECT

1. As:

(i) Under the provisions of section 15 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 Council can enter into a Resumption Agreement with a land owner to resume land under that Act (ii) the registered owner of the required land, Mr Stephen Tam, has agreed to the resumption of the required land by section 15 Resumption Agreement under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967,

then Council is of the opinion that:

(i) the land described in Attachment B (submitted on file), Column A, is required for road purposes

(ii) the land described in Attachment B (submitted on file), Column B, is required as additional land within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (iii) it is necessary to take said land.

2. As:

(i) Council may utilise a process for taking set out in part 2, division 3, subdivision 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967,

then Council approves:

(i) entry into the section 15 Resumption Agreement and associated Deed of Licence (or such variant of those documents as may be agreed by the Chief Legal Counsel) with Mr Stephen Tam to resume the required land, to dedicate that land as road and to undertake the demolition and/or removal works (ii) Brisbane City Legal Practice to take the necessary action to resume the land described in Attachment B (submitted on file), Columns A and B, for road purposes and additional land, pursuant to a process for taking set out in part 2, division 3, subdivision 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967. ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX that the report of that Committee held on 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just on general portfolio issues to start off with. I wanted to quickly talk about CityCycle, the much maligned CityCycle. Maligne d not by this side of the Chamber but maligned by those opposed. Maligned by t he people who— Councillor SRI: Sorry, Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you. Councillor SRI— DEPUTY MAYOR: I know what this Point of order is and I'll— Chairman: Well we'll let Councillor SRI make his Point of order. Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: You haven't spoken on this report so you can't actually claim to be misrepresent ed. Councillor SRI: Okay, sure. Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, would you like to clarify your statement please? DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, there's two Councillors opposite who support CityCycle and they're both in the front row at the moment. I must watch myself when saying those opposite. B ut maligned by the Australian Labor Party primarily. The same Councillors who proposed their own bicycle hire scheme before they left administration and have done nothing but criticise ever since it was installed. Now it's interesting because you hear all types of things about how our CityCycl e scheme is apparently poorly run and poorly thought out and poorly implement ed. This is a cycle hire scheme run by a company called JCDecaux that runs cycl e hire schemes in 60 cities around the world, 60-plus cities around the world. Councillors interjecting.

DEPUTY MAYOR: In fact, there are many more than that running around the world. It's interesting when you consider why there might be different levels of success in some cities over another. My personal belief is that mandatory helmet laws have very much held back the growth of CityCycle and you see a similar situation down in Melb ourne as well. Where their bicycle hire scheme has also struggled to get off the g round. Now is that a coincidence? Is it because both cycle hire schemes were botched? No, there's something else going on here. So I am not afraid to be a very public backer of CityCycle. It is a positive scheme, it is one that we will continue to su pport and, to be frank, it is part of our public transport and active transport netw ork which rightly deserves some Council funding. Now if we were running a bike hire scheme with the sole and only purpose of m aking a profit then we would think twice. But active transport and public transpo rt is not just about making a profit. It's about providing a community service. W e certainly support the CityCycle scheme and more importantly we are encourag ed to see the strong growth that's occurred in the scheme in recent times. Now the final CityCycle station was rolled out in April 2012 and there are 150 st ations out there in the inner-city areas. In 2012, the average number of trips per day made on CityCycle, was 595 trips per day. In 2013, that rose to 630 trips per day. In 2014, that rose to 794 trips per day. In 2015, that rose to 943 trips per da y. So far, in 2016, 1,126 trips per day. So between 2012 and now, we've seen aro und a 90% growth in the number of trips per day being taken on CityCycle, and that is positive. We'd like to see it continue to grow and we will continue to invest in CityCycle and to promote CityCycle, not to shy away from it, as an important way of gettin g around the inner-city. It's all about what this Administration believes in, which is choice of modes. So if you want to ride a bike, absolutely that is absolutely fa ntastic. If you want to walk, that's fantastic, if you want to catch a bus or a ferry or a train, that's fantastic. If you want to drive a car, that's also fantastic and does n't make you a bad person. So we are not afraid of supporting the CityCycle scheme, unlike Labor who says they want a cycle hire scheme and then they oppose it every opportunity, they ta lk it down, they bag it. I would encourage Labor Councillors to come on board with CityCycle. Because every time you talk it down, what you're saying to the people of Brisbane is don't get on a CityCycle bike. You're actually discouragin g people to use it. We can see the growth figures are there, people are using it in growing numbers, and we want that to continue. So please don't talk it down, please talk it up and e ncourage, join us in encouraging people to use CityCycle. In terms of some comments that were made by Councillor CASSIDY earlier in r elation to the Corporate Report and relating to Public and Active Transport, I wa nted to say one important thing. That is, that Councillor CASSIDY criticised the $100 million worth of investment that this Administration is planning to make in the next four years. He said that far too much of that money was spent on yellow paint, or painting yellow bicycles on the road. Well I can tell you that over the last four years, when we invested $120 million, a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction was spent on yellow paint. Yellow paint doesn't cost a l ot of money. So to suggest that that's what we're spending our money on is misle ading in the extreme. It's just another case of petty politics. But I do have some n ews for everyone in the chamber today. I have personally asked the officers and made the decision to kill the bicycle awareness zone. There will be no more bicy cle awareness zones delivered by this Administration. Because I believe that they lead to confusion. The difference between a yellow b ike on the road and a white bike on the road, which is usually used to designate a bike lane, often confuses motorists. I think that the existence of the yellow bik e on the road can sometimes cause confusion and we don't want that confusion h appening. So there will be no more bicycle awareness zones rolled out by Brisba ne City Council. I can confirm that today.

So no more money being spent on yellow bicycles on the road. What we will sp end money on though is painting yellow lines in certain places like on Wynnum Road, because that is being done for a legitimate safety reason, to ban parking o n a key corridor where cyclists need to use. So we will continue putting that type of yellow paint down where appropriate but not the yellow bicycles. Madam Chairman, last week in Committee we had a presentation on local gover nment funding for public transport. The picture was crystal clear. Whatever any one might say about our level of investment and support for public transport, it i s unmatched and unrivalled anywhere else in not only South East Queensland, n ot only the State of Queensland, but also in Australia. This Council puts in so m uch more than any other council. When you include even things like the size of the budget and you take into acco unt the fact that different councils have different sized budgets, we still put in m ore than any other council in Australia. The only council that comes anywhere cl ose is the Sydney CBD Council; the Sydney City Council. That is because they are investing in a one-off project, which is the Sydney Light Rail project. So at the moment, they're putting in higher amounts of investment than they wo uld normally do. These are essentially investments that are tied to one single pro ject and we can speculate will certainly not continue in the long term. Council in vests year after year after year and we have done ever since the City of Brisbane existed. Whether it was investing in trams, whether it was investing in buses, thi s Council has continued to invest in public transport. We are proud of that and w e will continue that legacy and record going forward. Chairman: Further debate? There being no further debate, anything further, 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 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT 565/2015-16 1. Andrew Lintern, Business Improvement and Transport Strategy Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on local government funding for public transport. He provided the information below.

2. Before 1925 (prior to creation of the Greater Brisbane City Council) buses, ferries and trams were operated by a number of organisations across Brisbane. Since that time, the city’s public transport network has undergone numerous changes. In 1925, Council took control of the operation of trams and ferries, and the first Council bus services commenced. In 1927, Council stopped providing bus services due to financial losses; however, services recommenced in 1940. Council eventually removed Brisbane’s tram network in 1969. CityCat services began to take the place of monohull ferries in 1996. By 2002, the free Downtown Loop service had begun, followed by the introduction of high frequency BUZ services in 2004. The Blue CityGlider and free CityHopper services started in 2010 and 2012 respectively.

3. Council has the largest resident population of any local government area in Australia. In 2015, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated Brisbane’s population to be more than 1.1 million people. The

second most populous local government area in Queensland is the Gold Coast, which has approximately 555,000 residents. The largest local government in any other Australian state is Blacktown, New South Wales, which has a population of approximately 340,000. Unlike other local governments, Council operates a significant public transport fleet. This includes approximately 1,200 buses; the second largest bus fleet in Australia after the State Authority of New South Wales. In addition, Council operates 21 CityCats and nine monohull ferries.

4. Council’s public transport budget for the 2015-16 financial year is $158.6 million, which is the largest amount of any local government in South East Queensland. The second largest public transport contribution was made by the Gold Coast, which is spending $5.8 million.

5. In 2015-16, Brisbane City Council is spending more on public transport than any other capital city in Australia. Sydney’s public transport budget of $48.6 million was the second largest, Adelaide’s budget is $820,000, Perth’s is $72,000, and Melbourne didn’t allocate any money to public transport. Council’s expenditure on public transport represents 6.1% of its entire budget. In comparison, Sydney allocates approximately 5.7% of its budget to public transport, which includes funding for the CBD and South East Light Rail project.

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

7. RECOMMENDATION:

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

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT ALL WORK ON THE GLADSTONE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CEASE AND DESIST UNTIL FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH RESIDENTS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED CA15/324187 566/2015-16 8. A petition requesting that all work on the Gladstone Road Safety Improvement Project cease and desist until further consultation with residents has been successfully concluded, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 5 May 2015, by former Councillor Helen Abrahams, and received.

9. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, supplied the following information.

10. The petition was signed by 94 signatories. It requested that all work on the Gladstone Road Safety Improvement Project cease and desist until further consultation with local residents was successfully concluded, with appropriate amendments, as already submitted or to be submitted at such consultative meetings, incorporated into the project.

11. Gladstone Road is a significant link in the Brisbane bicycle network, connecting the University of Queensland with West End and the central business district (CBD) via the Eleanor Schonell Bridge. It is also part of the informal ‘river loop’, a popular route followed by many cyclists. The installation of bicycle lanes along Gladstone Road, between Hazelwood Street at Highgate Hill and Lochaber Street at Dutton Park, will improve safety, connectivity, traffic flow and encourage cyclists of all abilities to use the route.

12. Council identified that safety improvements were required along Gladstone Road based on Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) road accident data, which recorded nine serious accidents between cyclists and vehicles from 2005 to 2010. The upgrades enhance safety for all road users and involved: - installing northbound and southbound bicycle lanes on Gladstone Road between Hazelwood Street and Lochaber Street - prohibiting a right turn from Gladstone Road into Beaconsfield Street - prohibiting a right turn from the Gladstone Road local service road onto Gladstone Road - improving pedestrian crossing safety by removing a section of an outbound traffic lane from

Ampthill Street to Bower Street - installing bike lane markings and signage along Gladstone Road - removing six informal car parking spaces on Gladstone Road.

13. Many local residents expressed concerns about the ban of the right hand turn into Beaconsfield Street. The layout of the road was such that widening at the previously existing right turn point was not possible within the budget scope. Under the new layout, motorists wishing to access Beaconsfield Street are required to make a U-turn at the dedicated right turn pocket at Ampthill Street, which involves a detour of approximately 360 metres. This enhances safety and traffic flow for all road users by reducing the risk of rear-end collisions and allowing traffic to flow freely past turning vehicles.

14. A submission was received by the project team from Helen Abrahams, then Councillor for The Gabba, following her community consultation on 16 May 2015. A response to this submission and its suggestions was sent in reply to (then) Councillor Abrahams on 5 June 2015.

15. The petitioners’ suggestions included: - widening Gladstone Road and Beaconsfield Street intersection so that a dedicated turning lane could be installed into Beaconsfield Street - placing an outbound bike lane on the Gladstone Road service road - installation of traffic signals at the Ampthill Road / Gladstone Road intersection - removing the U-turn facility at Ampthill Road / Gladstone Road intersection.

16. Project works were halted from June 2015 to consider the petitioners’ requests. Project works resumed in September 2015, as the amendments proposed by the petitioners were not possible to implement within the constraints of the available funding and project scope. The project was completed in October 2015 with no changes to the design.

Funding

17. $300,000 was allocated in Council’s 2014-15 budget for works as part of the Better Bikeways 4 Brisbane program.

Consultation

18. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

19. Council distributed a community newsletter containing information, a preliminary project plan and a feedback form for the Gladstone Road Safety Improvement Project on 22 December 2014 to relevant interest groups and residents in the nearby suburbs of Dutton Park, Highgate Hill and Fairfield. The feedback period closed on 13 February 2015.

20. Council received 263 submissions from stakeholders. One hundred and ninety were in support of the project, 47 were somewhat in support of the project and 26 did not support the project. Local residents* responded as follows: - Highgate Hill: 45 in support, 30 somewhat in support and 18 do not support - Fairfield: 20 in support, 3 somewhat in support and 4 do not support - Dutton Park: 7 in support, 5 somewhat in support and 0 do not support. *Residents who provided their suburb as part of the survey. Council received responses from 132 local residents in total.

21. The Executive Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

22. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES OPTION 1 AND INFORM PETITIONERS THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN OCTOBER 2015 WITH NO CHANGES TO THE DESIGN, AS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE NOT POSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE AVAILABLE FUNDING AND PROJECT SCOPE.

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 51 - ADOPTED

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Amanda COOPER, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to, before I speak to the report, respond to a comment made by—and I assume it was a throwaway comment made by C ouncillor CUMMING. I was disappointed when he questioned Council's implem entation of pedestrian countdown timers and asked if they're going to be installe d in the outer suburbs. Now as a local Councillor, I think I represent the outer suburbs, particularly as f ar north as you go before you actually move into a different shire altogether. We certainly have some in my ward. Now, I know Councillor CUMMING will prob ably say, well that's because you are the Chairman of the Committee. But in fact, there are a whole range of countdown timers that have been installed. Certainly, there's some in the CBD but there's ones that I just grabbed a handful of exampl es. There's Wynnum Road and Creek Road Cannon Hill; I wouldn't call that inn er suburbs. There's McCullough Street and Woodsiana Street, Macgregor, also wouldn't call that inner suburbs. Boundary Road and Hall Street, Coopers Plains, also not inne r suburbs. So I'd just like to quickly rebut the comment made by Councillor CU MMING and I would suggest if he has a bit of a wander around his own ward, h e will find that there are pedestrian countdown timers al throughout this city and it has been, I think, a fantastic success and I congratulate the LORD MAYOR an d the former Chair, Councillor SCHRINNER, for taking up this initiative. Becau se I think it has had great benefits for the people of Brisbane and I'm disappointe d by the comments from Councillor CUMMING. With the Infrastructure Committee report, we did a whole lot of petitions last we ek, Madam Chair. We had a very busy time getting through a whole range of dif ferent particular ones. So we had seven submissions in total, the first relating to t he Kookaburra Queen. That was a request for a permanent tourist boat facility a nd for future tourism and berthing opportunities on the river. We talked about th at in Committee and outlined of course this isn't a Council responsibility, this is something that is Council and certainly the Queensland Government who jointly manage the river on behalf of the Port of Brisbane. While we're very supportive and of course we've got the River's Edge strategy, t his is not something that Council can do by itself or, as certainly Councillor MA RX said to me this morning, on our ‘Pat Malone’, this is something that really is a partnership, and I appreciate her to keeping my Committee entertained by som e old-time slang. So thank you very much for that. We also had a petition asking for the construction of the Lindum railway crossin g overpass. This is certainly, as this Chamber is well aware, is something that C ouncil would love to see happen but Council contributes a 15% contribution wit h the primary funding responsibility for these sorts of projects, to rest with the St ate Government with that 85% responsibility. Certainly I note Councillor GRIFF ITHS was happy to support our work in recommending that going forward we w ork with the State Government to bring these matters to a resolution, but disappo inted that Councillor CUMMING had a different perspective and did not support us working with the State Government and to try and continue to seek support fo r funding these sorts of projects. So that was disappointing. There was a particular petition relating to seeking the detailed design for Wynnu m Road. This certainly Council had announced that we were going to upgrade L ytton Road between Latrobe Terrace and Canning Bridge to six lanes. Councillo r SUTTON was consulted and she mentioned the time damage for that petition.

