REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Response to the Assessment Manager

In Support of a development application for a Preliminary Approval - Material Change of Use (s3.1.6 overriding the planning scheme) & Development Permit - Reconfiguration of a Lot (Stages 1A & 1B: 60 lots)

Lynam Road, Gumlow (Lot 26 E124278)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 1 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 2.0 SITE DETAIL ...... 11 3.0 IPA S3.5.9(5) - CHANGED APPLICATION BY RFI ...... 11 4.0 IPA - RELEVANT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ...... 13 5.0 APPLICATION DETAIL ...... 15 6.0 RESPONSE TO RFI – ASSESSMENT MANAGER ...... 16 PART A- COUNCIL’S PLANNING SCHEME [THURINGOWA] .... 17 A(1) Assessment & Decision Protocols ...... 19 A(2) Desired Environmental Outcomes ...... 20 A(3) Adequately Serviced by Infrastructure ...... 33 A(4) No Viable Alternate Locations ...... 34 A(5) Rural Intention ...... 40 A(6) Urban Growth Boundaries Code ...... 44 A(7) Conclusion ...... 48 PART B - PLANNING ...... 50 B(1) Need ...... 51 B(2) Availability of existing land - development envisaged by the scheme ...... 53 B(3) Relevance of Rocky Springs ...... 57 B(4) Proximity ...... 60 B(5) Viability of Thuringowa Central ...... 63 B(6) Associated Potential Flooding Impacts ...... 65 B(7) Market Controls ...... 65 B(8) Parkland Allocation ...... 68 B(9) Lot Layout ...... 68 B(10) Conclusion ...... 69 PART C – ENGINEERING ...... 72 PART D – ENVIRONMENTAL ...... 80 CONCLUSION ...... 94

APPENDIX 1. Proposal Plans – For Approval  Willowbend Zone Plan (SK10)  Proposal Subdivision Plan - Stages 1 & 2 (SK11) 2. Variations To Thuringowa Planning Scheme - Willowbend Development Code, Table Of Assessment And Zone Plan 3. Engineering Reponses (UDP Consulting Engineers – 27 June 2011) 4. Engineering Report (UDP Consulting Engineers – 27 June 2011) 5. Water Supply & Sewerage Planning Report (UDP Consulting Engineers – 27 June 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 2 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

6. ‘Social Impact Assessment – Proposed Residential Development, Gumlow’ (Urban Analytics Australia – 11 July 2011) 7. Community Infrastructure Maps 8. ‘Gumlow Townsville – Economic Impact And Needs Assessment’ (Location IQ – 13 July 2011) 9. DERM Referral Agency Response- Dated 12 August 2010 10. Black-Throated Finch Survey & Habitat Assessment (C&R Consulting – June 2010) 11. Aerial Montages – 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2004 2009 12. Supporting Information Plans  Road Hierarchy (& Including Bus Route Plan) (SK05)  Staging Plan (SK06)  Proposal Stages 1 & 2 – Regional Ecosystem Protection (SK13)  Parkland Hierarchy Plan (SK16)  Study Area Analysis – Preferred Regional Structure Plan (PMM) 13. Traffic Reponses (UDP Horman Consulting Engineers – 24 June 2011; And Cardno Eppell Olsen Report – May 2011) 14. Department Of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population And Communities (Former DEWHA)– EPBC Referral: RFI Letter (3 September 2009) 15. Aerial Photo Presentation Material 2009 16. Preliminary Stormwater Quality Management Plan (BMD Consulting – June 2011) 17. PMAV Supporting Documentation Report (Landscape Assessment, Management And Rehabilitation Pty Ltd – July 2008) 18. Response To Information Request “Willowbend” (Landscape Assessment, Management And Rehabilitation Pty Ltd – July 2008) 19. Legal Advice (MacDonnells Law – 7 July 2011) 20. Fauna Report (Glen Ingram – 21 July 2008)

ENCLOSED Cd Copy –  Application Documentation  SIDRA Data  Paramics Data

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 3 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We write of behalf of the Applicant, our client, Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd, in relation to the development application lodged with the former City of Thuringowa Council on 28 August 2007 pursuant to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA). The development application lodged on 29 August 2007 was made for a: i) Preliminary Approval for a Material Change of Use (s3.1.6 of IPA overriding the Thuringowa planning scheme); and ii) Development Permit for a Reconfiguration of a Lot (Stages 1A&1B). This application was lodged over land located at Lynam Road, Gumlow more formally described as Lot 26 E124278. The subject site is currently included within the Rural 10 Sub-Area under the former City of Thuringowa’s planning scheme. Subsequent to formal amendment of the development application on 9 June 2010, on 23 July 2010 a Request for Further Information (RFI) was received from the Townsville City Council (TCC). Pursuant to Section 3.2.12(2)(b)(ii) of IPA, the Applicant has 12 months to respond to an information request. In accordance with Section 3.3.8 of the IPA, this report provides a response to all of the information requested from the Assessment Manager. Despite the subsequent repeal of IPA in September 2009, for dealing with and deciding the development application, IPA continues to apply as if the SPA had not commenced. As such, the assessment and decision criteria outlined in Section 4.0 of this report apply. At the time the subject application was lodged with the assessment manager in August 2007, the subject site was located in the former City of Thuringowa local government area (“LGA”). Therefore accordingly to Section 3.5.3 of the IPA1, the Assessment Manager can only consider the Thuringowa planning scheme area applicable at the time of lodgement, that is, the area covered by the former Thuringowa City Council’s planning scheme (October 2003) (refer Appendix 19).

The Council RFI was detailed and in consideration of the various matters raised within, changes to the development application have been made pursuant to Section 3.2.9(5) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The Applicant confirms the application process does not stop in this instance as the changes do not go beyond the parameters permitted by this section of IPA. In particular, clarity has been provided by the provision of plans, development codes and tables of assessment to clarify the preliminary approval component overriding the Thuringowa planning scheme. Updated staged Reconfiguration of a Lot (ROL) plans have been provided for the separate code assessable component. An amended structure plan, now called the Willowbend Zone Plan (refer Appendix 1) has been prepared that depicts the broad pattern of development that is intended to occur over the subject site and the land use zones and precincts that are intended to be established. The proposed development has also modified its yield and intended product mix to a larger-lot size residential product yielding an approximate total 296

1 3.5.3 References in div 2 to codes, planning instruments, laws or policies - In this division (other than section 3.5.6), a reference to a code, planning instrument, law or policy is a reference to a code, planning instrument, law or policy in effect when the application was made.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 4 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

allotments (that is approx. 230 lots less than applied for in 2007). Accordingly the supporting technical reports have been revisited and amended to assess these specific clarifications. The total lots proposed in Stages 1A and 1B remain the same.

The Applicant submits that an application of this nature is unlikely to cut across or compromise the achievement of the desired environmental outcomes (DEO) of the entire Thuringowa planning scheme, which is the requisite test for refusal. Regardless of the current status of the subject land within the Thuringowa planning scheme documents, the land is eminently suitable on town planning, economic, social infrastructure and community benefit grounds for residential development. The proposed development does not conflict with all the Desired Environmental Outcomes of the Thuringowa planning scheme. The development site is not Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL). The development site is not located in the coastal management district. Some areas in the Thuringowa planning scheme area are satellite/ isolated coastal communities that have environmental constraints that reduce their suitability as urban growth areas in line with current statutory and government policies regarding urban consolidation, sea level rise and storm surge impacts. In the northern beaches, suburbs such as Balgal, Toolakea, Saunders and Bushland Beach are now subject to the provisions of the new State Coastal Planning Policy and need to be considered in the context of this development application and proof of ‘viable alternate locations’ under Rural Planning Code provision P6 of the Thuringowa planning scheme. DEO 4 seeks to provide “equitable access to community and cultural services”. The proposed development is located within the 5km catchment of Thuringowa Central. DEO 4 clearly refers to ‘proximity’ – the proposed development is ideally placed to achieve the intent of this DEO by its proximate location to this existing urban centre and its inherent services. To this end, the Applicant has commissioned Urban Analytics Australia (July 2011) to undertake an independent review of the social impacts of the proposed development (refer Appendix 6). The proposed development, in the main, achieves the intended outcomes of the DEO’s of the Thuringowa planning scheme as demonstrated by: . providing for higher residential densities and a mix of uses around centres and public transport nodes; . providing linkages between onsite residential and public spaces and external facilities and workplaces; . establishing a land use pattern that is consistent with the location and capacities of existing infrastructure items; . Urban expansion onto the subject site has been anticipated by the extension of the Lynam Road reserve the full length of the site. The proposed development reflects and enhances this current road network; . the site is not identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land; . providing high level road access to the site, upgrading the existing Lynam Road (north) and enhancing road access to the State-controlled network; . encouraging walking and cycling through the provision of direct, safe and secure routes to local facilities such as shops and schools; and

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 5 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

. establishing land uses adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, existing or planned infrastructure corridors, routes or facilities.