Certainly take that on board. We of course were delighted to hear that she is une quivocally supporting stage 1 of the project. I do appreciate that. But Council has gone through a process—I think there were about 40,000 surve ys that went out to the community and the community have provided feedback a s a consequence of that survey. Then we had a petition requesting Council fast tr ack the Wynnum Road upgrade. Thank you again to the petitioners. This is certa inly something that Council is absolutely committed to, with basically more than a $100 million investment that's going to be put in place to facilitate stage 1. Tha t's something that Council will be continuing to work on and of course talk to th e local community and the affected ward Councillors. We had a petition requesting the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street, Bulimba, to improve the safety of the intersection. This, of course Apollo Road and Lytton Road are District Acce ss Routes with Thorpe Street a Local Access Route. There's currently, I understa nd, a give-way sign as Apollo Road and a stop sign at Thorpe Street with Lytton Road having a priority. Council has certainly investigated this intersection and h as analysed the web crash data; did submit actually to the Federal Government a s part of the Black Spot funding process, seeking for support for that. It was disa ppointing that that was not taken up. But certainly Council notes that this is an issue and is absolutely keen to try and progress it. There's obviously opportunities as a consequence of the works that may go forward in relation to the Bulimba Barracks proposal. Then there was a petition asking Council to rectify some issues relating to River Walk. This is so mething that Council's actually worked with the residents about. There are some things that Council can do and has been able to put in place with the permanent f ilm being put over lights as well as a resister being put in place. But of course there are some challenges; the materials that need to be used in a marine environment mean there is a degree of reflectivity that cannot be dealt wi th other than to say, unfortunately, for Riverwalk to be constructed in an appropr iate manner, these sorts of fabrics need to be used and it does have an element of reflection that causes a little bit of an issue for residents. But Council has absolut ely bent over backwards to try and resolve that issue. Then the last petition was one requesting Council improve the traffic and safety measures in Vernon Terrace, Macquarie Street and Skyring Terrace. There are 1 3 petitioners representing 12 properties in Vernon Terrace. They asked for a red uction to the speed limit to 40 kilometres per hour or lower. They wanted more s peed signage, speed cameras, a pedestrian crossing with a maximum separation of 200 metres and at least one set of traffic signals. So these are District Access Roads and are designed, of course, to carry large vo lumes of traffic. Council went to the local residents; so there was a survey that w ent out to 10,000 properties. We got 829 responses received with 458 not in sup port and 371 in favour. So the majority not supporting the proposed speed limit r eduction. So Council did review the speed limit signs, of course in line with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and found that the signage was in compliance. There's going to of course be the upgrading of the intersection and a new set of l ights, I think, that Councillor HOWARD and Councillor McLACHLAN are bot h happy to see that that's already been installed and is just being finalised. We also reviewed pedestrian crossings and did not support any further changes a t this time. So I thank all of those petitioners who put forward these issues and I thank the officers for investigating these and responding. Thank you very much. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, just very quickly on items C, D and E. The first two, C and D, are petitions that item C is requesting for Council to release the detailed desig n of the proposed Wynnum Road Shafston Avenue upgrade and item D is a petit ion requesting Council to fast track the Wynnum Road upgrade in the current fin

ancial year. Now, it should be noted that both of these petitions are about two ye ars old, that's not Councillor COOPER's fault, that's Councillor SCHRINNER's f ault and gives a little bit of an indication of the mismanagement he had of that p ortfolio when he had carriage of it. But given these petitions are about two years old, their requests are a little bit re dundant in that I'm advised that the detailed design for stage 1 of Wynnum Road will be announced shortly, with mid-year as the general timeframe. So I'm glad t o see that that's coming for stage 1. I did talk in Committee about the importance of progressing the design for stage 2. Because stage 2 is on the agenda, it might be the long-term agenda in this Administration's view, but there are a lot of hom eowners along there, in that area, that are really in a state of limbo.

Seriatim - Clauses B, C and D Councillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause B, PETITIONS – REQUESTING THE LORD MAYOR COMMIT TO CONSTRUCTING THE LINDUM RAILWAY CROSSING OVERPASS BEFORE THE END OF THIS TERM OF COUNCIL, WHICH IS MARCH 2016, Clause C, PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RELEASE THE DETAILED DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED WYNNUM ROAD – SHAFTSON AVENUE UPGRADE, and Clause D, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL FAST TRACK THE WYNNUM ROAD UPGRADE IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SUTTON: So, just back to the detailed design and the importance of doing the detailed desi gn on stage 2, I underrated Councillor SCHRINNER had an entirely unsympath etic view about the state of limbo that the homeowners are currently in who live in that stage 2 corridor. Now to be clear, that is from Canning Bridge all the way through to Riding Road, are included in the stage 2. There are so many residents that just want to know what that second stage includes for them. The LORD MAYOR in discussing the Milton Road widening in his summing u p comments to me said that they had purchased some homes because of hardship provisions because of the fact that this had been going on for a long time, the Mi lton Road corridor upgrade had been going on for a long time and for a whole ra nge of reasons there were hardship provisions. Well I put it to you that in this sta ge 2 of Wynnum Road corridor, there are many homeowners who can't sell beca use no one wants to buy because of the uncertainty around what's happening in s tage 2. They are afraid to renovate because they don't want to overcapitalise. So they really are stuck in this limbo period. I just believe that this Council shou ld treat these residents with respect. They should actually be sympathetic to their concerns and give them some information, even if a concept design at this stage over the coming years, would be better than nothing for these residents. So I real ly do want to advocate on their behalf, they do need more certainty so that they c an also plan their futures about what this corridor upgrade may include for them. I have said to them, look, I'm the one that's pushing for stage 2 to be fast tracked, I'm probably not your favourite person. They've actually said, well you're the on ly person talking to us about what might be coming down the road for us. We ap preciate that. So if this Administration could just engage with those residents an d be more honest and upfront with them, and frank with them about what it mig ht mean, they would be entirely grateful. Again, requesting the fast tracking into the current financial year, well that petiti on was tabled for the 2013-14 financial year. So I don't know what more I can sa y on that. Other than to say, I really want to see construction funding; not more l and resumption funding—and I know that's important, but I want to see enough funding in the coming Council budget so that we can actually turn the sod on thi s project and get started with it. That is what I will be looking for on 15 June, co nstruction money, real money to actually get this project started. In terms of the intersection of Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street, as I indicated—I'm not going to reiterate all the statements I made in debating this it

em at Committee. But what I do appreciate is the fact that this Committee recom mendation, is that funding be provided in '16-17 and '17-18 to construct this inte rsection upgrade. I'm very pleased with that, I'm very grateful for it. This is an in tersection upgrade that I have been lobbying for with my local community for se ven years. We already have seen a fatality at that intersection. There are a huge number of schoolchildren that cross this intersection daily on their way to Bulimba State Sc hool. The State Government has provided a crossing supervisor across Lytton R oad so that the kids can get to school safely. But unfortunately Apollo Road and this intersection still has to be navigated by children and parents without that sup port. Signalising this crossing and putting in dedicated signalised pedestrian crossing will actually do a lot to make this whole area safer for everyone. For motorists, f or cyclists and for pedestrians. I tell you what, if there is money in the budget on 15 June, you will get a whole heap of thanks from me for that; because it has be en a project that I and my community have been after for a very long time. Than k you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. I just want to speak briefly in relation to item B. The se are three petitions actually. One of them dates back to the Summer Recess 20 13-14. So it's probably two and a half years since this petition was received by C ouncil. The two other petitions are March and April 2014. So they're over two y ears as well. So as Councillor SUTTON said, it's a disgrace how long it's taken t hem to get to Council. Of course, the news is not good. This level crossing at Lindum has been a proble m for many years, there's a lot of public concern about it, there's been other petit ions as well as these ones have been signed by large numbers of people calling f or the State Government and the Council to get their acts together and get the fly over built. In the meantime, there's been two flyovers built on the northside of Brisbane but the southside's missed out altogether, and that's just not good enough, and there's concerns by local residents. The problem is it's an area where there's three train lines run past. There's Citytr ain network, the service to and from Cleveland and the city, and there's also the f reight train goes past out to the Port of Brisbane. Sometimes it goes past during peak hours in the morning and you can have a delay of getting towards 10 minut es while the gates are down—while the barriers are down—and you can't get thr ough that intersection. You can imagine the build-up of traffic during that time, because it's a common way for people to get to work. It's access from Wynnum West through to industr ial areas like the Port of Brisbane, the Lytton Industrial Estate, the Hemmant ind ustrial area, and some people use it to get over the river to the other side of the T radeCoast, around the airport or to get to work in towards the city, where it's so metimes a quicker trip going that way than it is going up Wynnum Road. But anyhow, the other thing about this intersection is that it was an election pro mise a long time ago, and I've got the form here: Campbell Newman and Jeremy Knight's local plans for Wynnum Manly Ward. That was then. That was then. T his was the—this was just before the 2004 Brisbane City Council elections, and here it is, here's the flyer here, and what do they—they've got this—this is one o f those election pieces where they've got the arrows pointing to where the work's going to be done and everything like—and so the relevant one is: Build a flyove r for Lindum train level crossing within four years—within four years. Of course Campbell Newman got elected and he never delivered on that election promise, and the LNP hasn't delivered subsequently either, so it's very unfortuna te.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair? Chairman: Point of order Councillor SUTTON? Councillor SUTTON: Would Councillor CUMMING take a question? Chairman: Councillor CUMMING? Councillor CUMMING: Certainly, Madam Chair, certainly. Chairman: Please proceed. Councillor SUTTON: Councillor CUMMING in addition to the election commitment made by Campb ell Newman in 2004 when he was campaigning to become the Lord Mayor, are you aware that the upgrade of the railway crossing at Lindum was also part of th e Lord Mayor's Road Action Plan that was supposed to deliver 20 years or road works in just four years? If you aren't aware of that, you may like to consider the Road Action Plan flyer t hat I brought along with me as a point of interest. Chairman: Councillor CUMMING would you like to answer the question? Councillor CUMMING: I suspect I did know that at some stage, but it's saddening—I'm saddened to be r eminded again of the deceitful behaviour from—well sorry, not deceitful behavi our; it's a failure to deliver by Lord Mayor Newman and his team and Graham Q uirk as his—yes, Graham Quirk as Infrastructure Chair and the LNP generally. So, Madam Chair, what happens in the morning, as I said, the congestion starts, traffic backs up down Kianawah Road for hundreds and hundreds of metres, and in the—Iona College is nearby so there's people driving along dropping their kid s off to the school. It's a big school these days; around 1,500 or 1,600 students at the college, a fine Catholic college, but that makes the situation even worse. In the afternoon from about four o'clock on, people are trying to get back home along Lindum Road following that trying to turn right to get across the rail lines becomes a real bother as well, and they can be delayed for 10 or 20 minutes, and people take shortcuts and race the barriers as they're coming down. Sooner or lat er someone will get very badly injured if not killed at this intersection, and it's v ery unfortunate if that is going to be the case. It's very unfortunate that nothing's been done to date. So I am very unhappy with the response to the petitions and I will be voting agai nst the responses. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER? Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just briefly rise to respond to a couple of comments made. Now I was disappointed that—I was certainly disappointed that Councillo r CUMMING hasn't seemed to take any kind of action towards the State Govern ment bearing their responsibility in response to the issue of the Lindum Rail Cro ssing. I know as local Councillor and I know certainly Councillor KING, she and I wh en we had these sorts of issues in our ward absolutely took every opportunity to make everyone absolutely clear that these were critical projects for our local are a. I had petitions; I had all sorts of things going on to try and escalate the import ance of these sorts of projects. So I would say to Councillor CUMMING if you want to lodge petitions with Co uncil that is great, but perhaps you should lodge 85% of your petitions to the Sta te Government who bear 85% of the financial responsibility for delivering these projects. I am quite disappointed—quite disappointed—that there's been absolut ely no commentary from Councillor CUMMING about the State Government’s financial responsibility to deliver these projects. I also say when we know that there's about 45 of these across the City of Brisba ne, Greater Brisbane has got 45 of these different projects, and I have heard noth ing from Councillor CUMMING about how the State Government is going to be

delivering these sorts of outcomes from the north to the south to the east to the west of Brisbane. I'm pretty disappointed that he's made no efforts to certainly lo bby his colleagues in George Street to get onboard and deliver this particular pro ject. Also respond very briefly to the comments made by Councillor SUTTON with r espect to Wynnum Road. Councillor SUTTON, through you, Madam Chair, eve ry single road corridor project in this city has got to start somewhere and end so mewhere. We discussed this in Committee this morning, but I myself have got a number of road corridors that need to be upgraded, and I would love them all to happen in one fell swoop, but that is just unrealistic and certainly the cost is an a bsolutely huge issue for every part of our city. We can't do every road project immediately. We can't do every single corridor al l at one time. We have to do it in sections where we can manage the impacts, wh ere we can spread that cost over the four-year period of any election term. Coun cil absolutely is committed to Wynnum Road stage 1. I take on board her feedba ck in relation to the Canning Bridge and the potential for stage 2. I absolutely un derstand where she's coming from, but there's all of us in this Chamber who hav e experienced road projects that have been done in pieces. That is unfortunately something we all have to be understanding of and we have to be sensible to say our city is growing and we can't do everything all at once. When you redecorate your house you can't do everything. You have to start som ewhere, you have to progressively go through and make it all happen, and that is absolutely what we're trying to do. So I do take onboard her feedback in relation to her residents. I do not in any way, shape or form discount the concerns that th ey have, and I will do everything in my power to try and assist where I possibly can. But unfortunately in life we have to make compromises and we have to do thing s in a very measured and careful way, to make sure that when we grow this city, when we deal with the infrastructure delivery across Brisbane, that we do it and we do it fairly for all parts of this city. Thank you. Chairman: I will put items B, C and D.

Clauses B, C and D put

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

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

AYES: 16 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, 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 Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Shayne SUTTON.

Chairman: I will now put the following items; A for Alpha, E for Echo, F for Foxtrot, G for Golf—A-E-F-G.

Clauses A, E, F and G put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, E, F and G of the report was declared carried on the voices.

ATTENDANCE:

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A PETITION – REQUESTING SUPPORT FOR THE KOOKABURRA QUEEN: 1) A PERMANENT TOURIST BOAT FACILITY, 2) RENOVATION WORK AND 3) RIVER ACCESS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF BRISBANE AND OUR ATTRACTIONS CA14/68015 567/2015-16 1. A petition from residents requesting support for the Kookaburra Queen: 1) A permanent Tourist Boat Facility, 2) Renovation work and 3) River access to serve the people of Brisbane and our attractions, was received during the Summer Recess 2013-14.

2. The Branch Manager, Asset Management, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

3. A petition signed by 95 petitioners calls upon Brisbane City Council to support future renovation, tourism and berthing opportunities for Brisbane’s Kookaburra Queens.

4. Both Council and the Queensland Government jointly manage the river on behalf of the Port of Brisbane.

5. Council’s River’s Edge strategy sets out a vision for the inner-city reaches of the Brisbane River, and a framework for planning for the river and its edges. Over 30 potential projects are identified in the strategy including a number of projects designed to support increased use of the river for tourism and recreational uses. These include infrastructure to support tour boats, water taxis, recreational power craft and passive craft. Council is progressing with investigations into these projects, and looks forward to continuing to work with key stakeholders in the future.

6. Currently Council offers temporary berthing facilities to Mirimar at the Howard Smith Wharves. Council does not have any permanent mooring facilities available to accommodate Brisbane’s Kookaburra Queens.

7. Council does not offer any support for renovations of commercial vessels.

Consultation

8. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor, Central Ward, was consulted on 5 May 2014 and supports the preferred option.

Preferred Option

9. It is the preferred option that the head petitioner be advised that Council will continue to work with key stakeholders as we investigate solutions to address the petitioners’ requests.

10. The Branch Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS AS WE INVESTIGATE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE PETITIONERS’ REQUESTS. ADOPTED

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING THE LORD MAYOR COMMIT TO CONSTRUCTING THE LINDUM RAILWAY CROSSING OVERPASS BEFORE THE END OF THIS TERM OF COUNCIL, WHICH IS MARCH 2016 CA14/93313, CA14/243599 and CA14/289810 568/2015-16 12. Council received three petitions from residents, requesting the Lord Mayor commit to constructing the Lindum Railway crossing overpass before the end of this term of Council, which is March 2016. Petition CA14/93313 was received during the Summer Recess 2013-14; Petition CA14/243599 was presented to the meeting of Council held 24 March 2014 by Councillor Peter Cumming, and received; and Petition CA14/289810 was presented to the meeting of Council held on 1 April 2014 by Councillor Peter Cumming and received.

13. The Executive Manager, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

14. Three petitions have been received, containing 179 signatures, requesting that the Lord Mayor commit to constructing the Lindum railway crossing overpass.

15. The open level crossing (OLC) at Lindum and Kianawah Roads, Wynnum West, was one of the initial three railway crossings flagged in discussions between Council and the Queensland Government in 2006 about potential joint funding of key OLC eliminations in Brisbane. Due to its location on both the Port and Cleveland railway lines, it remains a priority for Council.

16. The Lindum Road OLC elimination project is also a component of the Tilley Road extension project that will ultimately see the Port of Brisbane Motorway linked to Old Cleveland Road. There is currently no budget allocated for this upgrade.

17. The former Queensland Government committed to paying 50% of the cost to separate the road and railway at two priority OLC locations – Telegraph Road, Bracken Ridge and Robinson Road, Geebung, which were completed in 2014. There are no agreements with the current Queensland Government regarding the funding of future OLC elimination projects. Council is unable to progress the upgrade of this intersection without funding from the Queensland Government.

18. To date, only high level concept designs have been developed for this project as in-depth feasibility investigations, design and any associated land acquisitions would be required prior to construction of an overpass. There is currently no funding to progress feasibility investigations or design of separating the road and rail line at the Lindum Road OLC.

19. The Lindum Road OLC is located on the route for the Port of Brisbane Extension to the Inland Rail project. The Inland Rail project, to be funded in part by the Australian Government, will provide a rail freight route from Melbourne to Acacia Ridge in Brisbane. However, due to constraints on the existing freight line to the Port of Brisbane, planning and strategic assessment of options for a dedicated freight rail link from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane are being considered.