We note the Thuringowa planning scheme requires the development to be adequately serviced by infrastructure and infrastructure is to be provided in an orderly, efficient and cost effective manner. Unlike what is usually the case with rural land, all general matters of infrastructure, provisions and services are able to be provided to the site efficiently and cost effectively (refer to Appendix 4-5 for an updated engineering reports). The Applicant is dedicated to establishing the proposed development being cognisant of the appropriate regional context extending beyond the site boundaries. A revised traffic analysis by UDP Horman Consulting Engineering letter in Appendix 13 includes the ‘Willowbend Residential Development – Paramics Modelling Report’ prepared by Cardno Eppell Olsen dated February 2011 (completed in response to the DTMR RFI dated 2 August 2010). The conclusion of these updated traffic analysis is the Hervey Range Road/ Lynam Road intersection requires minor upgrading at the time of approximately 60 lots being created/ used. The ease of which road, water and sewer infrastructure can be provided to the development site is a very real factor where “out of sequence” urban growth is being considered. Where a need for additional land is demonstrated as is the case here (refer Part B), the Thuringowa planning scheme allows the need to be balanced against the cost of providing infrastructure, including community facilities and services, and the impacts on the environment to overcome sequencing issues. Part C and D of this report provide a response to the engineering and environmental information requested by Council. The proposed application is not in conflict with the Thuringowa planning scheme, as there are no ‘viable alternative location’ for this development to occur in the Thuringowa planning scheme area (refer Part A and B of this report). This statement is made based on the criteria in Tables A1 and A2 included in Part A, which generally concludes: (i) In the main, land provided with existing/ ready access to adequate infrastructure has physical/ environmental constraints that restricts its development potential; (ii) In the main, existing residential zoned land is not practically available for development; and (iii) Existing social infrastructure as those afforded the development site at Lynam Road, Gumlow can not be found in such close proximity to other lands elsewhere in the Thuringowa planning scheme area.

The Thuringowa planning schemes’ Urban Growth Boundaries Code (UGB Code) is supported by the Urban Growth Boundaries Planning Scheme Policy (6 December 2003) (UGB Policy). The expressions in the RFI are reliant on provisions that have simply been overtaken by events – hard infrastructure is now available on the doorstep of the development site; no viable alternate locations exist as workable and practical lands have been taken up; and urban development is the new character of the area. The subject land is suitably located and provides a logical expansion to the urban area. In the context of logical urban expansion, the land has obviously been previously contemplated for such uses by the continuation of the gazetted Lynam Road reserve on the subject site and the provision of infrastructure "connections" onsite/ proximate to the boundary.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 6 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The social infrastructure and economic needs analysis included in Appendix 6 and 8, provides that in the Kirwan/ Thuringowa Central community there is need for a critical mass of population that will enable the provision of services to which other residential communities are accustomed to be provided on a viable basis. “Planning need” has been the subject of extensive legal determination. Put simply, and in the Applicant’s understanding, the law says “planning need” is: ‘Need’ “does not mean pressing need, critical need, widespread desire or anything of that nature. A thing is needed if its provision, taking all things into account, improves the physical wellbeing of the community”.2 Following receipt of Council’s RFI, the proposed development has modified its yield and product mix to a larger-lot size residential product yielding an approximate total of 296 allotments. Accordingly the supporting technical reports have been revisited and amended to assess these specific clarifications. The total lots proposed in Stages 1A and 1B remain the same, at a total of 60 lots. An independent economic analysis has been undertaken, which achieves the outcomes sought by Council’s RFI. Location IQ provides an economic and needs assessment (July 2011) (refer Appendix 8) for a larger lot size residential development, including any economic implications, both positive and negative, likely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The analysis establishes a planning "need" for a larger lot size residential product on this site. The Applicant has produced Community Infrastructure Mapping (refer Appendix 7) being a comprehensive analysis of the lands in the land use planning sphere of influence of the proposed development – being the Thuringowa Central and Kirwan areas, south to the Upper Ross and north to the Bushland Beach area. These maps provide tangible evidence of existing social infrastructure and the proximity of the subject site. An independent social impact assessment by Urban Analytics Australia (July 2011) (refer Appendix 8) has been undertaken to achieve the outcomes sought by Council’s RFI. Whilst Rocky Springs (being in the adjacent planning scheme area) may be on the cusp of being a reality; it is a community that does not yet exist. The social and community benefit of the Rocky Springs approved development is not yet a reality; the social and community infrastructure required to create this community is not yet on the ground. The social and community infrastructure needs to be brought forward, extensive capital expenditure is required to facilitates the hard and soft infrastructure to this future community. In comparison, the proposed development at Lynam Road, Gumlow: … the proximity to existing social and community infrastructure and services generates vitally important positive effects for future residents. Future residents would have immediate access to existing facilities. ... My assessment is that the proposed development contributes positively to ‘people’s way of life’. It offers residential opportunity and choice to families in particular, in close proximity to existing social infrastructure and employment nodes. In this regard, the proposed development is also consistent with prevailing cultural mores and is likely to reinforce the existing family-oriented beliefs and values that would be expected to dominate in that part of the city… 3

2 Cut Price Stores Retailers Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPLR 26, 131 3 s6.4 Integrated Assessment –Table 4; and Conclusions (UAA; July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 7 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The application discussed ‘proximity’ in the context of Desired Environmental Outcomes No. 4 (refer Figure A – Sequential Growth Corridor) - the proposed development is ideally placed to achieve the intent of this DEO by its proximate location to urban services, and: The issue of proximity between home and services is actually vitally important to the social wellbeing of future residents. The questions are: Does promoting close proximity between home and existing services enhance future residential and community amenity? What are the key features of social infrastructure provisioning that go towards a higher quality of life and residential amenity? …4 5.5 Impact on Infrastructure … Willows Shoppingtown in the Thuringowa central area is proposed for further expansion with a development application currently lodged with Townsville City Council. Additional population within close proximity to this centre will add to the vibrancy and vitality of this centre as well as surrounding facilities such as the cinema precinct. Significant investment has been made in the Riverway precinct and additional residents within close proximity will result in greater usage of community infrastructure. Substantial investment in the Townsville Ring Road will be reaped with a greater population in close proximity to the Ring Road who would use it to access major employment nodes, as will be the case with residents of the proposed Willowbend Gumlow site. Not only has the Applicant analysed whether there may be current alternate viable locations and the adjacent planning scheme area, but also they have analysed the historic growth pattern of the greater Townsville urban area utilising aerial photography (refer Appendix 11) for every decade from the 1960’s to 2010’s. The imagery identifies the urban expansion of Townsville which occurred ‘sequentially’ - progressively and systematically - until the 1980’s when the former Thuringowa City Council approved the first stages of Bushland Beach – an isolated pocket of development by some 17km from the main town area for approx. 10 years. The Applicant therefore contends that:  This analysis has established a planning "need" for a larger lot size residential product;  the proposed development provides a positive community and public benefits without their being unacceptable impacts on amenity;  The subject site at Lynam Road Gumlow is amongst very few other land holdings of similar size in the Thuringowa planning scheme area; and  the development will not limit the potential for other housing projects being planned within the former Thuringowa municipality and the Townsville area, and particularly within the areas of influence.

4 UAA (July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 8 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

FIGURE A – SEQUENTIAL GROWTH CORRIDOR

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 9 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

As a result of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) Adverse Information letter dated 24 October 2007, the Applicant analysed and gained approval for a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) under the Vegetation Management Act 1994. The PMAV was certified by DERM on 23 March 2009 and protects the riparian vegetation along the Little Bohle River where the subject site has a common boundary, and in the eastern section of the subject site. In the context of Council’s RFI, Part D – Environmental of this report, outlines how the above analysis addresses many of the information requested. Refer Appendix 17 and 18 for copies of reports by Landscape Assessment, Management and Rehabilitation Pty Ltd (July 2008) in support of the PMAV application, which were also referred to the DSEWPC. A Fauna Report (by Glen Ingram dated 21 July 2008) is also enclosed in Appendix 20. A Black-throated Finch survey by C&R Consulting is also enclosed in Appendix 10. The survey methodology was devised in context with the Significant Impact Guidelines for the Endangered Black-Throated Finch (Poephilacinctacincta); Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) policy statement.