20. As the proposed options both link into the existing rail line at Murarrie, Council is liaising with the proponents of the Port of Brisbane Extension, concerning plans to address the impact of the longer and more frequent freight trains on the safety and operation of this OLC. The 2015 Programme Business Case for Inland Rail states that the additional capacity provided by the Port of Brisbane Rail Extension will not be required until 2041, with strategically targeted investment on the existing route.

Consultation

21. Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for the Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

22. There will be no change in customer impact from this recommendation. The petitioners have raised concerns about a safe environment, however the open level crossing has all the appropriate protection, signs and warning devices, such as boom gates, flashing lights and pedestrian gates for safe operation.

Preferred option

23. It is the preferred option that the petitioners are advised that Council endorses Option 1 to continue discussions with the Queensland Government for funding of open level crossing elimination projects in general, and with the proponents of the Port of Brisbane Extension of the Inland Rail Project.

24. The Executive Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Shayne Sutton dissenting.

25. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES OPTION 1 TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT FOR FUNDING OF OPEN LEVEL CROSSING ELIMINATION PROJECTS IN GENERAL, AND WITH THE PROPONENTS OF THE PORT OF BRISBANE EXTENSION OF THE INLAND RAIL PROJECT. ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RELEASE THE DETAILED DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED WYNNUM ROAD – SHAFTSON AVENUE UPGRADE CA14/395123 569/2015-16 26. A petition from residents, requesting that Council release the detailed design for the proposed Wynnum Road – Shaftson Avenue upgrade, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 13 May 2014 by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.

28. The petition contains 32 signatures and requests that the Lord Mayor and Council release the detailed design for the proposed Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Project. The petition has been submitted by Councillor Shayne Sutton, with support from former Councillor Helen Abrahams.

29. In early 2014, the preferred option for the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Project – Stage 1 was announced. Stage 1 extends from Latrobe Street, East Brisbane to Canning Bridge, Norman Park. The preferred option included an additional inbound lane while maintaining two outbound lanes.

30. In October 2014, Council announced it would increase the project scope and upgrade Lytton Road between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge to six lanes, and that it had started the concept design.

31. The Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Project – Stage 1 is in the detailed design phase which is expected to be completed in June 2016. Funding has been allocated in financial years 2014-15 to 2019-20 to complete detailed design, land acquisition and construction. Council will consult with the community when the detailed design has been released.

Funding

32. Council has allocated a total budget of $115 million over financial years 2014-15 to 2019-20.

Consultation

33. Councillor Shayne Sutton, Councillor for Morningside, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

34. Petitioners are seeking information on the detailed design to be informed about the potential impact on their properties.

Preferred option

35. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that Council endorses Option 1 and will continue to progress stage one of the project, consulting with the local community when the detailed design has been released in mid-2016.

37. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES OPTION 1 AND WILL CONTINUE TO PROGRESS STAGE ONE OF THE PROJECT, CONSULTING WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WHEN THE DETAILED DESIGN HAS BEEN RELEASED IN MID-2016. ADOPTED

D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL FAST TRACK THE WYNNUM ROAD UPGRADE IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR CA14/731675 570/2015-16 38. A petition from residents, requesting Council fast track the Wynnum Road Upgrade in the current financial year, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 2 September 2014 by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.

40. The petition contains 85 signatures and includes the following two similar statements: - statement one – expressing support for Councillor Shayne Sutton’s request for Brisbane City Council to fast-track the Wynnum Road Upgrade in the current financial year - statement two – expressing support for Councillor Shayne Sutton’s request for Brisbane City Council to fund the Stage 1 $60 million upgrade of Wynnum Road between Shafston Avenue and Riding Road in the 2013-14 Council budget.

41. The petition signatures are dated August 2014, so there appears to be some inconsistency in the financial years referred to in the two statements. The petition was initiated after the announcement in February 2014 that Council would upgrade Lytton Road between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge to five lanes.

42. In October 2014, Council announced it would increase the project scope and upgrade Lytton Road between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge to six lanes, and that it had started the concept design.

43. The current program is to complete detailed design by mid-2016, complete land acquisition in the 2016-17 financial year and complete construction between February 2018 and early 2020.

44. This program is influenced by the following constraints: - phasing of the Council budget allocation which totals $115 million across financial years 2014-15 and 2019-20 and is sufficient to complete the project - time required to complete site investigations and design - community and stakeholder engagement - statutory timeframes to complete land acquisition - timeframe to complete project procurement - timeframe to complete service relocations and construction.

45. Given the above constraints on project deliverables, it is not possible to comply with the requests in the petition to fast-track the project.

Funding

46. The Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1, Latrobe Street to Canning Bridge, is listed in Council’s Moving Brisbane budget document under Service 2.3.2.1 Build the Transport Network. $115 million is allocated between the 2014-15 and 2019-20 financial years.

Consultation

47. Councillor Shayne Sutton, Councillor for Morningside, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact

48. The Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1 project, between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge, will provide significant community benefits by reducing vehicle travel times and improving traffic and pedestrian safety.

Preferred option

49. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that Council endorses Option 1 to proceed with the current program with project completion scheduled for early 2020.

51. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES OPTION 1 TO PROCEED WITH THE CURRENT PROGRAM WITH PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULED FOR EARLY 2020. ADOPTED

E PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL INSTALL TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LYTTON ROAD, APOLLO ROAD AND THORPE STREET, BULIMBA, TO IMPROVE SAFETY OF THIS INTERSECTION CA14/756566 571/2015-16 52. A petition from residents, requesting that Council install traffic lights at the intersection of Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street, Bulimba, to improve safety of this intersection, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 9 September 2014 by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.

54. The petition contains 83 signatures and requests an upgrade of the Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection in Bulimba.

55. The intersection is located in the suburb of Bulimba, close to the boundary of Balmoral. Bulimba State School is located on Oxford Street, which intersects with Lytton Road at a roundabout approximately 300 metres to the south of the intersection of Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street.

56. Apollo Road and Lytton Road are District Access Routes and Thorpe Street is a Local Access Road as defined in the Brisbane Road Hierarchy. The intersection is currently ‘give way’ priority controlled at Apollo Road and ‘stop’ controlled at Thorpe Street with Lytton Road having priority. There is a painted right turn pocket from Lytton Road into Apollo Road.

57. Three accidents have been recorded in the Queensland Government Webcrash database in five years of data leading up to December 2012. One was a fatal accident in February 2010 at the intersection, involving an outbound cyclist on Lytton Road with a truck turning left from Apollo Road. One crash involved a hospitalisation and the other was property damage only.

58. Investigations into this intersection have revealed that the current school crossing, located west of the intersection, could benefit from improvements at the Lytton/Thorpe/Apollo intersection, with improved visibility for inbound motorists. 59. Recent traffic counts indicate that the intersection warrants the installation of traffic signals under the Queensland Government MUTCD. The installation of traffic signals would be expected to improve access and safety at the intersection.

60. In September 2011, Council put forward a proposal to signalise the intersection as part of the Australian Government funded Black Spot Program as a result of a previous recommendation of the Infrastructure Committee.

61. In early 2011, Council completed a preliminary design which included the following intersection improvements: - signalising the intersection (four way signals) - significantly extending the inbound right turn lane into Apollo Road - installing a new outbound right turn lane into Thorpe Street - providing two lane stand up to the intersection on the Apollo Road approach - realigning Lytton Road to improve visibility and driving lines on the eastern leg of the intersection - installing new signalised pedestrian crossings on three of the four legs of the intersection.

62. In June 2012, the funding proposal to upgrade the intersection of Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street in Bulimba as part of the Black Spot Program was rejected by the Australian Government.

63. Intersection upgrades are prioritised depending on recorded accident numbers, congestion levels, adjacent land uses, Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026 considerations, level of expected development and the position of the intersecting roads in the Brisbane road hierarchy. The intersection is currently ranked as a medium to high priority for upgrading works.

64. In September 2013, Council received a petition from 101 signatories requesting an upgrade of the intersection. Council informed petitioners that the project was submitted for funding under the Australian Government’s Black Spot Program, which was rejected, and that the intersection is currently listed for future funding consideration in Council’s budget, in line with citywide priorities.

65. The Australian Government Department of Defence has offered part of the Bulimba Barracks at Apollo Road, Bulimba for redevelopment. As a result, Brisbane City Council has initiated a master planning process to facilitate a development of the site that reflects the outcomes of the Bulimba District Neighbourhood Plan. The master plan project was launched in mid-August 2015 with the Bulimba Barracks Draft Master Plan released in November 2015. It will be used to guide the sale process of the Bulimba Barracks site and will inform subsequent statutory amendments. The identified infrastructure requirements within the draft master plan include signalisation of the Lytton Road, Apollo Road and Thorpe Street intersection. Full redevelopment of the Bulimba Barracks is expected to take 10 years.

Consultation

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

Customer impact

67. The proposed project to signalise this intersection will improve the safety of the intersection for all road users. Preferred option

68. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that Council endorses Option 1 and will consider funding the upgrade as part of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 budgets.

70. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES OPTION 1 AND WILL CONSIDER FUNDING THE UPGRADE AS PART OF THE 2016-17 AND 2017-18 BUDGETS. ADOPTED

F PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TAKE ACTION TO RECTIFY HIGH ILLUMINATION LEVELS AND REFLECTIVE MATERIALS ON THE RIVER WALKWAY BRIDGE AFFECTING THE RESIDENTS OF RIVER GALLERY APARTMENTS, MERTHYR ROAD, NEW FARM CA14/820996 572/2015-16 71. A petition from residents, requesting Council take action to rectify high illumination levels and reflective materials on the River Walkway Bridge affecting the residents of River Gallery Apartments, Merthyr Road, New Farm, was received during the Spring Recess 2014.

73. The petition contains 17 signatures and comprises the following three rectification requests: - reduce high illumination levels on the Riverwalk bridge causing undue glare when viewed from River Gallery Apartments at 6 Merthyr Road - reduce high illumination levels on the Riverwalk swing bridge causing light intrusion into River Gallery Apartments at 6 Merthyr Road - reduce sun reflections from the reflective materials used in Riverwalk construction causing undue glare at various times during the day.

74. The project team has been working with the body corporate and residents at River Gallery Apartments regarding these issues to achieve the outcomes discussed below.

High illumination levels from the lights on Riverwalk

75. Due to the feedback received from residents, Council investigated the lighting issue in late September 2014 and again in December 2014. These investigations established that the best solution was to place a permanent film over selected lights on the structure, and install a resistor in the on-land up-lights. These measures reduced the illumination levels and the impact on River Gallery Apartments, while still meeting safety requirements. This work was completed in early 2015 and addresses the first two issues raised in the petition.

Sun reflections

76. The Riverwalk project team consulted with the designer and town planners in late 2014 regarding glare requirements. At this time it was reconfirmed that Riverwalk was designed and constructed in accordance with all relevant codes and standards that apply to marine works within the Brisbane River.

77. Approval for construction was granted by the Queensland Government and Council’s Development Assessment branch for prescribed tidal works (reference A003657505). As part of the approval process, an assessment was undertaken by State and local government regulatory agencies against the relevant requirements.

78. In accordance with State and local government requirements, works of this nature must be designed and constructed using long-life materials for marine environments. In addition, materials used must have the ability to resist attack by marine organisms, corrosion and deterioration resulting from abrasion or immersion in seawater. Polished stainless steel handrails are specified as meeting the requirements of an appropriate balustrade finish.

79. Other elements of Riverwalk, such as the central plinth on the opening span, were required to be constructed with robust materials and finished in colours that blend into the Brisbane River landscape. Riverwalk complies with these provisions, with most finishes neutral in colour, which is considered to complement the character of the Brisbane River.

80. As a result of compliance with State and local government requirements, no changes are intended to Riverwalk’s construction materials.

Funding

81. The installation of the permanent film over selected lights and the resistor in the on-land up-lights was funded from the project budget.

Consultation

82. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

83. The high illumination levels at night from the lights on Riverwalk were considered to impact several of the adjacent residents. Since the illumination levels have been reduced, the project team is not aware of any further complaints relating to this issue.

84. The high reflectivity of the stainless steel balustrade causes some glare to adjacent residents at times in the afternoon. There is little that can be done to alleviate the effects of this glare but it is noted that the glare from the surface of the Brisbane River in the afternoon is at least as significant as the glare caused by the stainless steel balustrade.

85. The roof of the shelter and the central plinth causes some glare problems for residents in the afternoon, however it is expected that the patina on the surfaces will dull over time and the glare issue will be of diminished concern.

Preferred option

86. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that Council endorses Option 1 to continue with the current permanent film over selected lights on the structure and utilisation of resistors in the up- lights on land and make no change to the construction materials used in the Riverwalk structure.

88. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES OPTION 1 TO CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT PERMANENT FILM OVER SELECTED LIGHTS ON THE STRUCTURE AND UTILISATION OF RESISTORS IN THE UP-LIGHTS ON LAND AND MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS USED IN THE RIVERWALK STRUCTURE. ADOPTED

G PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL FOR IMPROVED SAFETY/TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON VERNON TERRACE, MACQUARIE STREET, AND POSSIBLE SKYRING TERRACE, TENERIFFE CA14/834127 573/2015-16 89. A petition from residents, requesting Council for improved safety/traffic conditions on Vernon Terrace, Macquarie Street, and possible Skyring Terrace, Teneriffe, was received during the Spring Recess 2014.

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

91. Council has received a petition requesting Council improve traffic and safety in Vernon Terrace, Macquarie Street, and Skyring Terrace, Newstead. The petition contains 13 signatures representing 12 properties in Vernon Terrace. The petition does not contain any signatures from residents from Macquarie Street or Skyring Terrace. To improve traffic and safety the petitioners request: - a reduction in speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h or lower - increasing road signage indicating speed limit - speed cameras - pedestrian crossings at a maximum separation of 200 metres, particularly in the restaurant areas - at least one set of traffic signals.

92. Vernon Terrace, Macquarie Street and Skyring Terrace are all classified as District Access Roads within Brisbane’s Road Network Hierarchy. These roads play important roles in carrying traffic between major metropolitan suburbs and are anticipated to carry large volumes of traffic. Set one street back from the Brisbane River, these streets contain a mix of residential and commercial properties. A locality map is available on file.

93. Speed limits across the city are set in accordance with the MUTCD set by the Queensland Government. This ensures a consistent approach to speed limits across Queensland. In response to a previous petition, requesting a speed limit reduction in Macquarie Street, Vernon Terrace and Skyring Terrace, Council conducted a survey of local community to ascertain their support for a lower speed limit. In excess of 10,000 survey forms were distributed to local residents. Council received a total of 829 replies, 458 were not in favour of a speed limit reduction and 371 were in favour of a speed limit reduction. As the majority of respondents are not in favour of a speed reduction, Council has no plans to reduce the speed limit on Vernon Terrace, Macquarie Street and Skyring Terrace at this time.

94. Council installs speed limit signs in accordance with the MUTCD, which requires speed limit signs to be installed at the intersections of major traffic carrying road, or at every two minutes of travel. During a recent site inspection it was confirmed that 50 km/h speed limit signs are currently installed in accordance with the MUTCD and that no further repeater 50 km/h signs are required at this time.

95. Instances of speeding are considered poor driver behaviour and are best handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service (Police). Speed cameras, both fixed and mobile, are the responsibility of the Police. Residents can assist Police in their enforcement activity by identifying days and times of the day when speeding is more prevalent. Residents are encouraged to report instances of illegal speeding to the Police via the PoliceLink service on 131 444.

96. Council is currently delivering an upgrade to the intersection of Commercial Road, Skyring Terrace and Vernon Terrace to improve safety for all road users. As part of the upgrade, a new set of traffic signals including pedestrian crossing facilities have been installed. Stage one of the project, including installing the signals, has been completed. Stage two of the project, involving minor works around the intersection and the relocation of the CityCycle Station will be completed shortly. No further intersections along these streets are being considered for signals at this time.

97. There are a number of pedestrian crossing facilities provided along Vernon Terrace, Macquarie Street and Skyring Terrace including signalised crossings, pedestrian refuges and kerb build outs. The locations of existing pedestrian crossing facilities have been highlighted in the locality map available on file. The pedestrian refuge and zebra crossing locations along the length of the road are spaced at intervals of 200 metres or less, with the exception of the distance between Ethel Street and Beeston Street locations, which are approximately 540 metres. Florence Street is located within this gap, but as this crossing point features build outs only, it provides a different level of service and safety.

Consultation

98. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the proposed recommendation.