This town planning response report and its supporting technical reports provide a comprehensive analysis of the proposed residential development of this land at Lynam Road Gumlow. The analysis establishes a planning "need" for a larger lot size residential product on this site. In summary, this town planning response report supports the approval of the development application and recommends that the proposed development be approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 10 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The subject site at Lynam Road, Gumlow more formally described as Lot 26 E124278 is currently included within the Rural 10 Sub-Area under the former City of Thuringowa’s planning scheme. This planning scheme remains the planning instrument for assessment of the development application. The subject site is located in Gumlow. Road access to the site off Hervey Range Road to the intersection with Lynam Road) is 2.9km from Thuringowa Central. Entry to the site is at the junction of Lynam Road and the Little Bohle River; 430m south of the intersection of Hervey Range Road and Lynam Road. The Little Bohle River and the Bohle River form the northern and eastern boundaries. This report is the Applicant’s response to the RFI. In accordance with Section 3.3.8 of the IPA, this report provides a response to all of the information requested from the Assessment Manager.

2.0 SITE DETAIL

Street Address Lynam Road, Gumlow (refer Figure 2.0 – Locality Plan)

Real Property Description Lot 26 on E124278

Site Area 97.125ha

Zoning Rural 10 Sub-Area

Name of Owner Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd

3.0 IPA s3.5.9(5) - CHANGED APPLICATION BY RFI The development application continues to seek a Preliminary Approval under Section 3.1.6 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997(IPA) to facilitate the residential development of the subject site and a Development Permit for Reconfiguration of a Lot to create the first stages of the project. However as a result of Council’s Information Request issued on 23 July 2010, and pursuant to Section 3.2.9(5) of the IPA, the Applicant has provided further clarity and focus to its intended development. The Applicant confirms the application process does not stop in this instance as the changes do not go beyond the parameters permitted by this section of IPA. The RFI has played a material role in causing the application to be changed. More specifically the Preliminary Approval still intends to override the effect of the Council’s local planning instruments. This response to Council’s RFI defines more specifically the way in which the application seeks to vary the effect of the former City of Thuringowa (COT) planning scheme (refer Willowbend Development Scheme in Appendix 2) by way of a: (i) site specific Willowbend Development Code; (ii) Table of Assessment; and (iii) Willowbend Zone Plan.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 11 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

FIGURE 2.0 – LOCALITY PLAN

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 12 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The proposed development has also modified its yield and intended product mix to a focus on larger-lot size residential product yielding an approximate total 296 allotments (that is approx. 230 lots less than applied for in 2007). Accordingly the supporting technical reports have been revisited and amended to assess these specific clarifications. The total lots proposed in the Stages 1A and 1B ROL components remain the same.

4.0 IPA - RELEVANT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The application was lodged on 28 August 2007 and the changed materials lodged on 9 June 2010, have been lodged pursuant to the provisions of IPA. Despite the subsequent repeal of IPA in September 2009, for dealing with and deciding the development application, IPA continues to apply as if the SPA had not commenced. As such, the following assessment and decision criteria apply. IPA - assessing a ’Section 3.1.6 Preliminary Approval’ The Assessment Manager must assess the Section 3.1.6 Preliminary Approval component of the development application having regard to particular material and factors5, being: (a) the common material; (b) the result of Council’s assessment of the development under Section 3.5.4 or 3.5.5 of IPA, or both; (c) the effect the proposed variations would have on any right of a submitter for following applications, with particular regard to the amount and detail of supporting material for the current application available to any submitters; and (d) the consistency of the proposed variations with aspects of the Thuringowa planning scheme, other than those sought to be varied. Item (b) above indicates that Council must first do a standard assessment of the development against the relevant planning instruments as if the application was not seeking to vary the relevant scheme. In this regard the applicable provision is Section 3.5.5 of IPA which provides that Council must carry out impact assessment having regard to particular material and considerations including: (a) the common material; (b) the Thuringowa planning scheme and any other relevant local planning instruments; (c) State planning policies, State planning provisions or a regional plan to the extent they are not appropriately reflected in the Thuringowa planning scheme; and (d) any development approval for, and any lawful use of, premises, the subject of the application or adjacent premises.

5 Section 3.5.5A(2) of IPA

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 13 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

However, Item (d) above makes it clear that Council must also assess how consistent the development application’s proposed variations are, against those parts of the scheme, not looking to be varied for the subject land. In this case, the part of the application seeking to vary the effect of the underlying planning area for the subject site, ie. the Rural 10 sub planning area, is to generally reflect the Traditional Residential Sub Planning Area under the Thuringowa planning scheme with some further criteria specific to the subject site. The parts of the application seeking to vary the effect of the underlying planning area for the subject site includes (refer Appendix 2):  Site specific Willowbend Development Code;  Tables of Assessment; and  Willowbend Zone Plan. It is inherent that an application under s.3.1.6 of IPA will have some technical conflict with those parts of the Thuringowa planning scheme directly applicable to assessment of the subject site otherwise variations would not be being requested. Council must, however, assess the development application with more broader planning principles and aspects of the Thuringowa planning scheme as a whole in mind rather that identify conflicts only. This will be discussed subsequently in this report. IPA - assessment of development application for Reconfiguration of a Lot The above process only relates to a s3.1.6 Preliminary Approval, and not to a Reconfiguration of a Lot. Under the Thuringowa planning scheme, Reconfiguring a Lot is code assessable development in all circumstances. Accordingly, Council may only assess this component against: a) applicable codes; b) the common material; c) State planning policies, State planning regulatory provisions, or a regional plan if they are not identified in the Thuringowa planning scheme as being appropriately reflected in the Thuringowa planning scheme6. In practical terms, should Council support the s.3.1.6 MCU, the assessment of the ROL which aligns itself to achieving that use, will follow.

IPA – Deciding a ‘Section 3.1.6 – Preliminary Approval’ Council’s decision must comply with Sections 3.5.14 and 3.5.14A of IPA in that Council’s decision must not: i) compromise the achievement of the DEO for the Thuringowa planning scheme area, unless such compromise is necessary to further the outcomes of any State planning policies, State planning regulatory provisions, or regional plan if they are not already identified in the Thuringowa planning scheme as being appropriately reflected in the Thuringowa planning scheme; or ii) conflict with the Thuringowa planning scheme, unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict. The extent of conflict necessary for an application to “compromise” the achievement of a DEO and the assessment required to identify what is a “conflict” with a planning scheme, has been the subject of extensive legal determination. Put simply, and in the

6 Section 3.5.4 of IPA

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 14 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Applicant’s understanding, the law requires an application to be so extensive in nature that it compromises the achievement of all of the DEO of the Thuringowa planning scheme, for an application to be so refused per this section of IPA. Literal non- compliance with individual components listed or strategies for achieving an individual DEO is not sufficient. In this regard we note Council’s RFI Item (iv) (of Part A) states the development application is inconsistent with the DEO. The Applicant provides a response to this item in Part A(2) of this report. In relation to various allegations of conflict with other sections of the Thuringowa planning scheme, the Applicant provides a response to the various items from the RFI in Section 6.0 - Part A-D of this report. Applicable ‘Planning Scheme Area’ At the time the subject application was lodged with the relevant assessment manager in August 2007, the subject site was located in the former City of Thuringowa local government area (LGA). Therefore accordingly to Section 3.5.3 of the IPA7, the Assessment Manager when assessing development in the area covered by the former Thuringowa City Council's planning scheme (October 2003), can only consider the Thuringowa planning scheme area applicable at the time of lodgement that is, the area covered by the former Thuringowa City Council’s planning scheme (October 2003). The Applicant has sought legal advice in relation to references within the RFI requesting comparison to land outside of the Thuringowa planning scheme area (refer Appendix 19).

5.0 APPLICATION DETAIL

Type of 1. Preliminary Approval for Material Change of Use Development (MCU) under s3.1.6 IPA which overrides the Council’s local planning instruments by: i) Adopting the Willowbend Zone Plan (refer Appendix 2); ii) Subsequent implementation of the Willowbend Zone Codes and Tables of Assessment (refer Appendix 2); and iii) Assuming any other applicable codes and definitions as set out in the local governments’ Thuringowa planning scheme currently in force for respective uses.

2. Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (ROL) for: . Stages 1A (1 into 50 Lots plus parkland and balance lot) . Stages 1B (1 into 25-Lots plus parkland and balance lot) (refer Appendix 1)

DOCUMENTS TO i) Willowbend Zone Plan (refer Appendix 2)

7 3.5.3 References in div 2 to codes, planning instruments, laws or policies - In this division (other than section 3.5.6), a reference to a code, planning instrument, law or policy is a reference to a code, planning instrument, law or policy in effect when the application was made.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 15 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

BE APPROVED ii) Willowbend Zone Codes and Tables of Assessment (refer Appendix 2)

iii) Proposed subdivision plan for Stages 1A and 1B (refer Appendix 1)

Level of a) MCU - Impact Assessment; and Assessment b) ROL – Code Assessment

Notification Period 30 business days (Note: the application will be re-advertised following lodgement of this RFI response in light of the changes made in June 2010)

Referral Agencies  The modified application as a result of the Assessment Manager’s RFI does not change the relevant referral agencies  Note: this response will be re-submitted to all referral agencies, regardless of whether a referral agency response has been issued to date, due to the changed application lodge on 9 June 2010

6.0 RESPONSE TO RFI – ASSESSMENT MANAGER The following parts of this report outlines the items included in the Assessment Managers’ Request for Further Information (RFI) issued on 23 July 2010 by issues, and has been set out in the following manner for ease of review: Part A Council’s Planning Scheme [Thuringowa] Part B Planning Pat C Engineering Part D Environmental

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 16 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Part A- Council’s Planning Scheme [Thuringowa]

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 17 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

PART A- COUNCIL’S PLANNING SCHEME [THURINGOWA] Council’s Request for Further Information (dated 23 July 2010) contained a significant introductory statement as follows: Please be advised that the development application is inconsistent with the IPA Planning Scheme in terms of the Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEO’s), Planning Area Codes and City Wide Codes. The subject land is designated rural and outside the urban growth boundaries for the City and is not designated for “urban” purposes. Specifically the proposed development is not supported by Councils Planning Scheme and does not comply with:- (i) The Character Statement for the Rural Planning Area, specifically section 3.1.1 (b) (iii) (iv), section 3.1.1 (f) and (g) (i); (ii) the Rural Planning Area Code, specifically P6 (non rural development) and P7 (existing and future amenity); (iii) the City Wide Codes specifically section 5.6 (urban growth boundaries) where areas outside the City’s urban growth boundaries are retained for economic, social and environmental purposes; and (iv) the Desired Environmental Outcomes of the IPA Planning Scheme, specifically DEO (Land Use Patterns) 2.6.2 (a), (b), (c) and (d). That is the development will not provide infrastructure in an orderly, efficient and cost effective manner. Further the development is not considered to be sequential residential growth and there are other future urban areas more appropriately located within the City which can be accommodated with an efficient level of physical and social infrastructure at this time. That is, there are sufficient planning grounds to develop the rural land when there are other future urban areas within the urban growth boundaries and identified for residential purposes within DEO Map 2 which can be accommodated with an efficient level of physical and social infrastructure at this time. However, Council has undertaken an assessment of the application proposal and seeks the following information in order to clarify, verify or correct apparent errors or anomalies within the reports presented. Furthermore the Applicant is advised that the information is requested without prejudice to the above advice or to any future action or processes associated with the proposed Planning Scheme for the City of Townsville. The information requested is as follows;8 Further to Section 4.0 above that outlines the appropriate assessment and decision criteria required to be undertaken pursuant to IPA, we advise this response to Part A of the Assessment Manager’s RFI does not provide an itemised response to each specific request item. This Part A provides a general appraisal of the proposed development in the context of the IPA assessment and decision criteria for this type of application, noting the broad assumptions made by Council in this initial section of the Council's RFI. .

8 Refer Part B-D of this response report

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 18 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Part A contains the following sub parts: A(1) Assessment & Decision Protocols A(2) Desired Environmental Outcomes A(3) Adequately Serviced by Infrastructure A(4) No Viable alternate Locations A(5) Rural Intention A(6) Urban Growth Boundaries Code A(7) Conclusion

A(1) Assessment & Decision Protocols Council is reminded of the appropriate assessment and decision protocols required to be undertaken pursuant to IPA (refer Section 4.0 above). The Applicant submits that an application of this nature is unlikely to cut across or compromise the achievement of the desired environmental outcomes (DEO) of the entire Thuringowa planning scheme, which is the requisite test for refusal under Section 4.5.14A of IPA. . Further, while identification of conflicts with the planning scheme directly applicable to the subject land is part of the assessment process, the nature of the Section 3.1.6 Preliminary Approval subject of this application also requires Council to consider far more broader perspective than a direct application of the various codes. It is almost fundamental to the requisite for lodgement of a s3.1.6 Preliminary Approval application that some conflicts with the planning scheme will exist. Where conflicts are found, the assessment must then turn to what weight to give planning grounds submitted they may justify approval. It is noted in that regard: The word 'sufficient' refers to the weight to be afforded on any particular ground which is advanced as a reason for approval, despite conflict; and the phrase 'sufficient (planning) grounds' refers to those (planning) grounds of sufficient weight to justify approval, despite the conflict, and includes any grounds which relate to the merits of the application"9 This response to the Council’s RFI will show that the land is eminently suitable on town planning, economic, social infrastructure and community benefit grounds for residential development. In terms of conflict/ compromise/ achievement against the planning scheme, the Applicant acknowledges the planning scheme’s provisions contained in its Part 1- Interpretation including relevant sections quoted below10 (also refer legal advice in Appendix 19): 1.3.3 Planning Areas (a) All land within the City is included in a Planning Area shown on the Planning Area maps in Part 3. These maps indicate where certain types of development are considered to be suitable now, and in the future.…

9 Moncrieff v Townsville City Council [No.2] [2011] QPEC; Luke &Ors v Maroochy Shire Council &Anor 10 Writer’s emphasis included in the planning scheme quotations

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 19 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

(c) Each Planning Area includes a - (i) Character statement that identifies the desired development outcomes for the Planning Area; (ii) Development Assessment Table that determines the level of assessment that applies to development in that Planning Area; and (iii) Planning Area code that contains the relevant assessment criteria for self- assessable and assessable development in that Planning Area. (d) A Planning Area code - … (iii) identifies performance criteria and acceptable solutions designed to achieve the desired development outcomes for Planning Area.11 The Applicants’ response in Part B contained below will highlight how they have considered the proposed development of the subject site in the context of the ’intended’ and ‘desired’ character and development outcomes for the Thuringowa planning scheme area and more particularly to the Rural Planning Area and Codes.

A(2) Desired Environmental Outcomes Firstly, the DEO of a scheme provide broad strategic goals for how a scheme functions. Each DEO is sought to be achieved to the extent practicable of the other DEO but it is inherent that a balancing act is necessary - a proposal is not required to "meet" each and every DEO. The question of whether a proposed development compromises the DEO should be considered in the context of the other relevant DEO’s contained in the relevant Thuringowa planning scheme, as well as the strategies that are available to achieve the outcomes sought by the particular DEO being considered. It is also important to note that for a development proposal to compromise the achievement of a DEO, “it must be of such a nature it will clearly threaten, imperil or endanger the planning outcome which is sought by the DEO”12. Part 2: Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEO) and City Strategies of the Thuringowa planning scheme states: 7 The Thuringowa planning scheme states: 1.1 PURPOSE OF PLANNING SCHEME … 1.3.2 Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs) and City Strategies (a) The Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEOs) for the City - (i) are contained in Part 2 of the Planning Scheme; (ii) describe the desired outcomes for the City; (iii) where possible, are shown on map 2 - Desired Environmental Outcomes; (iv) are to be read in conjunction with each other; and (v) are supported by City Strategies.