99. The Branch Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

100. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT: - COUNCIL DOES NOT SUPPORT LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT ALONG VERNON TERRACE, MACQUARIE STREET AND SKYRING TERRACE, NEWSTEAD. - COUNCIL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SPEED WARNING SIGNS ALONG VERNON TERRACE, MACQUARIE STREET AND SKYRING TERRACE, NEWSTEAD. - INSTANCES OF SPEEDING SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. - COUNCIL HAS RECENTLY INSTALLED TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCIAL ROAD, VERNON TERRACE AND SKYRING TERRACE. - COUNCIL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES ALONG VERNON TERRACE, MACQUARIE STREET AND SKYRING TERRACE, NEWSTEAD. ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the special meeting of that Committee held on 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I won't be too long; just to cover off what was covered in the Committee last week. So we had a presentation on the new Planning Act 2016 that went through Stat e Parliament on 12 May 2016. Although there was some debate on when it woul d become effective, we will nail that down and there's still some regulations to c ome as well which will provide us a little bit more detail. So it was very early da ys, but of course this originally has come out of the June 2015 discussion paper f rom the State Government called the Directions Paper: Better Planning for Que ensland which has now formed the basis of this Bill. The key highlights from the reform are outlined there in the report, namely that code assessment applications there is a higher presumption in favour of approval against the benchmark provisions. There was no change to Council's request to r

einstate the ability to refuse applications based on sufficient planning grounds te st. The reduction in time for Council or other submitters to respond to the Stat e Government planning instruments, so the time we have available for that has b een reduced. But there were some good changes relating to the TLPI to make the TLPI enforc eable from the time that Council originally passes it, once it has been approved b y the Minister. So we had a little bit of a discussion in the Committee that that st ill allows a small window, but hopefully if we continue to keep working very clo sely with the State Government and minimising those timeframes, then that is ce rtainly a better outcome than what we had previously. In terms of the petitions, so the Committee had three petitions. First of all, reque sting that Council change the development approval for 600 Coronation Drive, which of course the Grace on Coro want to maintain the existing bikeway. So as Councillors can read, in fact there's two options provided for bikeway access thr ough that site. There is the one that continues out the front along Coronation Dri ve interacting with the driveways, but there'll also be a dedicated bike facility thr ough the site as well, which is a really positive improvement as part of that deve lopment application. The next petition related to Cubberla Street, Fig Tree Pocket, which is in my wa rd. Myself and the community were advocating for a through road to become tw o cul-de-sacs, and the applicant made some amendments to the Plan so that that was achieved. Then the final petition requesting the Customs House—relating to the Customs House—or sorry, the development next to Customs House, the Cbus proposal at 443 Queen Street. I was interested to drive past the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) building the other day and see Cbus proudl y advertised on the side of their building. Just a coincidence I'm sure. So the 443 Queen Street—but of course this application—and this is the response—is curre ntly in appeal, and we don't discuss applications that are currently in appeal, less we prejudice them. So that was that. Look the only other thing I wanted to add, Madam Chairman, to the debate is th at I'm disappointed after I feel we've had a very positive session and we were ha ving some very positive discussions amongst the Committee, that Councillor SR I, the Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has not decided to stay around in the Cha mber long enough to hear the Committee report. I hope that as a member of the Committee he will continue to prioritise the importance of playing an active role on this Committee. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON? Councillor SUTTON: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on items B and D in this Committee repor t.

Seriatim - Clauses B and D Councillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause B, PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 600 CORONATION DRIVE, TOOWONG, TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BIKEWAY (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003953028), and Clause D, PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL PROTECT THE CUSTOMS HOUSE PRECINCT FROM THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 443 QUEEN STREET, BRISBANE (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004228551),be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SUTTON: Look on item B this is actually a petition and my deepest, humblest apologies to Councillor SIMMONDS. This was actually a petition that I actually voted for in the Committee last week, but since then I've actually had some more informatio n. I've gone out and got some more information I guess or some more comment from I guess some of the potential users that might be using this, and I do want t

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 68 - o change my position on that and fully disclose that. But I think that when new i nformation comes to light it's encumbered on each and every Councillor to actua lly assess whether or not that new information changes their views, and in this p articular case, this new information has changed my view. I guess just to elaborate on that, look in my discussions with the users, the bicycl e users, is that look they appreciate the efforts made by Council to secure the sec ondary cycling route through the site in accordance with Bicycle network overla y in the City Plan, but there's a pretty good Bicentennial Bikeway route towards St Lucia and Council has recently spent $38 million upgrading that bikeway clos er to the CBD with a State Government contribution as well I understand. So it's important that the bikeway doesn't just—that particular bikeway doesn't j ust peter out into a substandard path before it reaches Toowong and St Lucia. The response in this petition notes that cyclists will still have the opportunity to continue on the shared pathway along Coronation Drive to Glen Road, and I thin k the users, from what they've advised me, believe that many riders will actually choose to do that, to stay on the shared bikeway rather than to add an extra five metres of vertical elevation to their route by climbing through the Toowong To wers site. Basically what they're saying is look it really was a well-intentioned thought by Council, but its actual practical application form a user's perspective is that a fiv e metre elevation through the site is not an attractive proposition to a lot of cycli sts—well may not be an attractive proposition to a lot of cyclists. They are also concerned that the Toowong Towers driveway will be a high traffi c zone and a high traffic flow across the shared pathway through the site, which is concerning for the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists. Although traffic law s require drivers to give way when crossing a pathway to enter or exit a drivewa y, the reality is many drivers don't do this. I've had this experience in my own ward with Wynnum Road, where we have co nstant conflict between the driveways and the shared pathways. It creates a whol e heap of anxiety both by the motorists who are afraid of coming out of their dri veways in case they hit a cyclist, and the cyclists who get concerned that at any given time a motorist may come out of their driveway having not seen them. So it is a real issue and the way in which this development has been configured actually sets that key driveway of the Toowong Towers through that shared path way. So perhaps in hindsight a better traffic arrangement should have been plan ned for this development that actually really takes onboard these kinds of concer ns, and isn't putting motorists and pedestrians and cyclists in conflict with one a nother. So I guess good attempt, great that you thought about it, but the practical applica tion through the development application process needs to be better handled and better managed if we're really going to get positive outcomes through developm ent applications for cyclists in the city, which is why we won't be supporting this today. I remember when this was going through Planning Committee and Councillor H elen ABRAHAMS as our shadow on planning did raise cyclists’ concerns quite forcefully during that debate on that development application, but unfortunately that wasn't—the application was approved anyway. In terms of the petition, item D on Customs House, the one next to Customs Hou se, 443 Queen Street, look I've made a number of public comments on this appli cation. I don't believe the application should have been approved. I can't underst and how Councillor HOWARD can actually support the Administration's positio n on this when she is the Councillor meant to be representing an area that includ es the fabulous Customs House. I think that this petition response is an insult to all the residents who signed it, an d I believe it was inappropriate for this Council—it's my view it was inappropria te for this Council to sign off on this development application out of session wit hout coming to the Planning Committee. I believe there should have been a spec

ial Planning Committee held so that we could have considered this application if we needed to meet statutory timeframes. This whole development application has been appallingly handled and the petiti on is no better, and we won't be supporting it today. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON? Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly, Madam Chairman, on item D with respect to the Queen Street petition. I note that there are a huge number of residents, over 1,700, that signed this petition and I know I had quite a few residents in my ward who spoke to me about their concerns with this development approval. I too am concerned but not surprised, sadly, that this Council has ignored its ow n planning regime and allowed a massive unit development to be built which im pinges on a heritage site views and view corridors, particularly when it's such a s ignificant building. I mean Customs House is an extraordinary founding piece of architecture and infrastructure in this city, and to see huge modern highrise apart ment buildings being built without recognition and respect to Customs Place I th ink is really, really disappointing. The best cities in the world have been able to combine their traditional architect ure with modern improvements. It's just a shame that when we claim to be a new world city we allow these kind of appalling design solutions that really don't do anything to advance the architectural significance of our heritage places. So I think it's incredibly disappointing the outcome that we've got here. I think t hat it's really sad that this Council's not prepared to do more when it comes to re fusing these types of applications that are a long way outside of the planning sch eme. I note that there is an appeal before the Planning and Environment Court and bas ically Council's washed its hands off this matter. I just think that we can do more to ensure our significant architecture such as Customs House is protected, and I t hink that the fact that there are political games being played by Councillor SIM MONDS with respect to which DAs are coming up here for approval and which DAs aren't, is really quite disappointing. I think that he needs to think very carefully about the outcome of the decisions h e's making by allowing some up to full Council, whilst others are being run thro ugh behind closed doors. A decision made by a Council officer, rather than the a ccountable people who are us here in the Chamber. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS? Councillor SIMMONDS: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Look just a couple of quick things. I can't let Councillor SUTTON's changed position go uncommented. Again, this is the difficulty that we face in providing certainty for planning and jobs and growth in this city; is that the Labor spokesperson around city planning can't even hold a p osition for a week. Just a week would do it. If we could just have a little bit of consistency beyond seven days; that when we know that she puts her position on the table, that we know that she'll stick to it f or more than seven days. I think it would enable us to do a lot more in conjuncti on in the Committee, Madam Chairman, but as long as it occurs that we can't ev en trust her own vote from week to week that she'll stick with it, you can see wh y it's difficult for those discussions in Committee to be more constructive. I take her points regarding the bikeway for Grace on Coro. I can't agree with her —through you, Madam Chairman, I can't agree with Councillor SUTTON's asse ssment of it. I don't see how providing both options for cyclists is a negative out come. I'm not asking them to take one or the other— Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Can you wait until I call the point of order please first.

Councillor SUTTON: Oh sorry, sorry. Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS please continue. Councillor SIMMONDS: Oh thanks, Madam Chairman. I don't see how providing both options is a negati ve outcome. I'm not asking cyclists to take one or the other. They will choose th eir preference; whether they prefer the slightly longer albeit a dedicated route thr ough the site, or whether they prefer the quicker route along Coronation Drive al beit with the interactions to the driveways. Look, we'll come back to it, we support cycling infrastructure. We support it wit h more funding than any Administration that has come before us, but there must be a balance, Madam Chairman, and as part of this site working in with the surro unding neighbourhoods in terms of traffic movements, both of those entrances— both Coronation Drive and onto the side street, Glen Road and Archer Street the re—are required. So it ultimately comes down to a balance between the uses and the people passin g through the site, and we feel that the balance that has been achieved in this par ticular circumstance, with two options for cyclists to traverse the site, is a positiv e one. In relation to Councillor JOHNSTON, well I don't want to comment on this appl ication, except to correct a blatant—a blatant factual inaccuracy. I'll say it that w ay, very diplomatically, Madam Chairman. The Independent Councillor claimed that no consideration was given to the heritage of Customs House. That's simply not true. Significant consideration was given to view lines and other aspects aro und Customs House. That formed an important of the assessment process. Finally, Madam Chairman, having made note of it in my opening comments abo ut the Councillor for The Gabba, I'm pleased to welcome him back and note him back in the Chamber for this report. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON you claim misrepresentation? Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair. Councillor SIMMONDS said that I said it was a negative thi ng to have provided a second bikeway route through the Toowong Towers. I did nothing of the sort. I actually said it was good that it had been thought about, but more a better practical application was required, if they really wanted to support a usable—a proper—a better cycle path for cyclists, if I can say it that way. Chairman: Thank you. I will now put items A and C.

Clauses A and C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A and C of the report was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I would now put items B and D.

Clauses B and D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses B and D of the report was declared carried on the voices.

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

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

NOES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

ATTENDANCE:

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

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – OVERVIEW OF PLANNING REFORM 574/2015-16 1. Sharon Nicol, Acting Manager Strategic Planning Section, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an overview on the planning reform. She provided the information below.

2. Background on the planning reform was given. In September 2014 Council made a submission on the Planning and Development Bill 2014. In June 2015, Council made a submission on the new Directions Paper: Better Planning for Queensland. In October 2015, Council made a submission to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) on the consultation draft of the Planning Bill 2015. In January 2016, Council made a submission to the Parliamentary Committee Inquiry on the Planning Bill 2015 and in February 2016, made a submission to DILGP on the consultation draft of Supporting Material.

3. The Directions Paper’s key directions are to enable better strategic planning and high quality development outcomes; to ensure effective public participation and engagement in the planning framework; to create an open, transparent and accountable planning system that delivers investment and community confidence; to create legislation that has a practical structure and clearly expresses how land use planning and development assessment will be done in Queensland; and to support local governments to adapt and adopt the changes.

4. On 12 May 2016, the Queensland Parliament passed the Planning Act 2016, the Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 and the Planning (Consequential) and Other Legislation Act 2016. Explanatory Notes for Amendments to the Planning Bill were released on 17 May 2016. Section 320A of the Planning Act 2016 commences on 25 May 2016 following assent, however there is uncertainty as to when the balance of this Act will commence.

5. It was noted that the Supporting Materials were released for comment in 2015. These included the draft Planning Regulation 2015; the draft Development Assessment Rules September 2015; the draft Infrastructure Designation: Statutory Guideline for Local Government November 2015; and the draft Minister’s rules and guidelines for making or amending local planning instruments September 2015. The Planning Regulation is due for release in July this year.

6. Certain elements of the previously released Supporting Material, for example various statutory timeframes, have been rolled into the Planning Act 2016.

7. The Planning Act 2016 involves a simplification of the development assessment provisions; and decision rules for code assessment include a presumption in favour of approval and matters to be considered are not the same as the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). Additionally, Council’s timeframe to respond to State Planning Policy (SPP) amendments has been reduced from 40 days to 20 days. The Planning Act 2016 also includes an exclusion of claims for compensation for changes made to reduce risk (e.g. natural hazards) to person or property; exemption certificates; provisions to allow indexation of infrastructure charges and improvements to the functionality of temporary local planning instruments (TLPIs).

8. Council, in its submission to the Planning Bill 2015, raised concerns with assessment benchmarks (matters that development must be assessed against) including unclear connections between the Planning Bill 2015 and the Regulation, and unclear provisions regarding the inclusion of local planning scheme assessment criteria. Concerns were also raised on planning scheme detail (e.g. content, drafting

principles, and mechanics and hierarchy) and detailed transitional arrangements for amending and operating a planning scheme made under SPA.

9. Key highlights were then presented on the current status with regard to the Planning Act 2016, including the following highlights. - For Code Assessment applications there is a presumption in favour of approval against the benchmark provisions (these provisions exclude, for example, the use of Strategic Outcomes). - There was no change to Council’s request to reinstate the ability to refuse applications based on the sufficient planning grounds test (bounded nature of code assessment is reinforced). - Reduction in time for Council or other submitters to respond to State Government Planning Instruments. - The Development Assessment process is similar to IDAS (Integrated Development Assessment System), however further clarification is required by the Supporting Material.

10. Implementation considerations for Council include the timing of when DILGP will release the Regulation and other Supporting material and a review of what was rolled into the Planning Act 2016 (e.g. the statutory timeframes).

11. Implementation implications also include City Plan 2014 transitional arrangements and that City Plan 2014 amendments may be required immediately and in the future. Council will need to review Code Assessment benchmarks and review implications of the bounded nature of code assessment. Details of planning scheme content are not yet available – this will impact how plans are made and amended.

12. Development Assessment business processes will need adjustment for reduced timeframes across various stages of the assessment process; for the management of general administrative functions (e.g. correspondence, business systems, etc); use of the third party assessment option (‘chosen assessment managers’); and the introduction of exemption certificates.

13. Community Infrastructure Designation Rules will also have an implementation implication for Council. This includes key issues raised in Council’s submission to the 2015 draft Regulation and draft Statutory Instruments such as the inability to levy infrastructure charges where a facility creates a demand on Council’s trunk infrastructure network; lack of a requirement to demonstrate why a project should not follow the usual assessment process in City Plan and inadequate timeframes for public consultation.

14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Nicol for her informative presentation. 15. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 600 CORONATION DRIVE, TOOWONG, TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BIKEWAY (APPLICATION REFERENCE A003953028) CA15/631087 575/2015-16 16. A petition requesting that Council change the development approval at 600 Coronation Drive, Toowong, to maintain the existing bikeway (application reference A003953028), was presented to the meeting of Council held on 4 August 2015, by Councillor Vicki Howard, and received.

17. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, supplied the following information.

18. The petition contains 109 signatures.

19. The petition requested the following changes: - the cycling corridor (bikeway) along Coronation Drive, be maintained up to Glen Road - all motor vehicle access to the proposed development be via Archer Street, which will remove the perceived need to re-route bicycle traffic

- Archer Street to be closed to Coronation Drive and access to be via Glen Road - the development be viewed as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and be assessed as such due to bus, CityCat and train stops being accessible within a 300 metre walk.

20. An application for centre activities in a local heritage place and multiple dwellings over three stages, which includes 156 units in Tower A, 134 units in Tower B and 256 units in Tower C, was approved by Council on 9 June 2015 (application reference A003953028).

21. The application was assessed against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and within the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

22. A formal submitter to the application lodged an appeal on 20 July 2015 against the approval with the Planning and Environment Court. The appeal will now be handled by the Court. The appeal can be viewed online by visiting www.courts.qld.gov.au and searching reference number 2868/15.

23. A traffic assessment report was submitted with the application addressing vehicle access from Coronation Drive to the development. Council officers assessed the report and found that the proposed access point locations meet the acceptable outcomes of the Toowong-Auchenflower neighbourhood plan and the requirements of the Transport, access, parking and servicing code. Whilst the development could be considered a TOD due to the public transport options available, this does not alter the development as proposed. The proposal complies with the requirements of City Plan for car parking for the site.

24. Council’s City Plan Bicycle network overlay and the Toowong-Auchenflower neighbourhood plan show primary and secondary bicycle links through the site and along the Coronation Drive and Archer Street frontages. They are also mapped in Council’s Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) as trunk infrastructure. These formed the basis for Council’s decision to pursue a cycling link through the site, with the approved plans providing a separated bi-directional bicycle-only path directly through the site and a shared path along the Coronation Drive and Archer Street frontages.

25. An easement benefitting Council is to be granted over the bicycle-only path, with access for Council vehicles provided for ongoing maintenance.

26. The paths have been designed in accordance with Council and Austroads Standards, with Council seeking revisions to the gradient, width and profile of the bicycle-only path, including a slow-down curve, during the development assessment process. Cyclists will therefore have the opportunity to climb the hill directly to the site, or to continue via the shared path along the Coronation Drive frontage and turn left into Archer Street. They will also have the opportunity to continue on towards Glen Road, as it is intended that the shared path will continue along Coronation Drive towards St Lucia, with the recent development approval at 20 Benson Street, Toowong, maintaining the existing shared path as part of the site’s redevelopment.

Consultation

27. Councillor Julian Simmonds, Councillor for Walter Taylor Ward, was consulted on 24 May 2016 and supports the recommendation.

28. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jonathon Sri abstaining.

29. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A DRAFT RESPONSE

Petition Reference: CA15/631087

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council change the development approval at 600 Coronation Drive, Toowong, to maintain the existing bikeway (application reference A003953028).

Your petition was considered by Council at the meeting of 7 June 2016 and Council can respond to you as follows.

An appeal has been lodged with the Planning and Environment Court on 20 July 2015 by a submitter against Council’s approval of the application and the appeal process will now be handled by the Court.

The appeal can be viewed online by visiting www.courts.qld.gov.au and searching reference number 2868/15.

Thank you for raising this matter. ADOPTED

C PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE RECONFIGURATION OF 1 LOT INTO 14 LOTS, A NEW ROAD AND A DRAINAGE RESERVE AT 53 CUBBERLA STREET, FIG TREE POCKET (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004076253) CA16/169917 576/2015-16 30. A petition objecting to a development application for the reconfiguration of 1 lot into 14 lots, a new road and a drainage reserve at 53 Cubberla Street, Fig Tree Pocket (application reference A004076253) was received during the Election Recess 2016.

33. The petitioners’ concerns are traffic issues including an increase in vehicles and reduced road safety and a change in character of Culmstock Place.

34. An application for the reconfiguration of a lot (1 lot into 14 lots, new road and drainage reserve) at 53 Cubberla Street, Fig Tree Pocket (A004076253) was received by Council on 4 March 2015. A development application was not required for the removal of the existing single storey post-war house and ancillary structures.

35. The application was subject to impact assessment and public notification was carried out from 10 September 2015 until 1 October 2015. There were 70 submissions received, of which 54 submissions were properly made in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). The principal petitioner lodged a formal submission.

36. During the application process the applicant lodged an amended layout plan which no longer provided a through road connection from Culmstock Place to Oasis Court. The development application was approved by Council on 15 April 2016, after being assessed against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 and in accordance with the SPA. The assessment considered a number of issues including bushfire, waterway corridors, flooding, stormwater discharge, traffic, and issues raised in the submissions received.

37. The approved development application incorporates extensions to both Oasis Court and Culmstock Place where nine of the 14 lots can gain access from Oasis Court and the remainder of the lots can gain access from Culmstock Place (4) and Cubberla Street (1). Provisions have been made for a pedestrian connection, vehicle manoeuvring, and emergency service vehicle access.

Consultation

38. Councillor Julian Simmonds, Councillor for Walter Taylor Ward, was consulted on 24 May 2016 and supports the recommendation.

39. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Jonathon Sri and Shayne Sutton abstaining.

40. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Thank you for your petition objecting to the proposed development at 53 Cubberla Street, Fig Tree Pocket.

The development application was approved by Council on 15 April 2016 after being assessed against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014 and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

This petition was received outside of the notification period, however, I would like to assure you that the concerns raised in the petition were taken into consideration during the assessment of the application. The approved development does not provide a road connection from Culmstock Place to Oasis Court.

Details of the development application can be viewed online by visiting Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and by searching the application reference number A004076253.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Peter Leeds, Team Manager, Development Assessment, Planning Services City West, on 3403 8888.

D PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL PROTECT THE CUSTOMS HOUSE PRECINCT FROM THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 443 QUEEN STREET, BRISBANE (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004228551) CA16/242491 577/2015-16 41. A petition requesting that Council protect the Customs House precinct from the mixed use development at 443 Queen Street, Brisbane (application reference A004228551), was received during the Election Recess 2016.

43. A petition with 1,707 names was received by Council on 23 March 2016, requesting that Council protect the Customs House precinct from the mixed use development at 443 Queen Street, Brisbane. The petitioners’ concerns include the: - overall fit with the aesthetics and planning of the Brisbane River front - heritage environment - level of assessment of the application - appropriateness of the development for the precinct - setting of Customs House - setbacks of the proposed development

- impacts to the heritage listed fig tree - traffic impact assessment report - assessment of weather corridors in Brisbane’s Central Business District.

44. An application for a mixed use development consisting of Multiple Dwellings (264 units) and Centre Activities (Retail and Food and Drink outlet) was received by Council on 30 September 2015.

45. The development application triggered code assessment, which did not require public notification under the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).

46. The development application was approved by Council on 22 December 2015, after an assessment against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014, in accordance with the provisions of the SPA.

47. An originating application appeal was lodged with the Planning and Environment Court on 29 December 2015 against Council’s approval of the application. The originating application can be viewed online by visiting www.courts.qld.gov.au and searching reference number 4990/15.

48. Further commentary during an appeal period is not appropriate and seen by the Court as prejudicing ongoing proceedings.

Consultation

49. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for the Central Ward, was consulted on 24 May 2016 and supports the recommendation

50. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillors Jonathon Sri and Shayne Sutton dissenting.

51. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council protect the Customs House precinct from the mixed used development at 443 Queen Street, Brisbane (application reference A004228551).

The development application was approved by Council on 22 December 2015, after being assessed against the requirements of Brisbane City Plan 2014, in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

An originating application appeal was lodged with the Planning and Environment court on 29 December 2015, against Council’s approval of the application. The originating application can be viewed online by visiting www.courts.qld.gov.au and searching reference number 4990/15.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Eileen Paterson, Team Manager, Development Assessment Specialist Services, on 3403 8888.

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The report in the Committee last week was about the Community Conservation Partnerships program and before I get to what was presented in that report, I'd li ke to reflect on a related activity that took place on Sunday, which was a tour of members of various parts of the Community Conservation Partnerships program. These are volunteers from across Brisbane involved in these activities to have a look at the conservation programs that they variously undertake and to the share d experience. So there was a catchment tour across four sites on Sunday within the Enoggera/ Breakfast Creek catchment that started and finished at Newstead House Park. So the participants, and there was some 45 of them, visited the Land for Wildlife pr operty at The Gap, Save Our Waterways Now Creek Catchment Group site and Habitat Brisbane site at Bowman Park at Bardon and Habitat Brisbane site at the Corby Street Park in Ashgrove. I guess that points directly to what the presentation was about last Tuesday in th e Committee. The Community Conservation Partnership's program came about i n 2012 with the intent of delivering a more coordinated and effective approach t o community engagement within four previously existing programs. So they incl ude the Wildlife Conservation Partnerships Program, the Creek Catchments Pro gram, the Habitat Brisbane program and the environment centres all have slightl y divergent objectives but all with the same outcome in mind of preserving our b iodiversity. So fostering a recognition of our diverse fauna, flora and ecosystems and certain ly promoting involvement in bushland regeneration and through the programs, p roviding support for those residents that want to get involved. There are 128 Ha bitat Brisbane groups and about 1,400 regular volunteers to those groups. So tha t's one of the longest lasting groups that we have. There are some 4,000 volunteers all up and with an amazing contribution that th ey all make in dollar value terms; it's been put at around $10 million a year to th e value that these volunteers bring to the objective of preserving our biodiversity on public and some private land. So a great program. That was what the officer t ook us through last week, the Community Conservation Partnerships program an d it is great to listen to and learn from both the volunteers when we have that op portunity and to hear from our Council officers when they take us through with t heir passion for the program, what they're bringing to the biodiversity fauna, flor a protection within the Brisbane area. Madam Chairman, beyond that presentation, we had last week some petitions. It em B and item E are essentially the same, petitions requesting green space, eithe r input into green space or more green space in West End. So they're essentially the same objective being attended to by those petitions. I'm pleased to say that th eir outcomes, these petitions that were presented by the previous Councillor for The Gabba Ward, Councillor Abrahams, and now coming through for a respons e. It's been brought to the attention of the petitioners or it is intended to bring to the attention of the petitioners that an urban common has been provided for purchas ed land in Vulture Street, West End, to indeed achieve that outcome or greater g reen space in the West End area. The petition, the item at item E, the other petiti on requesting input into green space in West End is essentially wanting to achie ve the same outcome, that is, input into that green space in the planning stages w hich we'd be more than happy to put out to community consultation what is prop osed for that green space urban common in West End and to see in consultation with the current Councillor for The Gabba Ward what it is precisely that the resi

dents in the area would like within the context of what's actually achievable with in the space and obviously within budgets. The other items there, Madam Chairman, at item C, a petition requesting the Co uncil reconsider granting a men's shed at Indooroopilly use of a park for their fa cilities and that is not being supported. A petition calling on Council to divest fr om fossil fuels in its investment policy and the response there is that, or it is sug gested that the response is that Council bases its investments on a broad diversifi cation of investment in established banks, which have a credit rating of minus, A minus or better. Madam Chairman, I'll leave it to anybody else who would like to participate in t his debate. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Just speaking really briefly on item B, item D and item E. The reason I said that I needed support, just for the record, that I needed support in the proposed reco mmendations was that I supported some part of the recommended responses but not others. Specifically I'm quite supportive of the redevelopment of the Thomas Street Park at 68 Vulture Street and I thank Councillor McLACHLAN for the on going conversation we've been having about that. But I just wanted to emphasise that I don't support the strategy for green space e mbodied in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan and instead belie ve that we should be developing green spaces around the West End peninsula in accordance with the West End green space strategy, which is put together by a la rge number of residents. So yes, that was why I responded in that way to those t wo petitions. Just really quickly on item D, the petition regarding fossil fuels. I know I'm prob ably not going to convince other Councillors of this but I think it's quite sensible, it's economically prudent, to divest from fossil fuels. This statement that we've already divested from fossil fuels by purchasing green power doesn't really go to the heart of the matter. I won't prattle on about it because I can see that people ar en't really interested but I think it's of great concern that we haven't yet diverted from fossil fuels and a lot of other Councillors have already done this. So maybe we can think about that for the next year. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Just briefly on that matter, the petition, about fossil fuels, Madam Chairma n. We did have a bit of a discussion about it in the Committee last week, Mada m Chairman to Councillor SRI. Probably not the kind of discussion that you wo uld have thought was a good one. One of the interesting things about this, from my point of view, was we have a fi nancial responsibility to our ratepayers in the way we manage our funds. It is rea lly important that we do so in a way that maximises any return that we get so it c an be reinvested back in to delivering the essential services facilities and infrastr ucture that our city needs. My concern with the petition, I'm sorry, through you, Madam Chairman to Coun cillor SRI, was it did not go far enough, in my view. That financial responsibilit y absolutely comes first. Is there more we can do to contribute to the environme nt and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and so forth? Yes, I'm sure there is but I think that the overriding financial issues here really direct the answer. It was interesting that I did ask Councillor McLACHLAN about some of the fin ancial requirements and so forth in this and he said that the advice had come fro m Councillor ADAMS' area. So there's nothing in here that gives us any detail a bout what these other investment strategies are, why we didn't invest in them, w

hich ones we do invest in and so forth, and that's because Councillor McLACHL AN just simply could not answer any questions about this. He said if anybody wanted to speak they could stand up here in the Chamber an d speak about it now. But in Committee when questions were raised to seek mor e information about what was going on, he just wasn't interested. He couldn't an swer any of the questions. The only consultation that this actually refers to is tha t Councillor McLACHLAN was consulted but apparently he just got a note pass ed to him at school from Councillor ADAMS who told him how to respond. So I just think my overwhelming concern with this last week was the slipshod w ay in which it was done and I think we have an obligation in this kind of petition response to make sure that we are very, very clear about why the financial integr ity of our investments that Council has imported and that is because it is not our money. It's money, I think, and I equate to holding in trust on behalf of the peopl e of Brisbane. Certainly I understand there are environmental issues at stake here. I'd like to se e, for example, some of the money that we've invested and we don't spend on dr ainage and cleaning up Oxley Creek and, you know, a few of those really practic al kind of initiatives. That would be a good thing from my point of view. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just summing up on the contributions from the disparate team on the other side. We have similar objectives in mind, that is, the financial credibility of the Counc il. It's the first and foremost issue but that is a matter for the finance division to d etermine. I accept that Council's best practice approach is to invest in measures which don't put at risk ratepayers' funds. I think that's a very important sustainability message, let me say, that the funds o f Council remains sustainable. But in relationship to the specific question about f ossil fuels, I point proudly to the record that we've achieved in the purchasing of 100% green power since 2010. That is, we have reduced our carbon footprint en ormously by some, reducing the Council's carbon footprint, by some 85,000 ton nes of carbon emissions each year. So this may differ from what groups like 350.org suggest in terms of trying to ru n down the financial contribution of businesses in Australia by saying, or trying to dictate what councils across Australia invest in. But I'm more than confident t hat we're achieving our objectives in reducing our carbon footprint by the polici es that we can adopt within this portfolio area and I'm certainly pleased and take to heart the comments that were provided by the finance department team about what we should and do invest in to protect the financial sustainability of this org anisation. Chairman: I will now put all items on this 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 Steven Huang, Nicole Johnston and Andrew Wines.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM 578/2015-16 1. Jenny Staples, Senior Program Coordinator Community Partnerships, Parks and Natural Resources Team, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Community Conservation Partnerships Program. She provided the information below.

2. The Community Conservation Partnerships program (CCPP) includes the management of the following: - Council’s Environment Centres – Boondall Wetlands, Downfall Creek and Karawatha Discovery Centre - the Creek Catchment program including 10 creek catchment groups which support the Brisbane catchment network - Wildlife Conservation Partnership program which works with more than 700 large private landholders and also includes the national and southeast Queensland Land for Wildlife SEQ program - Habitat Brisbane which includes 128 groups and 18 sub-groups managing Council land.

3. The strong success of CCPP is supported by anecdotal evidence of the return on investment by actively improving biodiversity and waterway health. More than 2,956 hectares of land is actively managed by Council with support from more than 5,000 community volunteers.

4. A strategic snapshot of CCPP was displayed.

5. A map of the citywide coverage of CCPP was shown which indicated that 876 sites are maintained or are under restoration across the city, with more than 50% of the city’s biodiversity values within private land ownership. Council’s Vision 2031 has a target of 40% of mainland Brisbane to be natural habitat.

6. The success of CCPP has been possible due to its strong integration with many areas of Council including pest animal and weed management; wipe out weeds and natural area management; bushland acquisition; and environmental grants.

7. The Land for Wildlife SEQ program within the CCPP supports more than 70% of native vegetation in southeast Queensland and is managed by Council as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with SEQ catchment as the principal coordination point. The benefits of this MOU include the training of Council officers; collective resource development; consistent brand and baseline program; stronger cost effective marketing; and the building of community networks across southeast Queensland.

8. The strong customer satisfaction level of CCPP is evidenced by survey results from a CCPP 2015 survey and an Omnibus survey revealing: - 93% of Wildlife Conservation Partnership program partners feel that Council officer visits are valuable - 83% of creek catchment groups feel CCPP has provided advice and training that has assisted them to strengthen their governance structure - 79% of catchment group respondents feel that CCPP has supported their work - 81% of the wider Brisbane community confirmed they have a positive opinion of the Habitat Brisbane program - 82% of the Brisbane community surveyed have a positive opinion of catchment group work.

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

10. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL MAXIMISE GREEN SPACE IN THE WEST END PENINSULA CA15/982632 and CA15/1059940 579/2015-16 11. Council received two petitions from residents, requesting Council maximise green space in the West End peninsula. The petition CA15/982632 was presented to the meeting of Council held on 24 November 2015, by former Councillor Helen Abrahams, and received, and the petition CA15/1059940 was received during the Summer Recess 2015-16.

12. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.

13. The petitions contain 26 signatures.

14. Council adopted the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan in 2011 which is now part of the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the City Plan). This plan provides a vision for the area of West End and appropriately guides development outcomes.