11 Thuringowa Planning Scheme: Part 1- Interpretation 12 Brown v Brisbane City Council [2005] QPEC 026

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 20 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

(b) City Strategies for the City - (i) facilitate the achievement of the DEOs; and (ii) form part of the assessment criteria for impact assessable development. The Applicant has previously addressed the DEO in the development application reports lodged in August 2007 and 9 June 2010. For completeness, the relevant Desired Environmental Outcomes have been redressed below in the context of the Council's RFI. 2.1 NATURE - DEO 1 Important regional ecosystems (refer to map 2 - Desired Environmental Outcomes) maintain the integrity of, and contribute to a healthy, safe and liveable City environment. The proposed development does not conflict with this strategy. The Applicant has considered the environmental purposes of (i) the Thuringowa planning scheme; (ii) State referral jurisdictions; and (iii) the Commonwealth Governments’ environmental protection. The State has provided reasonable and relevant conditions regarding wetlands, vegetation and acid sulfate soils (refer Appendix 9 for the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) response dated 12 August 2010). The development has been deemed a ‘controlled action’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and the Commonwealth has requested additional information regarding a Black Throated Finches survey (refer Appendix 10 for the BTF Survey report prepared by C&R Consulting dated June 2010). As with other developments of relevance to the Black Throated Finch habitat in the wider Townsville area, final assessment of conditional approval by the Commonwealth must be processed subsequent to all local government and State approvals. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - DEO 2 The City’s Life Support Systems are protected to maintain and enhance ecological and human health. 2.2.2 City Strategies DEO 2 is intended to be achieved by - … (d) providing a safe pattern of development that minimises the potential risk to people and property from - (i) storm surge; (ii) flooding; … (vi) salinity; … The development site is not located in the coastal management district and is a significant distance from coastal influences such as storm surge. The Applicant has undertaken and provided a full flood modelling of the proposed development (refer Appendix 3 and 4 providing updated engineering reports) which identifies flood mitigation measures that minimises the potential risk to people and property. As such the City’s Life Support Systems are protected to maintain and enhance ecological and human health. The Applicant is able to further answer this

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 21 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

DEO by imposition of conditions for satisfaction at detailed operational works and design stage. While subsequent detail will be discussed in the context of the Rural Planning Area provisions about ‘viable alternate locations’, it must be noted that, in assessing the application against DEO 2, DEO 6 and the existing Urban Growth Boundary mapping, some areas in the current Thuringowa planning scheme area now have newly regulated environmental constraints that reduce their suitability as urban growth areas. This reduced suitability is due to current statutory and government policies regarding coastal development, urban consolidation, sea level rise and storm surge impacts. As such support for development in such coastal locations is not now in line with the principles of DEO 2 and does not provide a safe pattern of development that minimises the potential risk to people and property - specifically from storm surge. In the northern beaches, suburbs such as Balgal, Toolakea, Saunders and Bushland Beach are now subject to the provisions of the new State Coastal Planning Policy and need to be re-assessed as areas to be specifically promoted for urban growth as anticipated with the scheme as written The Queensland Coastal Plan (QCP), and in particular the State Planning Policy for Coastal Protection, makes development in some of the areas of Thuringowa UGB identified by Council as problematic by virtue of their location. The QCP supports a policy that would be more appropriate for urban growth to occur in areas where coastal concerns are not an issue. The State Planning Policy for Coastal Protection contains seven (7) general policies for development; relevant references are included below:  Policy 1.1 – Urban development is to be consolidated by favouring infill and redevelopment of existing urban localities and minimising the extent of the development footprint in the coastal zone and avoiding the exposure of communities to the impacts of coastal hazards.  Policy 1.2 – Urban development is to follow a nodal settlement pattern and avoids creating or extending settlements in a ribbon or linear pattern along the coast unless, for a particular area, such a pattern is necessary due to land form constraints and/or the efficient provision of infrastructure.  Policy 1.4 – A planning instrument is to avoid allocating new areas for urban purposes within a coastal hazard area, other than for: o coastal dependent development; or o industrial development; or o temporary or relocatable uses, including open space or recreation facilities.  Policy 2.5.1 - provides that development within an urban locality that is not of the type referred to in Section 2.2.1 is to be located outside a high coastal hazard area unless the development is consistent with the relevant adaptation strategy.

The consolidation of urban growth around non-coastal nodes such as proposed on Lynam Road, Gumlow is a preferred strategy.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 22 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

2.3 HERITAGE - DEO 3 Places (including the fabric of Places) of natural, indigenous and non-indigenous heritage significance at an international, national, state or local level are recognised, respected and conserved. Not applicable. 2.4 CHARACTER, CITY IMAGE, AMENITY AND LIFESTYLE - DEO 4 The City’s valuable features, built environment and land use pattern result in a distinct sense of place and local identity, and are vibrant, safe and healthy, with access to community and cultural facilities and services. The proposed development does not conflict with this strategy. Whilst the site is not identified in the planning scheme as having significant character or visual features under the Visual Amenity citywide code, the proposed development has been designed to capture the environmental features of the site and surrounding environs therefore producing a strong character identity and lifestyle for future residents. The internal road layout is directed towards the significant view corridors of the Bohle River to the east and the Pinnacles Mountains to the south-west. The open space network also adopts this ethos. The proposed development therefore promotes the distinct open, healthy "outdoors" lifestyle for which the Townsville region is renowned This DEO also seeks to provide “equitable access to community and cultural services”. The proposed developments’ location within the 5km catchment of Thuringowa Central, which accommodates the cultural and social hub of Riverway and the sporting meccas of Pioneer Park and Dairy Farmers Stadium, also support the land use pattern sought by this DEO. The proposed development is not only proximate to these off site facilities but also provides substantial on site active and passive recreational spaces for future residents as well as nearby communities by incorporating 38ha of open space (39.6%). The lifestyle choice of future residents of this development will be one of safety and security in a spacious urban environment with direct access to all sought after urban facilities More specifically to the City Strategies for this DEO, the proposed development achieves:  enhancement of the City’s Landscape Character Types by the protection of the adjacent river ways and their riparian corridors;  reinforcement of the City’s tropical and spacious character by provision of larger residential lot sizes rather than small high density products in a substantial parkland setting;  the community expectations of access to a variety in product mix including spacious larger residential lot proximate to existing services are met; and  lifestyle and sense of place is created by the setting at the confluence of the rivers and on site open space provisions. DEO 4 clearly also infers a preference for ‘proximity’ to provide equitable access – the proposed development is ideally placed to achieve the intent of this DEO by its proximate location to existing urban services. The sites’ proximity avoids the drift of

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 23 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

residents forced to live further and further away from such facilities to be able to afford a home and lifestyle choice. The Applicant has commissioned an independent review of the social impacts of the proposed development. Urban Analytics Australia’s (July 2011) report will be discussed herein and the benefits of "proximity" will be discussed in more detail in Part B (4) of this report. The Applicant discusses this matter in more detail in Part B(4) below. 2.5 ECONOMY - DEO 5 Economic development in the City is strong, diversified, supports local employment and enhances quality of life. The development site is not Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL) and by it remaining in a rural designation will not enhance economic activity for the city or provide employment choice. Infrastructure can be supplied consistent with the intensity and form of development as will be outlined in Part A(3) below and in the updated engineering reports included in Appendix 3 and 4. More specifically to the City Strategies for DEO 5, the proposed development at Lynam Road, Gumlow achieves: (b) creating an economic environment in the City that provides a range of economic development opportunities, access to employment and maintains community well-being and lifestyle by - … The proposed development of the subject site for urban residential purposes will beneficially affect Thuringowa Central as an activity node by exposing the goods and services of the commercial component of the node to a greater and more conveniently located audience. In doing so it promotes the economic stability and growth of Thuringowa Central, and in turn thereby enhancing the quality of life for residents of the development. The development by appropriate collocation of residential and supporting uses also aids in the management of private travel demand by encouraging multipurpose trips and shorter travel distances, minimising the impact on the overall road network and gives improved "access" to employment opportunities close to home. The subject site is within 200m of the Townsville Ring Road interchange affording immediate access to employment nodes further north and south of the city. The Applicant has previously made statements in common material lodged with Council such as: “for the economic vitality of the region, it is offered that the majority of the population growth needs to be within reasonable commuting distance of major employment nodes and city centre catchments. If population growth can not be within close proximity, good transport corridors are afforded to minimise commuting time to places of employment.”

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 24 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

FIGURE 2 COHESION WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (Aerial flown late 2009)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 25 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

This statement is supported by the independent ‘Economic Impact and Needs Assessment’ by Location IQ (July 2011) and the independent ‘Social Impact Assessment’ by Urban Analytics Australia (July 2011). The experts’ positions regarding ‘planning need’ and ‘community benefit’ is discussed in more detail throughout this report. DEO 6 – Land Use Patterns The City’s land use patterns create cohesive communities that balance economic, social and environmental considerations.13 The Council’s RFI infers more weight has been given to date on this DEO than all others, although the RFI specifically references the strategies of this DEO as being the provisions against which the proposed development conflicts. While the strategies do form part of the assessment criteria for applications, their purpose is to facilitate achievement of the broader range of all DEO, not act as a restriction or limitation on the DEO itself. With this in mind, the Applicant comments on the various strategies for DEO 6 mentioned in the RFI as non supportive of the subject application. [DEO 6] (a) Integrating new and existing development and providing a range of land uses that create cohesive, safe and sustainable communities. The proposed development achieves this strategy – refer Part B below regarding proximity and social impact and the community benefit resulting from the development site, allowing integration. The site is proximate with the existing urban areas of Kalynda Chase, Kirwan, Condon and Thuringowa Central. This proximity allows a seamless integration of the proposed development with the existing urban environment providing a continuous urban fabric within 5km of the former Thuringowa city centre. The site’s cohesion14 with existing development is evident by the aerial imagery provided in Appendix 15. [DEO 6] (b) Establishing the City’s Urban Growth Boundaries (refer to Map 5.6) to create an efficient urban form by – (i) providing for higher residential densities and mix of uses around centres and public transport nodes; Firstly, Strategy (b) seeks to facilitate the establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary to achieve an outcome, that being DEO 6 itself. Council’s urban growth boundaries (‘UGB’) planning strategy that lead to Map 5.6 was adopted in 2003 following public consultation, on the published draft planning scheme at the time. Since then no re- assessment of its ability to progressively achieve its purpose under DEO 6 has occurred.