15. In 2015, Council identified additional parkland opportunities in West End and purchased land at 68 Vulture Street, West End. This land is identified for the purpose of an ‘Urban Common’. This piece of land adds valuable public open space to an area which is deficient in public space and is undergoing a considerable increase in urban density and social change. In consultation with the community, this park will transform a central part of the suburb into a green, shady open space for residents to enjoy.

16. Council’s priority is to purchase properties in areas where there is currently a deficiency of parkland.

17. It is therefore recommended the petitioners be advised that Council purchased land at 68 Vulture Street, West End, as an ‘Urban Common’. In consultation with the community, this park will transform a central part of the suburb in to a green, shady open space for residents to enjoy. Council will develop its parkland network in accordance with the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan.

Consultation

18. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, was consulted on 11 May 2016 and neither supports nor does not support the recommendation.

19. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

20. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Petition Reference: CA15/982632 and CA15/1059940

Thank you for your petition requesting Council to maximise green space in the West End peninsula.

I would like to assure you Council is committed to ensuring the community’s needs and expectations are met for the West End area. I am pleased to advise that Council purchased land at 68 Vulture Street, West End as an ‘Urban Common’. In consultation with the community, this park will transform a central part of the suburb in to a green, shady open space for residents to enjoy.

Council will develop its parkland network in accordance with the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan, which provides a vision for the West End area and appropriately guides development outcomes.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Steve Lintern, Senior Program Officer from Council’s Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability branch, City Planning and Sustainability on 3403 8888.

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER GRANTING THE INDOOROOPILLY MEN’S SHED INC A LIMITED LICENCE TO PARK MEMBERS’ VEHICLES IN KEATING PARK, INDOOROOPILLY, WHEN USING THE SHED CA15/893489 580/2015-16 21. A petition from residents, requesting that Council reconsider granting the Indooroopilly Men’s Shed Inc a limited licence to park members’ vehicles in Keating Park, Indooroopilly, when using the shed, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 27 October 2015, by Councillor Julian Simmonds, and received.

22. The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

23. Council received a petition from members of the Indooroopilly Men’s Shed requesting a licence/permit to use Keating Park, Indooroopilly, to park their private vehicles when using the Indooroopilly Men’s Shed.

25. Keating Park, Indooroopilly, is a high profile park situated next to the Indooroopilly shopping centre. This park services the needs of the whole Indooroopilly community. Jack Spear Park is the next closest park and this park supports recreational sport, including soccer. Keating Park already has limited open space and any further reduction would be detrimental to general park users.

26. Asset Services West has received capital funding this year to upgrade the facilities at Keating Park and all areas of the park are currently being assessed to increase the usability for general park users.

27. During the construction of the Men’s Shed, Council provided parking space for seven vehicles to accommodate future use. The streets around the Indooroopilly Men’s Shed have allocated parking and further parking can be accessed at the Indooroopilly shopping centre if needed. This is a short 100 metre walk across the road. The area behind the Men’s Shed is used by park patrons as a picnic area.

28. Unfortunately Asset Services is unable to support the Indooroopilly Men’s Shed request to use Keating Park as a car park as there is already limited open space in this park.

Consultation

29. Councillor Julian Simmonds, Councillor for the Walter Taylor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

30. The Indooroopilly Men’s Shed members will have to utilise the current on street parking allocations in conjunction with their allotted parking spaces within their leased area.

31. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

32. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL PRIORITISES PRESERVING PARK GREEN SPACE AND AS A RESULT, CANNOT SUPPORT PROVIDING THIS SECTION OF THE PARK FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE MEN’S SHED. COUNCIL OFFICERS WILL WORK WITH THIS RAPIDLY EXPANDING MEN’S SHED TO ASSIST THEM IN CATERING FOR THEIR PARKING NEEDS WITHOUT UTILISING KEATING PARK, INDOOROOPILLY. ADOPTED

D PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS CA16/213791 581/2015-16 33. A petition from residents, calling on Council to divest from fossil fuels, was received during the Election Recess 2016.

35. On 15 March 2016, Council received a petition containing a total of 1,170 signatures. The petition called on Council to no longer use financial institutions which have investments in fossil fuels.

36. Council has achieved a very real divestment from fossil fuels, albeit in a different manner to that proposed by 350.Org. Council has been purchasing 100% GreenPower since July 2010, reducing Council’s carbon footprint by some 85,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Council remains one of the largest purchasers of GreenPower in the country. Typically, some 115,000 tonnes of Council’s direct carbon emissions are negated each year through carbon offsets. Council has also recently completed a retrofit of 25,000 streetlights with 40% more energy efficient lights, reducing Council’s carbon footprint by around 2,000 tonnes of carbon per annum.

37. Since 1999, Council has adopted a best practice approach to managing the financial risk associated with the investment of ratepayer funds. It is based on a broad diversification of investment in established banks which have a credit rating of A minus or better.

38. Council sought advice on the petitioner’s list of financial institutions it believes do not invest in fossil fuels. On review of the list supplied, Council believes only a small number meet Council’s financial risk management criteria. Of those that do meet Council’s financial risk management criteria, Council holds investments in all but one.

Consultation

39. Councillor David McLachlan, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee and Councillor for Hamilton Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

41. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING. - COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE LIST OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 350.ORG BELIEVES DO NOT INVEST IN FOSSIL FUELS. - SINCE 1999, COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED A BEST PRACTICE APPROACH TO MANAGING THE FINANCIAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INVESTMENT OF RATEPAYER FUNDS. - COUNCIL BASES ITS INVESTMENTS ON A BROAD DIVERSIFICATION OF INVESTMENT IN ESTABLISHED BANKS WHICH HAVE A CREDIT RATING OF A MINUS OR BETTER. - ON REVIEW OF THE LIST SUPPLIED, COUNCIL BELIEVES ONLY A SMALL NUMBER MEET COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT CRITERIA. ADOPTED

E PETITION – REQUESTING INPUT INTO GREEN SPACE IN WEST END CA16/353585 582/2015-16 42. A petition from residents, requesting input into green space in West End, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 1 December 2015, by former Councillor Helen Abrahams, and received.

44. Council received a petition containing a total of 150 signatures, requesting that Council consider community input into green space for West End, specifically for the new ‘Urban Common’, located along Vulture Street, West End.

45. On 16 November 2015, Council distributed 5,000 draft concept plan pamphlets to the residents of West End. The consultation period was open until 30 November 2015. However, at the community’s request, Council extended the community consultation period to 14 December 2015.

46. Prior to the development of the West End Urban Common draft concept plan, community consultation had been undertaken by the former local Ward Councillor, Helen Abrahams. In addition, community views presented at workshops and engagement activities undertaken by the Councillor were considered in the development of the draft concept plan. Following consultation, 52 submissions were received. Council will review all submissions and consider change to the draft concept plan based on these submissions.

Consultation

47. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, was consulted on 27 May 2016 and neither supports nor does not support the recommendation.

49. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL EXTENDED THE WEST END URBAN COMMON CONSULTATION PERIOD TO 14 DECEMBER 2015, TO PROVIDE GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. ADOPTED

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of that Committee held on 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Turning to the presentation, it was undertaken by the manager of the Fleet Servi ces branch who provided us with an overview of the extraordinary amount of wo rk that that particular branch does, not only within the Field Services group but with the Council generally. We were given a very informative presentation that t he extent of the service and operations of Fleet Services is not only for vehicles but also to repairs to plant and equipment. For example, there were 4,500 Council assets that the Fleet Services group has a regular roster of maintaining and servicing and repairing. The works extended al so to all of the heavy plant and equipment such as the asphalting plant. It was int eresting to watch an overview of the amount of time that's required and the com

plexity, for example, servicing the asphalting machine, one of the service machi nes, over this period of a month. It was obviously a great credit to the entire branch to the level of professionalis m and quality of the work that they undertake on a day to day basis to keep Cou ncil running. Certainly through the strong commitment by the management and t he team, there is some great statistics around the enormous reduction in lost time, injury frequency, absenteeism at 2.84%, but also the engagement by the entire t eam in just a 12 month period; up to 74% is outstanding. It just goes to show the great amount of pride that officers take within that branch, generally within FSG of their commitment to Council and importantly to residents as well. Madam Chairman, there were also two petitions that were presented to the Committee. One requesting the removal of three trees at 7 Raphael Place, MacK enzie, and the second regarding the removal of trees at a drain adjacent to the N orthern Suburbs Bowls Club at Wavell Heights. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item B, the petition to remove the fig trees from Raphael Place, MacKenzie. I support the Council's recommendation to remove the trees but on ce again, Council isn't being consistent in its assessment and recommendations. Only last week, the recommendation to not remove a tree in Kookaburra Place, Doolandella, was recommended and carried, which had similar issues, including limited growing environment, evasive root system, debris on the roadway and da mage to the kerb and channelling. Clearly there continues to be an inconsistency in the Council's process in the dec ision-making. There needs to be more transparent and set guidelines that Counci l officers can follow. When I raised this issue in Committee, I'm told that each p etition is assessed on its merit. On the face of it, that would seem fair and equita ble but when you start to compare the background and recommendations of each of the petitions for removing or not removing trees, you see the inconsistencies. Seriously, we really have to ask ourselves why is it the case, why is this the case, and if I was a cynical person, I might say that one ward is favoured over anothe r on the recommendations but I find that there is an inconsistency in this as well. It is my belief that the Council policy in this area needs a root and branch review —sorry for the analogy—so that residents can have confidence in the decision- making. I don't want to be constantly trying to explain to constituents why one tree is bei ng treated differently than another when both are assessed on the same issues wi th two different outcomes. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ALLAN. Councillor ALLAN: Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak briefly on item C, a petition to remove tr ees in a drain adjacent to the Northern Suburbs Bowls Club at Wavell Heights. The trees are a mix of mature and immature trees and are impacting the effective functioning of the drain and capture debris, which causes the drain to overflow i n certain instances. In this instance, the location of the drain is particularly relev ant. It is on the low side of a large hill and captures significant run off during he avy downpours. If the drain is blocked, the overflow breaches the drain and runs down on to the bowling greens, which negatively impacts the playing surface and the health of t he grass. It is expected that the removal of the trees will have no impact on resid ents or other park users. It will benefit the playing members of the club by enhan cing the playing surface and the availability of greens. Not surprisingly, the Nort hern Suburbs Bowls Club support the removal of these trees.

I have inspected the site and the trees that are the subject of this petition. I suppo rt the petition and the recommendation to remove the trees. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just briefly. As I said in Committee, Madam Chairman, each case is assessed on its own merits. The officers undertake this work, the arborists who have qualific ations in this particular area make those recommendations at the end of the day, Madam Chairman. I say to Councillors, particularly Councillor STRUNK, pleas e don't be cynical. You've only just started here, you came in bright eyed and bu shy tailed, maintain the enthusiasm. Ironically, Madam Chairman, for example, as Councillor STRUNK was saying, one ward favoured over another. Ironically after our meeting in Committee last week around this issue, I signed a letter to Councillor STRUNK, a memo for a r ecommendation for officers to remove the tree on his request within his own war d. Today in Committee there were other wards for Councillors opposite. Madam Chairman, it really is at the end of the day a case by case basis. Officers always look for the opportunities to maintain the trees because of the great inves tment placed in it, not only financially but the enormous benefit to our environm ent to have them. But in instances where it's just not possible to retain the tree af ter great efforts, and you can see within these petitions there were efforts undert aken to maintain those trees but sometimes the situation is such that the accumul ation of various factors result in their removal. As always, these trees have to be assessed on an individual basis as we go throu gh the process. Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. 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 – FLEET SERVICES BRANCH OVERVIEW 583/2015-16 1. Kay Sullivan, Fleet Services Manager, Fleet Services, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to give an overview on Fleet Services branch. She provided the information below.

2. A branch organisational structure was displayed. The branch has 90 Full Time Equivalent employees and is located at Wacol. Fleet Services has a $15.1 million budget.

3. Fleet Services consists of nine main work areas. The operational business units are workshop repairs, servicing, field repairs, minor plant repairs, smash repairs and casual owner drivers. The administrative business units include administration, the Manager’s office and workshop administration.

4. Fleet Services support Council to deliver services to the community. Fleet Services maintain, service and repair approximately 4,500 Council assets.

5. The Servicing Team supports the organisation by ensuring appropriate preventative maintenance is undertaken on all vehicle fleet items, both at the Wacol Depot and at onsite servicing locations.

6. A key focus for the Workshop Repair Team is to get assets back on the road to keep Brisbane moving.

7. Field Repair mechanics spend their day on the road attending critical equipment breakdowns at over 22 Council locations. This is a 24 hour, seven day a week operation.

8. Council owns a diverse plant fleet of approximately 2,500 assets. Onsite support is provided to Council with a rolling servicing schedule.

9. Fleet Services guide employees through the insurance process for fleet involved in an accident or weather related event; assisting with insurance claims, quoting and the panel and paint repair.

10. The Administration team look after all fleet enquiries and bookings, truck and plant hire for Council, battery, tyre and warranty repairs and parts ordering. Between July 2015 to present, 286 jobs required warranty work, 432 certificate inspections were performed, 26,400 plant and truck hires were organised, and there were 1,080 tyre jobs and 782 battery replacements.

11. Fleet Services’ overall achievements included the rollout and use of SAP and Click Mobile, LEAN value stream mapping, implementation of a structured business improvement program, and a 20% productivity improvement.

12. Some of the branch achievements include a zero Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate from April 2016, 100% SAP utilisation, a 2.84% absenteeism rate (the Council rate is 4.6%), lowest SAP notification error rate in Field Services Group (currently 3.17%), building future capability by supporting apprentices, an increase in employee engagement from 38% to 74% in 12 months, a One Council approach by working with the Carbon Emissions Team and Brisbane Transport, Triple Certification and 100% employee participation in training activities.

13. A time lapse video was displayed showing a paving machine being serviced over a four to five-week period.

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

15. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF STREET TREES IN FRONT OF 7 RAPHAEL PLACE, MACKENZIE CA16/69550 584/2015-16 16. A petition requesting the removal of three fig trees located in front of 7 Raphael Place, Mackenzie, was received during the Summer Recess 2015-16.

17. The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure, supplied the following information.

18. The petition contains three signatures.

19. Council tried to schedule removal of these trees approximately two years ago, but was met with an objection from one of the neighbouring properties.

20. The Arboricultural Coordinator in Council’s East region, Asset Services, assessed the trees on 17 February 2016 and found that the trees were not planted by Council and have not been planted in accordance with Council’s tree planting specifications.

21. The fig tree species requires large growing areas to allow for the full maturity of this tree species to develop. However, these three fig trees have been planted into the streetscape at 7 Raphael Place, Mackenzie. This area has a limited growing environment, with multiple underground services around it. It is not possible for this tree species to grow without impacting on the surrounding infrastructure. This species of tree also produces a large amount of debris that covers the entire roadway and nature strip areas.

22. No amount of arboricultural practices would resolve the ongoing nuisance issues. This species of tree is inappropriate for this area and will continue to cause ongoing damage to occur into the future on multiple properties surrounding these three trees.

23. The Council officer marked the trees for removal and began the notification process on 17 February 2016. A tree assessment notice was delivered to 15 properties starting at the beginning of Raphael Place, Mackenzie. Only one objection was received, a month past the objection period. The trees are located on the opposite side of the street to the residents who objected and their property is not directly impacted by the three trees. These residents wished to have these trees retained for shade and aesthetic reasons.

24. An additional request was also sent on 23 February 2016 by Councillor Adrian Schrinner, Councillor for Chandler Ward, in an email to Councillor Matthew Bourke, former Chairman of Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, on behalf of the residents at 4 Raphael Place, Mackenzie. It also requested removal of the three fig trees.

Funding

25. The three tree removals will be funded out of the recurrent Urban Amenities branch (UAB) contract tree maintenance budget and the replacement tree planting would be funded out of the recurrent UAB reactive tree planting budget.

Consultation

26. Councillor Adrian Schrinner, Councillor for Chandler Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

27. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

28. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL WILL REMOVE THE THREE INAPPROPRIATE TREES, AS THEY ARE OUTGROWING THE RESTRICTED STREET FRONTAGE CONDITIONS AND ARE BEGINNING TO IMPACT THE SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE. COUNCIL HAS ASSESSED THE SITE AGAINST ITS TREE PLANTING GUIDELINES AND IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THERE IS ONLY ENOUGH ROOM FOR ONE REPLACEMENT TREE, WHICH WILL BE AN IVORY CURL TREE OF 45 LITRE STOCK SIZE. THIS WORK HAS BEEN PROGRAMMED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF MAY 2016. ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE TREES IN A DRAIN ADJACENT TO NORTHERN SUBURBS BOWLS CLUB AT WAVELL HEIGHTS CA15/893402 585/2015-16 29. A petition requesting that Council remove trees in a drain adjacent to the Northern Suburbs Bowls Club at Wavell Heights, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 27 October 2015, by former Councillor Kim Flesser, and received.