13 (1) The City’s land use patterns is consistent with the Townsville - Thuringowa Strategy Plan. 14 ‘Cohesive’/ ‘cohere’ is defined as “the act, process, or condition of cohering; to stick or hold together in a mass that resists separation”.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 26 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

It is submitted by the applicant therefore that non-compliance with Map 5.6, does not on its own, infer any level of non-compliance with DEO 6. The broader planning principle must be kept in mind. In relation to item (i), the Applicant contends that the proposed land use on this land at Lynam Road, Gumlow provides a focus in locating additional residential density around an existing centre and has ready access to public transport networks. In the event Map 5.6 was to be re-established today, it would be considered:  that Hervey Range Road, an urban arterial and the greater State-controlled road network adjacent the development site, provides a major transport route/ link to close by and external centres and employment nodes; and  The former Thuringowa city centre is less than 5km east from the subject site, in comparison to the northern beaches area being the area that Council currently promotes as a priority development front. As the following parts and sections attest, as well as the economic needs, social impact and hard infrastructure reports detail, the proposed development is able to create an efficient urban form by providing for higher residential densities (the proposed development) and a mix of uses around centres (Thuringowa Central) and public transport nodes (Hervey Range Road/ Townville’s Ring Road).

[DEO 6(b)] (ii) ensuring orderly and sequential growth defining Urban Growth Boundaries; To the Applicants’ view, this strategy infers that the UGB was never to be “fixed in stone” as has been previously the application by Council. The urban growth boundary is a tool to which achievement is reached and needs to be updated as required. The Applicant contends that the proposed land use will ensure orderly and sequential growth as desired by this DEO. We note ‘sequential’ is defined as “in regular succession without gaps”. The updated engineering reports included in Appendix 3 and 4 provides further evidence as to how the proposed development achieves this DEO. Part A(4) below will outline how the bias of applying the UGB rigidly to exclude the subject site may not achieve orderly and sequential growth of the city: a) The development is the last remaining quarter of the Bohle River/ Hervey Range Road portion of the city to be development; b) Existing built areas abut the development site to the east and north; c) The development site is the next regular succession of the western development front from the built up suburbs of Kirwan/ Condon; and d) The in-fill nature of the proposed development provides no gaps in the advancing development front from the built up area to the north/ east. Part B below discusses in detail need, proximity and social impact.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 27 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

[DEO 6(b)] (iii) providing linkages between residential, public spaces and facilities and workplaces; and The proposed development achieves this strategy, regardless of the UGB. The Thuringowa city centre is less than 5km east from the subject site along Hervey Range Road which provides a significant link to the retail, commercial and government employment nodes. The Townsville Ring Road provides efficient road transport to other employment nodes – at Douglas being the hospital, Lavarack Barracks and the university, the nickel refinery at Yabulu; meat works, zinc and copper refineries and the prison at Stuart. The ‘linkage’ afforded the development site is modern, new and has ample capacity to achieve the intention of this DEO. The linkages are by way of a non-congested, high speed motor-way. If tis DEO is referring to public transport linkages – bus services in this area are limited due to the lack of critical mass at this point in time. Public transport linkages will utilise the same road network linkages above-mentioned, and are therefore achievable in time by provision of others. The proposed development suitability addresses and accommodates future public transport routes onsite. Open space linkages to external suburbs are possible by the proposed 38ha of open space on site, integrating with the adjacent riverine areas. The Applicant is able to further answer this DEO by imposition of conditions regarding on site open space and recreational spaces.

[DEO 6(b)] (iv) establishing a land use pattern that is consistent with the location and capacities of existing infrastructure items, plant and programs of service providers. The proposed development achieves this strategy, regardless of the UGB. The proposed development provides a continuous and consistent land use pattern with the locality. The images in Appendix 15 and SK17 in Appendix 12 clearly identifies the closeness of the development site to existing residential and urban areas - to the east, ie Carlyle Gardens and residential areas in Condon being Florentor Court, Chelsea Drive and Bowhunters Road; Kalynda Chase is less than 1km north; and a recently approved residential development on the corner of The Ring Road/ Hervey Range Road will further reinforce the ‘urban’ nature of this quadrant of the Thuringowa planning scheme area. The UDP Engineering Report (June 2011) in Appendix 4, states about infrastructure: 5.3 [Road] Infrastructure Funding It could be argued that the development provides in-fill development to the recently completed Townsville Ring Road and Hervey Range Road upgrade undertaken by the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The proposed development requires no capital funding ($0/lot) from the State Government or Townsville City Council for the external collector roads providing road access from the proposed development to the State-controlled Road Network. …

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 28 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

5.4 Internal Road Network An internal road network will be provided to service the development, in accordance with the requirements of Townsville City Council, and current industry standards. … 8.2 Water Supply Water supply can be provided from the Mount Margaret pipeline in the Hervey Range Road corridor. 8.3 Sewerage Reticulation Sewerage reticulation would be via gravity sewers and two (2) small pump stations, with connection to adjacent Council pressure main traversing the subject land. The development site’s location on the Townsville Ring Road will allow uptake of capacity so that augmentation is not required elsewhere on the State-controlled network. Uptake of existing capacities in the water and sewerage networks is considered appropriate: Council has re-elevated its sewerage network planning in this sector decreasing the values, therefore as constructed infrastructure allows for ample sewerage capacity in this sector. It is understood that the revised sewerage planning for the Bohle Plains area has a reduced ultimate connected population to major PS BP03 of around 14,500 EP. This again illustrates that major PS BP03 has sufficient capacity to cater for the 829 EP from the proposed Lynam Road development with further additional capacity of 1691 EP remaining available. The above illustrates that sewerage from the Lynam Road development can be pumped to the Mount St John STP with minimal impacts to the existing sewer system. In fact the Lynam Road development contributes towards maximizing the use of Council’s existing infrastructure at no additional capital cost.15 Accordingly the Applicant is able to further answer this DEO by imposition of conditions, if deemed necessary.

[DEO 6] (c) Protecting land from encroachment by incompatible development, promoting the co-location of compatible and complementary development and allowing development where need is demonstrated. DEO 6(c) infers two scenarios:  to protect land, ie. the development site, from encroachment by incompatible development external to the site; OR  to protect land, ie. adjacent to the development site, from encroachment by incompatible development on the development site. Regardless, the proposed development on land at Lynam Road Gumlow achieves this DEO – the residential use of this site will not detrimentally affect the adjacent State owned lands; nor will the State-owned lands detrimentally affect the residential use of this site.

15 UDP ‘Water Supply & Sewerage Planning Report’ (June 2011) in Appendix 5

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 29 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

As will be outlined in Part A(5) below, the subject site is not GQAL; the adjacent land is generally buffer lands to the adjacent key resource area further south at the Pinnacles Quarry. Accordingly the proposed development on this land does not detrimentally affect the adjacent land from incompatible development as the key resource is significantly removed, therefore amply protected. As outlined above, the development site is proximate to compatible land uses of Carlyle Gardens, Kalynda Chase and recently approved residential development. The proposed development will confirm the complementary nature of collocating these like developments close together.