30. The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure, supplied the following information.

32. This area was the subject of a previous request in August 2012 when trees were removed and pruned to minimise the impact of shading on the Bowls Club greens. At this time, Council’s Asset Services sought advice from Council’s Leasing unit, who reported that their greenkeeper attributed the lack of grass growth on the greens not as a result of shade, but of other causes including poor drainage. Acting on this advice, Asset Services removed trees that were in poor condition, but retained a number of small trees.

33. Since undertaking this work, the Bowls Club has requested the remaining trees be removed. The Arboriculture Coordinator North Region, met with the Bowls Club treasurer, Mr Trevor Yates, on 10 November 2015, to assess the trees. Council noted that most of the remaining trees are located within the open drain, which may contribute to the overflow of water onto the greens.

34. Based on previous advice from Council’s Leasing unit that shade is unlikely to be the cause of the deterioration of the greens, it was stressed that the trees would not be removed for this reason. However, due to the trees obstructing stormwater flow in the drain, it has been recommended that eight mature and twenty-three immature trees be removed.

Consultation

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

Customer impact

36. Northern Suburbs Bowls Club has been consulted and agrees with the tree removals. No other customer impact is expected from the removal of trees on parkland.

37. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Nicole Johnston abstaining.

38. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL HAS ASSESSED A NUMBER OF TREES GROWING IN PARKLAND NEAR THE BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHERN SUBURBS BOWLS CLUB, AND EIGHT MATURE AND TWENTY-THREE IMMATURE TREES WILL BE REMOVED. ADOPTED

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 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Just one item on the Committee presentation from last week. It wasn't a tour but it was a presentation about the Emily Seebohm Pool up in Bracken Ridge, Mada m Chairman. This is a facility that I've spoken about before in this place, obviou sly highlighted last time. I think it was actually last week or maybe the week bef ore I answered a question about this particular facility. But there's two pools, Ma dam Chairman, two 25 metre pools, a six lane outdoor pool that has the accessib le ramp and a heated 25 metre indoor pool, Madam Chairman. The facility has a kiosk, changing rooms, showers, toilets, accessible changing f acilities as is part and parcel of the upgrades and the new pools that we build. So very important to provide that. Large areas for families to have picnics, barbequ

es, shaded areas, new car park, Madam Chairman. It is co-located with our State facilities so it doesn't matter whether you want to do freestyle in the pool or free style in the State facilities, Madam Chairman, we've got it covered up at Bracke n Ridge. Madam Chairman, it also is co-located with our animal shelter there in Councill or COOPER's ward and I know—rehoming centre. Thank you, Councillor COO PER. I know that Councillor COOPER has been a vocal advocate and supporter of this project and Councillor COOPER was there with the LORD MAYOR and Councillor ADAMS and Emily Seebohm on the day that we officially opened th e pool back in February. It was a fantastic event by all accounts, Madam Chairman, and obviously the Co mmittee presentation went through not only the opening but also the constructio n of this particular facility. So congratulations to all the Council officers that we re involved in the design and construction work as well as the opening, Madam Chairman. Another fantastic Council facility provided for the people of Brisbane Just another way that this Administration is building lifestyle and leisure opport unities for the residents of Brisbane. Chairman: Further debate? There being no further debate—nothing further, Councillor BOURKE? 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 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 – THE EMILY SEEBOHM AQUATIC CENTRE – FITZGIBBON 586/2015-16 1. Kent Stroud, Branch Manager, Community Facilities and Venues, Brisbane Lifestyle, attended the meeting to provide an update on The Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre – Fitzgibbon. He provided the information below.

2. A Bracken Ridge pool was announced by the Lord Mayor in 2012. After a scan of potential sites, the preferred site at 523 Telegraph Road, Fitzgibbon, was agreed on in July 2013. The site was selected as it was zoned for sport and recreation use, had sufficient space to accommodate a precinct, was on a major road network and could meet the future needs of a growing northside community.

3. The details of the progress of this project were outlined with the help of images. A precinct approach was adopted to accommodate other sporting and recreational activities in addition to swimming. The existing Willawong Animal Shelter was modified so that the new aquatic centre, skate park and car park could be co-located within this site. Work to reconfigure the animal shelter was completed in July 2015. Work on the adjoining skate park began in October 2015 and was finalised in early February 2016.

4. On 21 October 2015, an article was published in the Bayside Star by Councillor Amanda Cooper, Councillor for Bracken Ridge Ward, seeking suggestions for the naming of the Bracken Ridge aquatic centre. She asked that names pay tribute to prominent characters or to the history of the local area. Suggestions were to be submitted by 16 November 2015, with a reason for the proposed name.

5. Emily Seebohm attended the St John Fisher College, Bracken Ridge. On 26 January 2009, she was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia. Emily has won four Olympic medals, including two gold;

10 World Championships Long Course medals, including four gold; five Wold Championships Short Course medals; and 11 Commonwealth Games medals, including five gold. Emily also holds a number of Australian records and has held two world records. After much community feedback, The Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre – Fitzgibbon, was selected as the venue’s name.

6. The Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre – Fitzgibbon was completed on 10 February 2016 and officially opened to the public on 14 February 2016, by Lord Mayor Graham Quirk; Councillor Amanda Cooper, Councillor for Bracken Ridge Ward; Councillor Krista Adams, the then Chairman, Brisbane Lifestyle Committee; and Emily Seebohm, OAM.

7. Council has received positive community feedback about the new facility, with attendance expected to reach 120,000 patrons per year within the first five years. Programs currently available include learn to swim classes; aqua aerobics; swimming squads and coaching; and water-based physiotherapy.

8. The available facilities in the aquatic centre include a heated, 25-metre, six-lane outdoor pool with accessible ramp; a heated, 25-metre indoor pool with accessible ramp; a kiosk; change rooms with showers and toilets, including accessible changing facilities; a barbeque; a variety of grassed and shaded areas; and car parking.

9. The Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre – Fitzgibbon will complement the facilities provided at the Sandgate Aquatic Centre and between both aquatic centres, will provide the residents and visitors to the northern suburbs of Brisbane with a vast variety of quality aquatic facilities and programs.

10. The Bracken Ridge community precinct includes: - The Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre – Fitzgibbon - the Bracken Ridge Skate Park Plaza - the Warra Animal Rehoming Centre - the Bramble Bay Pony Club - a fenced dog off-leash area.

11. There is future potential and space for additional community and recreational facilities within the Bracken Ridge community precinct, particularly once the Telegraph Road upgrade project is completed.

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

13. RECOMMENDATION:

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the report of that Committee held on 31 May 2016, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. We had a report last week. The Committee report was on the LORD MAYOR's business awards. This year actually marks the eleventh year of the LORD MAY OR's business awards and we took the opportunity to acknowledge those busine sses and individuals who have excelled in their respective fields, not only in the wards but to remember them as we looked back over the years and looked at the contribution that those businesses have made to Brisbane since then and looked at the opportunities that we have now to nominate your businesses too for the L ORD MAYOR's business awards. So highlights from 2015 was there was more than 560 industry leaders and prom inent Brisbane corporates who attended the ceremony that had more than 184 no

minees for emerging and successful Brisbane businesses. So we looked at some of the categories we have, Small Business Growth, Corporate Citizenships, Sust ainability, Innovation, Doing Business in Asia, Start Ups, Digitals, just to name a few of them. I ask all of you to go online and have a look at the nominations for the LORD M AYOR's business awards. They are open now for this year. We would love to se e an expansion still again for businesses in Brisbane. We have a new corporate p artner on board with Industry Super Property Trust coming along for award for t he digital strategy. The judging is held in August and September but we do have —the nominations are open now right through to 22 July 2016. So please take that opportunity to speak to your local businesses to nominate the m or get some ideas of who they work with that they'd love to nominate as well. Also on the report, I'll just touch on the petition that we had last week. The petiti on was from 11 signatories requesting that preachers be banned from the inner-c ity, in particular in Queen Street Mall. We did have a discussion on this in Com mittee and talked about the processes and procedures that we do go through for peaceful assemblies in the mall and we make sure that we do go through that pro cess. Permits are submitted in writing and that we do actually go through those p ermits to make sure that the applicant is conforming with the conditions that are set out in the Act as well. Of course, anything that is actually held in the Queen Street Mall is monitored b y Council officers in our City Safe CCTV cameras to make sure that they are co mplying. But we do feel that peaceful assemblies like preaching in the Queen St reet Mall are appropriate activities to be held in these highly foot traffic areas. O bviously, as was in The Brisbane Times today, this specific issue that happened on this particular day was on a rainy day and there seemed to be some non-comp liance with the preachers coming in under cover and causing a problem with the footway traffic on the rainy day. I understand that may have been quite frustrating for the people that were in the mall on that day but I do feel that this one incident is probably not enough reaso n to ban all preachers in the Queen Street Mall and we will remain vigilant throu gh our CCTV and take on any complaints to make sure that our peaceful assemb lies are conforming to the permit process that we have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate? There being no further debate—anything further, Councillor ADAMS? I'll now 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 – LORD MAYOR’S BUSINESS AWARDS 2016 587/2015-16 1. Nikki Reid, Events Manager, Produced Events, Brisbane Marketing attended the meeting to provide an update on the Lord Mayor’s Business Awards 2016. She provided the information below.

2. 2016 marks the 11th year of the Lord Mayor’s Business Awards (LMBA). The awards acknowledge those businesses and individuals who have excelled in their respective fields.

3. The key objectives of the LMBA are to: - recognise, reward and showcase the outstanding performance and achievement of local businesses - acknowledge the contribution of business to the growth of Brisbane’s economy - draw attention to Brisbane as a hub of innovation and talent - provide a forum for partners to achieve their specific business objectives - provide a forum for the city to engage with Brisbane’s business community.

4. Highlights from the 2015 LMBA were provided. In 2015, more than 560 industry leaders and prominent Brisbane corporates attended the ceremony which received more than 184 nominations from emerging and successful Brisbane businesses. The total 2015 LMBA media exposure reached a total advertising space rate of $620,701.

5. Since the inception of the LMBA, 86 companies and individuals have received awards over the 10 years of the program. The event continues to leverage from previous successful years and the commencement and support of LMBA alumni.

6. Nominations for the 2016 LMBA opened on 18 May 2016 and close on 22 July 2016. Judging of each category will be held in August and September 2016. Networking events are to be held with the finalist and sponsor function on 26 September 2016, followed by the gala dinner on 28 October 2016. Another winner and sponsor function is to be held on 17 November 2016.

7. The 11 categories for the 2016 LMBA include: - Australia TradeCoast Award for Small Business Growth - Clayton Utz Award for Corporate Citizenship - Energex Award for Sustainability in Business - Brisbane Times Award for Business Innovation - HSBC Award for Doing Business in Asia - ANZ Made in Brisbane Award for High-Growth Business Start-up - ISPT Award for Digital Strategy - Port of Brisbane Award for New Investment - Channel 7 Award for Business Person of the Year - Singapore Airlines Award for Young Business Person of the Year - Optus Business Platinum Award.

8. The presenter discussed the 2015 winners which included PharmaData, Brisbane Broncos, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Heat Treatment, Cook Medical Australia, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Mineraltec, Scott Young – Young Guns Container Crew and Don Meij – Dominos.

9. The Chairman thanked Ms Reid for her informative update.

10. RECOMMENDATION:

B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 29 APRIL 2016 134/695/317/3-03 588/2015-16 11. Paul Oberle, Chief Financial Officer, provided a monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 29 April 2016.

12. During the April period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per general ledger) decreased by $51.7 million to $496.2 million excluding trusts (Ref:1.4). The net decrease is due to the planned early repayment of QTC debt.

13. Council funds as at 29 April 2016 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled $504.3 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.

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

15. Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.

16. RECOMMENDATION:

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

C PETITION – REQUEST FOR STREET PREACHERS TO BE BANNED FROM THE INNER CITY CA15/1067800 589/2015-16 17. A petition from residents requesting that Council ban street preachers from the inner city, was received during the Summer Recess 2015-16.

18. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability supplied the following information.

19. A petition containing 11 signatures, requesting that preachers be banned from the inner city, was received on 16 December 2015. The head petitioner specifically cites an incident in the Queen Street Mall (QSM) involving an interaction with a religious peaceful assembly.

20. Council’s processes and procedures for management of the QSM recognise a person’s or organisation’s right to assemble peacefully using Council facilities under the Queensland Government’s Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (the Act). An applicant will be given approval in writing by Council to conduct a peaceful assembly using Council facilities, provided the notice is received by Council at least five business days prior to the proposed date of the public assembly and the applicant conforms to the conditions set out within the Act.

21. Peaceful assemblies in the QSM are monitored by Council officers and CitySafe CCTV cameras to ensure that they comply with the conditions of the notification letter and regulations stated in the Act. Council officers may take enforcement action under the Public Land and Council Assets Local Law 2014 if any breaches of these conditions are observed. Additionally, Queensland Police Service officers may take appropriate action if there are any identified issues which may impact on the rights and freedoms of persons in a public place or should they be requested to assist Council officers undertaking enforcement action.

22. Activities such as preaching in the QSM are considered appropriate activities under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 and are envisaged by Council’s procedures and policies for management of the QSM. Current controls are considered appropriate to manage peaceful assemblies in the QSM and as such, it would be inappropriate to ban preaching from the QSM.

Consultation

23. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, was consulted on 27 May 2016 and supports the recommendation.

24. The Divisional Manager therefore recommends as follows and the Committee agreed, unanimously.

25. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A Draft Response

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council ban street preachers from the inner city.

Your petition was considered by Council at its meeting of 6 June 2016 and I now wish to advise that Council has responded as follows.

The Queen Street Mall (QSM) is the premier shopping and entertainment destination in Brisbane's CBD and is a positive and popular destination for visitors, tourists, families, young people and community groups.

Council notes your concerns about street preachers within the inner city and regrets your unfortunate recent interaction with a specific religious group assembling in the QSM. It is acknowledged that you were offended by the views expressed by this organisation and the alleged behaviour of participants when you tried to communicate with them.

Council’s processes and procedures for management of the QSM recognise a person’s or organisation’s right to assemble peacefully using Council facilities under the Queensland Government’s Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (the Act). An applicant will be given approval in writing by Council to conduct a peaceful assembly using Council facilities, provided the notice is received by Council at least five business days prior to the proposed date of the public assembly and the applicant conforms to the conditions set out within the Act.

Peaceful assemblies in the QSM are monitored by Council officers and CitySafe CCTV cameras to ensure that they comply with the conditions of the notification letter and regulations stated in the Act. Council officers may take enforcement action under the Public Land and Council Assets Local Law 2014 if any breaches of these conditions are observed. Additionally, Queensland Police Service officers may take appropriate action if there are any identified issues which may impact on the rights and freedoms of persons in a public place or should they be requested to assist Council officers undertaking enforcement action.

Activities such as preaching in the QSM are considered appropriate activities under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 and are envisaged by Council’s procedures and policies for management of the QSM. Current controls are considered appropriate to manage peaceful assemblies in the QSM and as such, it would be inappropriate to ban preaching from the QSM.

I trust this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please contact Council’s Economic Precinct Manager, in Council’s City Planning and Sustainability division, on (07) 3403 8888. ADOPTED

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any petitions? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a petition regarding development in Cowley Street, Woolloongabba. Chairman: Councillor HOWARD. Councillor HOWARD: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition regarding traffic management at the Gasworks. Chairman: No further petitions? Councillor MARX, can I have a motion for receipt of the petitions, please?