[DEO 6] (d) Developing and maintaining a transport network considering frictional, functional and impact characteristic that – (i) improves accessibility; (ii) enhances mobility; (iii) facilitates efficient and convenient access and mobility within and through the City for all transport and travel modes (maritime, vehicle, passenger and freight, bicycle, public transport and pedestrian); (iv) reflects the road function and protects areas from inappropriate traffic movements; The proposed development achieves DEO 6(d) and these strategies by:  improving emergency accessibility to the lands west and south of the subject site by provision of a high-level Little Bohle River road crossing;  enhancing mobility of surrounding existing residents and future residents of the proposed development, by providing critical mass required to facilitate extensions to public transport services;  the above achieves efficient and convenient access and mobility within and through the city;  inappropriate traffic movements through suburban streets is minimised by providing ready access to the adjacent State-controlled road network and major arterials; and  Urban expansion onto the subject site was anticipated by the extension of the Lynam Road reserve the full length of the site. The proposed development reflects and enhances the current road network. The UDP Engineering Report (June 2011) in Appendix 4, states about infrastructure: 5.6 Public Transport A Public Transport Circuit will form part of the internal road network and will ensure that 90% of the lots are within 400m walking distance. … 5.7 Bikeways and Pedestrian Access Bikeway and pedestrian pathway connections shall be provided throughout the development, and link to the open space corridors along the Bohle and Little Bohle Rivers.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 30 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Connectivity shall be provided to existing developed areas of Thuringowa via a bikeway connection in Lynam Road. This connection shall include an appropriate bikeway provision at the Little Bohle River crossing. Whilst the social impact and economic need assessments provided in Appendix 6 and 8 do not directly answer DEO 6(d), the assumptions and conclusion of these reports regarding locality and proximity outline the community benefit sought by outcome of DEO 6(d). Developing and maintaining a transport network is closely related to locality, proximity, closeness; this correlation is outlined in Part B.

[DEO 6(d)] (v) encourage walking and cycling through the provision of direct, safe and secure routes to local facilities such as shops and schools; and (vi) minimises environmental impact . The proposed development achieves this strategy. The curvilinear internal road pattern provides formal and informal connection of pedestrian and cycle networks. These pathways are intended to connect residents to local site destinations, and form a network of safe pedestrian movement between open spaces and surrounding communities, including Thuringowa Central. DEO 6(d) is intended to be achieved by minimising environmental impact in the context of a transport network. Onsite and external connection to existing cycle and pedestrian links will minimise carbon emissions and the required land for additional hard infrastructure to further support roads. Provision for a future public transport network onsite will further encourage this DEO.

[DEO 6] (e) Establishing land uses adjacent to, or in the vicinity of existing or planned infrastructure corridors, routes or facilities (such as energy or transport) – (i) that are appropriate for the location and do not impact on the safety or efficiency of the corridor or facility; and (ii) that consider across corridor connectivity so that communities are not physically divided. In addition to the comments made above regarding DEO 6(d), the following outlines further achievement of the DEO 6(e). The completed Townsville Ring Road traverses the adjacent land immediately to the north of the subject site. This major road infrastructure affords excellent legibility to external employment nodes therefore reducing traffic movements through the city centre and suburban streets. Traffic movements from the proposed development to the city centre will therefore encourage social and convenience trips, helping establish the city centre as a pedestrian and localised area rather than a major thoroughfare. The proposed residential development on this site establishes land uses that are appropriate for the location and do not impact on the safety or efficiency of the existing road corridors. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) have previously provided a referral agency response providing reasonable and relevant conditions for the proposed development (dated 28 October 2009). By providing this

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 31 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

response, it is assumed that DTMR considers the proposed development appropriate in terms of safety or efficiency on their State-controlled road corridor. To further justify the appropriateness of the proposed development, the Applicant provides a Paramics Modelling Report in Appendix 13, as well as a reanalysis of the traffic impacts. PART A(2) SUMMARY The proposed development achieves the intended outcomes of the DEO’s of the Thuringowa planning scheme as demonstrated by: . providing for higher residential densities and a mix of uses around centres and public transport nodes; . providing linkages between on site residential and public spaces and external facilities and workplaces; . establishing a land use pattern that is consistent with the location and capacities of existing infrastructure items; . Urban expansion onto the subject site has been anticipated by the extension of the Lynam Road reserve the full length of the site. The proposed development reflects and enhances this current road network; . the site is not identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land; . providing high level road access to the site, upgrading the existing Lynam Road (north) and enhancing road access to the State-controlled network; . encouraging walking and cycling through the provision of direct, safe and secure routes to local facilities such as shops and schools; and . establishing land uses adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, existing or planned infrastructure corridors, routes or facilities. In a recent judgement16, similarities between the subject site at Lynam Road Gumlow and an extension to Rupertswood can be drawn in terms of achievement of the Thuringowa planning scheme DEO:  Rupertswood provides infrastructure to the boundary of the land  There is a minimisation of adverse environmental impacts including retention of park, conservation and riparian corridors  The proposed development consolidates the existing Rupertswood Residential Development  The expansion of Rupertswood was anticipated by sizing of infrastructure and the design of future road connection points  The proposed development will support and improve the efficiency of established infrastructure  …  The land is no longer a viable rural property, because of its size and location, water sources and soil structure and slope  Any concerns are able to be addressed by conditions. In summary, a conservative analysis of this development application on the basis of the site’s location outside of the urban growth boundary referenced in DEO 6(b) in isolation of its inherent strategies (i)-(vi), is flawed and does not consider the broader

16 Moncrieff v Townsville City Council [No.2] [2011] QPEC pp5

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 32 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

and strategic level concepts offered in line with the triple bottom line promoted by the Integrated Planning Act 1997, that is: (a) protection of ecological processes and natural systems at local, regional, state and wider levels; and (b) economic development; and (c) maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being of people and communities. A(3) Adequately Serviced by Infrastructure We note the Thuringowa planning scheme in numerous locations requires the development to be adequately serviced by infrastructure and infrastructure is to be provided in an orderly, efficient and cost effective manner. More specifically to the Applicant’s response, Council’s RFI states the proposed development is inconsistent with the IPA Planning Scheme and does not comply with:- … The Character Statement for the Rural Planning Area, specifically section 3.1.1 (b) … (iv) which states: [Rural Planning Area: Character Statement - 3.1.1 (b) (iv)] (b) The Rural Planning Area is intended for Rural Development that contributes to the amenity and landscape of the area. In particular - … (iv) development is adequately serviced by infrastructure … The Applicant disputes that the subject application is in conflict with Provision 3.1.1(b)(iv) of the Thuringowa planning scheme. Unlike what is usually the case with rural land, allgeneral matters of infrastructure, provisions and services are able to be provided to the site efficiently and cost effectively. We refer you to:  Appendix 4 for an updated Engineering Report (UDP Consulting Engineers dated 27 June 2011)  Appendix 5 for an updated Water Supply and Sewerage Planning Report (UDP Consulting Engineers dated 27 June 2011)  Appendix 6 for a Social Impact Report (UAA dated 11 July 2011) The Applicant has made satisfactory arrangements to address essential infrastructure servicing requirements for the proposed development. More specifically in relation to water supply and effluent disposal, there is no justification for refusing the proposal on the basis of there being concerns about water supply and/or effluent disposal, as appropriate conditions could be imposed by the Council to deal with these issues. Road infrastructure Further to the response to DEO 6 (b)(iv) above, we reiterate the UDP Engineering Report (June 2011) in Appendix 4, which states about infrastructure … the development provides in-fill development to the recently completed Townsville Ring Road and Hervey Range Road upgrade undertaken by the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The cost to provide road infrastructure to the proposed development compares favourably to Council’s Infrastructure Charges, which can be explained simply by the proximity of the development to the recently completed Townsville Ring Road and Hervey Range Road, and other existing development roads. Traffic from the proposed development will be more efficient in its use of the road network, being closer to major

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 33 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

trip destinations (i.e. Riverway, Thuringowa Central, Cowboys stadium, Townsville Hospital, Lavarack Barracks and James Cook University). Water Infrastructure The supply from the Mount Margaret system provides the most cost effective and practical bulk water supply to the proposed Lynam Road development, being via connections at the same locations as the back feed connections to the Kalynda Chase development. No upgrade would be required to the existing Mount Margaret infrastructure. No additional trunk infrastructure is necessary to service the development and consequently there is no additional capital cost required to fund trunk water infrastructure. The subject land is perfectly sited to take advantage of trunk water infrastructure, and indeed to provide more efficient use of existing water infrastructure.