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 96 - 590/2015-16 It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Kim MARX, seconded by Councillor Jonathan SRI, 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 CA16/454362 Jonathan Sri Opposing development application in Cowley Street, Woolloongabba (A004231122) CA16/454493 Vicki Howard Requesting improved traffic management and pedestrian safety in Newstead and the Gasworks Precinct

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduc t Review Panel order? There be no one rising to their feet, Councillors, are there any matters of Genera l Business? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. I did not get an extension of time earlier today so I rise in General Business just to make a few further remarks about the Corporate Plan. There were a couple of other issues I did want to raise and I'll be brief. I covered the Oxley Creek issues earlier. Now, the other issues I want to mention are the problems that we're having with what this Administration says. Now, I'm going to take them at face value that w hat's in this Plan is what they're going to do over the next five years and I'm goin g to hold them to this because another one of the issues in here, Madam Chairma n, relates to promoting active transport. It says that this Administration is going to secure a connected bicycle network th rough City Plan, which is part of developing attributed works, except they're not actually spending their developer contributed money, they're just putting it in the bank, as we've seen earlier today. But particularly they want to expand Brisban e's cycling network through bikeways infrastructure to deliver, and I quote, an i mproved commuter network targeting the CBD, inner-city area and the city's top employment areas. Now, the third largest business in Brisbane happens to be located at Rocklea. It's called the Brisbane Markets. Huge. Huge employer, major economic generator f or our city and guess what? There's no footpath to get to Rocklea from Sherwoo d. The only bus that goes through is the 198, 199. It's very poorly serviced by pu blic transport. For the past eight years, I have had my number one cycling and bikeway project is an east-west connector from Sherwood Road across to Fairfield Road to provi de an east-west cycling link that links Sherwood into the bottom of Moorooka a nd into the Tarragindi bikeway, which people can then take east towards the uni versity, or north in towards Yeronga and the CBD. It is an obvious missing link i n our network and I note now that the Administration claims it is going to encou rage bikeways in the city's top employment areas. Well one of those top employment areas happens to be Rocklea. So I look forwa rd to the Administration delivering on my promise. Now part of this is my ward now and part of it is actually Councillor GRIFFITHS' ward, because of the boun dary changes. It does require either three cantilevered extensions to bridges, whi ch I admit will be expensive, but there is no footpath there now, none, no footpat h. So you can get to the rail bridge at Sherwood Road at Sherwood, there is a fo

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 97 - otpath to there and you can get to the bus depot. Beyond that, no footpath until y ou get down to the markets' entrance, about a kilometre away. Now this happens to have two further bridges, the Oxley Creek bridge and then t he floodplain bridge. I think you could easily cantilever an extension to these exi sting bridges to ensure that there is a dedicated bikeway or pathway. Just a footp ath would actually be quite good because it's the LORD MAYOR who was then the Chairman for infrastructure, who basically said no to the footpath along the missing section in Sherwood Road about six years ago when I pushed for it. He personally said no to it. It's just astonishing, Madam Chairman. So I note that you say you are going to put more footpaths and bikeways in arou nd our top employment areas and, in my view, that obviously has to include a m ajor business such as Rocklea, which does not have a footpath running to it from the west at all; yes, no footpath on either side of the road. I mean there is a track worn into Sherwood Road like you wouldn't believe, where people do walk it. T hey've got to cross to one side of the road, then they've got to cross back to the o ther side of the road. It is so dangerous and people are on foot going to the Oxley Creek Common, the y're on foot going to the markets on the weekend and there is no footpath. I'm no t saying there's no little one metre concrete footpath, there's just no footpath at al l and all because the LORD MAYOR put the kibosh on it a few years ago. So I note that the Administration appears to have had a change of heart and that they are going to now look at employment areas and hopefully that means places like Rocklea. I also would like to mention that on page 21 there's reference to installation of bi ke lanes. What troubles me is it doesn't specifically note that it needs to reflect t he recommendation of the Coroner's Report into Rebekka Meyer's death that rec ommended separated, off-road cycling bike paths be put into any new infrastruct ure. Really, I think, that that recommendation should be in this five-year forward plan for Council and I'm disappointed that it's not actually in there, because the f ormer Chairman, Councillor MATIC, stood up before Christmas, as he told us a nd said that they were going to implement all of the recommendations, but that c ertainly does not appear to have been reflected in this report before us today. I note that Council is going to further review corridors, optimise signal performa nce, improve coordination and address congestion hotspots in their traffic plans. I'm going to guess that that doesn't actually mean Oxley Road, like one of the w orst roads in Brisbane, because there's been no effort to date made by this Admi nistration other than to ignore the advice of the Queensland Ombudsman to relea se the recommendations of the South-West Corridor Report to me and to the co mmunity. But this Administration has ignored and refused to act in line with the Queensland Ombudsman's recommendations. We know that they want to keep their plans for Oxley Road secret, instead of ha ving a grown-up discussion with our community about what needs to happen in t his corridor. Well I note that I've made a number of commitments, that this Adm inistration will not act, we must upgrade the dangerous intersections, particularl y at Cliveden Avenue and Oxley Road and at the Graceville Fiveways. It's clear that these are accident hotspots and congestion hotspots and any solution must i nclude the low rail bridge separating Sherwood and Corinda, which should be fo ur lanes; needs to be widened, not made higher. Finally, I'd just like to make a mention of the planning for a growing city, Future Brisbane, approving quality development. Now earlier today the LORD MAYOR stood up and said, no, no, this Council doesn't actually say it wants to protect character homes and that's not what Council says to people. Well I'll just refer everybody to page 26. It says a couple of things I think the Administration probably haven't read; 26 pages in and they probably didn't get past the cover pa ge. But it says and I quote, our medium-term objective, maintain and enhance Br isbane's Heritage and Traditional building character. I'll say it again, maintain an d enhance Brisbane's Heritage and Traditional building criteria.

Now, what key actions are we going to take to deliver on this objective? I quote, we are going to ensure Brisbane retains the unique character of its architecture a nd natural attributes by identifying and conserving the city's heritage places, cha racter housing and natural assets. It gets better. We're also going to and I quote, r eview properties within the Traditional building character overlay to ensure high quality streetscapes when undertaking neighbourhood plans. Now Madam Chair man, in our own corporate document before us today that this Administration ha s approved, they are telling our community that their intention is to maintain, tha t is, to continue the protection over the current pre-1946 character houses and to enhance that character. That means identify more homes to include within the pr e-1946 Traditional building overlay code. That's our stated objective as a Counci l. It's our actions, that's what we say we're going to do. Instead, this Administratio n has voted against protecting pre-1946, it's voted in favour of knocking down p re-1946 homes, including in Councillor SIMMONDS' own ward today, in Toow ong ward, where we're buying back land so Council can personally knock down three character houses. Now Madam Chairman, I don't think this is good enough. The LNP Administration have had every opportunity to ensure pre-1911 and pr e-1946 homes in this city are protected and they are failing to do so. I note I have received a briefing on the Fairfield-Dutton Park Neighbourhood Pl an and this Administration is trying to rip out character protections in parts of Fa irfield. It is in contravention of the Corporate Plan before us today, which, on pa ge 27 and I'll repeat it and leave it here, our objective as a Council is to maintain and enhance Brisbane's Heritage and Ttraditional building character. If only thes e people to my right, the LNP Administration, actually did what they say they w ould do, we might be in a better place with its city. But instead, every single thin g that they do undermines their own policy documents, undermines their own ob jectives. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired. Further General Business? Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK: I rise to speak in regards to a festival that happened in my ward on Sunday, yest erday or the day before yesterday. It was the 2016 HAKKA Multicultural and D ragon Boat Festival at Forest Lake. A symbol of cultural and spirit, the Dragon Boat Festival commemorates the 2000-year-old story of poet Chu Yuan, who thr ew himself into the Mi Lo River in protest against a corrupt kingdom. The celeb ration is one of the largest of the Chinese year and is now celebrated globally. The festival started off with an exhilarating drum performance by the Japanese d rum group and I'll tell you, it was a very windy day and all participants actually performed very well under extraordinary circumstances. The festival was opene d by Madam Chairman, Councillor ANGELA-OWEN, on behalf of the LORD MAYOR, who arrived a few minutes late and wasn't able to do the opening. We had speeches from Ministers Grace Grace and Leeanne Enoch and Taipei Econo mic Cultural Office Director-General, Mr Ken Lai, and other dignitaries. A dozen amateur and professional teams participated in a variety of events, inclu ding the community teams race, sprint knockout, 200 metre turn race and the dra gon boat tug of war competition. Each boat held 20 paddlers and one drummer t o keep cadence and a professional steersman or coach to assist the teams in rowi ng instructions. Now I had the opportunity late last year to actually go on a practise session with our local Lakers dragon boat team and I'll tell you what, they took me out for 45 minutes and I tell you what, I knew I'd done 45 minutes when it was concluded. But I must admit, they do have a great way of stretching, both at the beginning a nd the end, so I wasn't too sore the next day, which I much appreciated. Some of the teams included, as I've mentioned, the Lakers dragon boat team and of course we had our St John’s College team. The Hakka warriors, the Brisbane Dragon Warriors and a Vietnamese team and a Commonwealth Bank team, alon

g with Maroochydore Sea Serpents, the Coomera Dragons. There were a number of races, as I mentioned before. The St John’s team and also our local dragon bo at team acquitted themselves very well and were in the medals. Throughout the day the crowds were entertained also by cultural dance performa nces and a variety of groups including the Brisbane Dance Group, the World Da nce Academy, the Sky Blue Dance Group, the Funky Dancers and the Filipino d ancers as well. Entertainment on the day also included an i-Play stunt team, crea ting and showing with balloons and a magic show. These balloons, by the way, a re just like, you know the normal balloons that you blow up, they're red and yell ow? These things were huge, specially imported from Taiwan. The festival goers were also able to buy amazing foods and I took great store in t hat. I went off to the food stalls on a couple of occasions where the rice dumplin gs made by the Hakka Association were very popular. Amongst the others that were there, even our local Rotary Club was there as well. I would like to congratulate the Hakka Association, President Frank Wu, this wa s his first year at running the festival and his Committee did an unbelievable job under the circumstances. We had all that rain the day before and then of course t he wind came on the day and they just did a magnificent job and I really want to acknowledge that. Thank you. Chairman: Further General Business? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks Madam Chair. Just really quickly would like to place on record my conc erns about the LORD MAYOR's— Chairman: The topic you're speaking on, Councillor SRI? Councillor SRI: Sorry? Chairman: The topic you were speaking? Councillor SRI: Yes, that's what I was, yes, just placing on record my concerns about the LORD MAYOR's response to my question today regarding the economics of the constr uction boom. The general thrust of this Administration's stance appears to be tha t it's Council's job to assess and approve developments and that we'll leave it to t he market to decide what should get built and what shouldn't. I guess I just have concerns that we're not quite fulfilling our duty as elected repr esentatives in terms of planning ahead for the potential economic ramifications o f this construction boom. I don't say this lightly and it's not to score political poi nts, but we are actively up-zoning, we are actively rezoning large parts of this cit y for high-density development, we are encouraging the construction boom and contributing to that, so I don't think it's sufficient or satisfactory of us to sit back and say, okay well we'll just approve these developments and then cross our fing ers that a property collapse doesn't happen. I'm not saying that property collapse will happen, but I think it's something we n eed to turn our minds to. We have examples from all around the world, particula rly the US in 2008, where politicians, where city councillors said, oh no, no, no, it's not our job to keep track of how many new dwellings are being built, we'll le ave that up to the market and then the crash happened. So I just encourage everyone to reflect on that, do more reading, organisations li ke the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and t he International Monetary Fund are reputable, independent bodies that do good r esearch on this stuff and they're raising concerns about the oversupply of housin g in Brisbane. So it's incumbent on us, as elected representatives, to take those c oncerns seriously, to do the research and to amend our plans accordingly. Right now the up-zoning of parts of Brisbane is justified on the basis that there i s demand for these types of dwellings. Independent bodies like the OECD, the R eserve Bank of Australia and the International Monetary Fund are telling us that there is not demand for these kinds of dwellings. So that's up to us to deal with t

hat. We can't just say, oh we'll approve the developments and cross our fingers t hat it all works out. So I just leave you with that thought, I hope you consider it. I know I'm not goin g to be able to convince you on the spot, but please do read further on that issue, thank you. Chairman: Further General Business? There being no further General Business, I declare the meeting closed. Thank yo u Councillors, see you next week.

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

Submitted by Councillor Jonathan Sri on 30 May 2016

Q1. Approximately how many residential dwellings in Brisbane used less than 20 litres of water per day in the first quarter of 2016?

Q2. Approximately how many residential dwellings in Brisbane used less than 80 litres of water per day in the first quarter of 2016?

Q3. How many residential dwellings in Brisbane used less than 1000 litres of water total in the first quarter of 2016?

Q4. How many residential dwellings in Brisbane used less than 20 litres of water per day in the first quarter of 2015?

Q5. How many residential dwellings in Brisbane used less than 1000 litres of water total in the first quarter of 2015?

Q6. How many residential dwellings within the Gabba Ward used less than 20 litres of water per day in the first quarter of 2016?

Q7. How many residential dwellings within the Gabba Ward used less than 1000 litres of water total in the first quarter of 2016?

Q8. Approximately how many residential dwellings in Brisbane were unoccupied from January 1 to March 31, 2016?

Q9. Approximately how many residential dwellings in Brisbane are unoccupied for at least six months of the year?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 2 June 2016

Q1. Please advise how many metered parking spaces there are in the Brisbane City Council area for the following financial years: 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13

2011/12 2010/11 2009/10 2008/09

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016] - 101 - 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 31 May 2016)

Q1. Please provide a list of security risk reviews and initiatives for 2015/16 as mentioned at 7 in the Audit Committee Meeting from 5 May 2016?

A1. This information has been provided to Councillors separately due to the confidential nature of Council's security information.

Q2. Please provide a list of the proposed security risk reviews and initiatives as mentioned at 7 in the Audit Committee Meeting from 5 May 2016?

A2. Projects proposed to be funded in the 2016/17 program are subject to the budget allocations in the 2016/17 Council budget. As a result this question cannot be answered at this time.

Q3. Please provide a list of the projects and programs that have requested a Gateway-style independent reviews as referred to at 12 in the Audit Committee Meeting from 5 May 2016?

A3. Local Government Systems Inner City by-pass upgrade Telegraph Road Stage 1B Brisbane Metro Daphne Mayo Fountain Bikeways Program

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 31 May 2016)

Q1. Would Council please provide a breakdown of $62,664,000 in expenditure allocated under 1.4.3.1 Parks Maintenance and Enhancement in the 2015-16 Budget by region: 1. Asset Services North 2. Asset Services South 3. Asset Services East 4. Asset Services West 5. Asset Services Central

A1. 1. Asset Services North - $5,013,326 2. Asset Services South - $5,670,998 3. Asset Services East - $4,879,514 4. Asset Services West - $4,899,864 5. Asset Services Central - $3,858,665

Q2. Would Council please provide a breakdown of $25,936,000 in revenue allocated under 1.4.3.1 Parks Maintenance and Enhancement in the 2015-16 Budget by region: 1. Asset Services North 2. Asset Services South 3. Asset Services East 4. Asset Services West 5. Asset Services Central

A2. Council does not collate this information by region. Revenue in this service is primarily from infrastructure charges received.

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 31 May 2016)

Q1. Please provide details below of the annual financial contribution the state government make to the operation of Brisbane’s bus network and the total annual community service obligation Brisbane City Council contributes over the past 4 financial years. 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

A1. 2012-13 (millions) 2013-14 (millions) 2014-15 (millions) 2015-16 (millions) Annual financial $287,441 $287,712 $287,734 Financial year not contribution from Which includesWhich includesWhich includesyet completed. the State approximate fareapproximate fareapproximate fare Government* revenue ofrevenue ofrevenue of $130,000. $130,000. $130,000. Brisbane City $80,566 $86,208 $87,723 Financial year not Council yet completed. contribution **

* It should be noted the State Government receives ticket sales revenues from Council’s bus transport system. These are estimated to be approximately $130m. This is the contribution of passengers to the bus network (Please note the precise amount is difficult to assess due to significant travel on transfers with revenue shared across the SEQ network). The remaining contribution of approximately $157 million is a subsidy from the State Government.

**This includes the total cost of operating the Maroon CityGlider service which is fully paid for by Council. Although the State Government receives all fare revenue from the Maroon CityGlider it provides no contribution back to Council for its operation. It also includes the net cost of the Blue CityGlider which has specific funding arrangements where the State Government and Council share the operating costs once revenue from passengers is subtracted.

Q2. Please advise how many properties are included in Rating Category 20 – Commercial/Non-Residential – Concessional as at 30 May 2016.

A2. 0.

Q3. Please advise the street address of all properties included in Rating Category 20 – Commercial/Non-Residential – Concessional as at 30 May 2016.

A3. See answer immediately above.

Q4. As at 30 May 2016, how much revenue has Council received from the Rates and Services Establishment Fee.

A4. $5,360,431.98 (figure calculated as at 27 May 2016).

Q5. As at 30 May 2016, how many Rates and Services Establishment Fee waivers/ rebates have been granted by Council.

A5. 4,182 (figure calculated as at 27 May 2016).

Q6. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 347 Albany Creek Road, Bridgeman Downs in the 2012/13 financial year.

A6. Auction.

Q7. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 182 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba in the 2012/13 financial year.

A7. Failed to sell by way of auction, sold by private treaty thereafter.

Q8. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 24 Markwell St, Bowen Hills in the 2012/13 financial year.

A8. Failed to sell by way of tender, sold by private treaty thereafter.

Q9. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 49 Lawrence Rd, Aspley in the 2012/13 financial year.

A9. Auction.

Q10. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of Unit 201, 8 Hurworth St, Bowen Hills in the 2012/13 financial year.

A10-14. Failed to sell by way of auction, sold by private treaty thereafter.

Q15. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 31-37 Connor St, Kangaroo Point in the 2012/13 financial year.

Q16. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 31-37 Connor St, Kangaroo Point in the 2012/13 financial year.

A15-16. Auction.

Q17. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 375 Bridgeman Rd, Bridgeman Downs in the 2012/13 financial year.

A17. Failed to sell by way of auction, sold by private treaty thereafter.

Q18. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 813 Nudgee Rd, Northgate in the 2012/13 financial year.

A18. Failed to sell by way of tender, sold by private treaty thereafter.

Q19. Please advise if a public auction or public tender were undertaken for the sale of 1213 Wynnum Rd, Cannon Hill in the 2012/13 financial year.

A19. Neither auction nor tender.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.43pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Jo Camamile (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer) Robert Southwood (Council and Committee Officer) Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)

[4498 (Ordinary) meeting – 7 June 2016]