Sewerage Infrastructure Sewerage planning for the proposed development has illustrated that two (2) internal sewage pump stations would be necessary to service the proposed 296 lots. The assessment illustrates that the existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cater for the additional 829 EP of the proposed development. The subject land is therefore perfectly sited to take advantage of efficient sewerage infrastructure, and indeed to provide more efficient use of this existing sewerage trunk infrastructure. PART A(3) CONCLUSION The ease of which road, water and sewer infrastructure can be provided to the development site is a very real factor where “out of sequence” urban growth is being considered. Where a need for additional land is demonstrated as is the case here (refer Part B), the Thuringowa planning scheme allows the need to be balanced against the cost of providing infrastructure, including community facilities and services, and the impacts on the environment to overcome sequencing issues. This section only discusses the provision of hard infrastructure - roads, reticulated water and sewerage. The notion of the proposed development site being adequately serviced by social infrastructure will be discussed further in Part 2 of this response report.

A(4) No Viable Alternate Locations Council’s RFI states the proposed development is inconsistent with the IPA Planning Scheme and does not comply with:- … The Character Statement for the Rural Planning Area, specifically section 3.1.1 (f) … ; which states: [Rural Planning Area: Character Statement - 3.1.1 (f)] (f) Development, other than Rural Development, is only located in the Rural Planning Area where no viable alternative location exists, and where that development will not detrimentally affect rural amenity and the rural landscape. The Applicant highlights to Council that the “character statements” for each Planning Area are statements of ‘intent’. The character statements are not specified Performance Criteria as prescribed in the Rural Planning Area Code. As a statement

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 34 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

of intent, the outcome is not absolute and not to be read mutually exclusive from other provisions of the Thuringowa planning scheme. Council’s RFI also states the proposed development is inconsistent with the IPA Planning Scheme and does not comply with:- … the Rural Planning Area Code, specifically P6 (non rural development) which states: [Rural Planning Area: Code – Performance Criteria P6] P6. Development, other than Rural Development, is only located in the Rural Planning Area where no viable alternative location exists. It is noted that no development is prohibited under the planning scheme.17 This Performance Criteria is also not prohibitive in nature (as such a provision would be unlawful in Queensland) but instead provides criteria guidelines for achieving the specified outcome of locating non rural development in the rural planning area.. Firstly, Character Statement 3.1.1(f) and Performance Criteria P6 assume the site has a rural amenity and value. To this end we note the site is not identified as Good Quality Agricultural Land; the land is not supportive of economically viable ‘rural development’, nor is the surrounding land to the north and east rural in nature. Indeed, the surrounding land character will cause increasing reverse amenity issues due to existing developments/ approvals. The proposed development for larger lot sizes ‘merge’ the settlement pattern intention of the rural and urban environs. To provide evidence to the abovementioned provisions of the Rural Planning Area: Character Statement and Rural Planning Area Code, this Part of the Applicant’s response to Council’s RFI will discuss the criteria of ‘no viable alternative location’. At the time the subject application was lodged with the relevant assessment manager in August 2007, the subject site was located in the former City of Thuringowa local government area (“LGA”). Therefore accordingly to Section 3.5.3 of the IPA18, the Assessment Manager can only consider the planning scheme area applicable at the time of lodgement that is, the area covered by the former Thuringowa City Councils’ planning scheme (October 2003). In the context of Provision 3.1.1(f) and Performance Criteria P6 of the Thuringowa planning scheme, to assess if no viable alternate locations for the subject development should therefore only be considered by the Assessment Manager to be within the former Thuringowa City LGA. The Applicant considers the matters outlined in Table A1 below as pertinent to the decision making process as to what would be viable alternate locations for this development.

17 Thuringowa planning scheme Part 1 – Interpretation 1.4 Levels of Assessment (s1.4.1) No development is prohibited under the Planning Scheme. The character statements for each Planning Area and Local Area identify development considered to be consistent with the desired development outcomes for development in those areas. They also identify development considered to be inconsistent with desired development outcomes. 18 3.5.3 References in div 2 to codes, planning instruments, laws or policies - In this division (other than section 3.5.6), a reference to a code, planning instrument, law or policy is a reference to a code, planning instrument, law or policy in effect when the application was made.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 35 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

TABLE A1 Criteria for viable alternate locations in the Traditional Residential Sub Planning Area within the former COT LGA

1. What land has not been approved for an alternate use or development; AND

2. What land is adequately serviced by infrastructure; AND

3. Ownership makes the land available for development; AND

4. What land contains physical and environmental constraints that can be appropriately overcome; OR

5. What land is included in the Traditional Residential Sub Planning Area of the Thuringowa planning scheme, and complies with/ is identified by Criteria 1-4 above?

Relevance of ‘urban growth boundary’ Neither the Rural Planning Area character statement nor Performance Criteria P6 (or P7 refer Part A(5) below), require the viable alternate locations to be within the urban growth boundary (UGB) identified on Map 5.6; The Thuringowa planning scheme does not defined ‘viable’ either. The courts have determined that the definition of planning terms in schemes should be those commonly understood. The Macquarie dictionary defines ”viable” as, inter alia “practicable; workable”.19 The analysis provided below does not consider the UGB as relevant criteria because the common-sense application of this boundary is simply a line on the map; it is arbitrary/ changeable depending on the argument and assumptions mounted in any proper assessment of a development. By removing the UGB from this analysis, the bias to a certain outcome is removed. The ‘viability’ of an alternate location to establish a similar development as being proposed by this application, is reliant on the lands ability to be “practicable; workable” as a development site for an approx. 300 lot residential subdivision. In reality, there is virtually no land that would meet Criteria 1 and 2. For example, (noting the UGB is put aside) in the main the lands that are adequately serviced by infrastructure are those identified in the Traditional Residential Sub Planning Area being properties/ developments that have been constructed and are commonly known as Bushland Beach, North Shore, Kalynda Chase, Willowbank, Chelsea Place, Carlyle Gardens, Riverlea, Santa Lucia land in Rasmussen recently purchased by Defence Housing, River Parks, Kingston Park and Brendale. With regards to ownership (Criteria 3), most of the land in the Traditional Residential Sub Planning Area are not “practicable; workable” for development similar to that being applied for. The land in most instances, has already been subdivided or has approval and will be subdivided in the near future.

19 Quagliata v Cassowary Coast Regional Council [No.105] [2011] QPEC pp28

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 36 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Therefore in terms of the Rural Planning Area character statement and Performance Criteria P6 of the Thuringowa planning scheme, which requires that no other viable alternate locations exist for the subject development, the Applicant concludes that to be the case under Criteria 1, 2 and 3. In terms of Criteria 4, the Applicant has discounted lands in the Traditional Residential Sub Planning Area at Balgal Beach, Saunders Beach and Toolakea as not being “practicable; workable” - these locations are not considered to be serviced with adequate infrastructure (soft or hard infrastructure) to be viable in terms of economic feasibility, should (as would be required) a developer have to construct the same for any development proposed. Notwithstanding many of the satellite suburbs abovementioned are coastal communities that have environmental constraints that should reduce their suitability as urban growth areas pursuant to current statutory and government policies regarding urban consolidation, sea level rise and storm surge impacts. Specifically the impact on areas within the UGB that are now subject to the provisions of the new State Coastal Planning Policy need to be considered in the context of whether they are viable alternate locations to establish a similar development as being proposed by this application. The overall urban land considered (in town planning terms at least) available within Thuringowa planning scheme area will now be generally impacted by this new policy. In this context, other inland locations will become more appropriate for residential development. ‘Urban growth boundary’ as a planning strategy We note Council’s UGB planning strategy was adopted in 2003 following public consultation, on the published draft planning scheme at the time. Nonetheless, the resulting analysis from the criteria in Table A1 above suggests that the UGB Map 5.6 may be ’off the pace’. In the event that the UGB Map 5.6 is determined to have been ‘overtaken by events’, the Thuringowa planning scheme currently provides a policy direction that future urban growth could occur in locations outside the UGB if the land outside the UGB does not have to be retained for economic purposes.20 As the subject site is currently located outside the UGB, the subject site needs to be considered as to whether it contains ‘economic purpose’ (or economic significance), warranting retention in its current form. The development site is currently identified in the Rural Planning Area of the Thuringowa planning scheme, and is vacant rural land. The subject sites’ current economic purpose or economic significance is considered further in Part A(5) below. Following analysis of possible viable alternate locations to establish a similar development as being proposed by this application limited to zoned residential lands, to cover all basis, a second stream of criteria in Table A2 considers all lands within the Thuringowa planning scheme, regardless of their current zoning. The Applicant has undertaken an extensive critique of the viable alternate locations within the Thuringowa planning scheme area where a residential development similar to that proposed could be established.

20 Refer Urban Growth Boundary Code: Purpose (d)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 37 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

TABLES A2 Criteria for viable alternate locations for residential master planned development within the former COT LGA

1. What land has not been approved for an alternate use or development; AND

2. What land is adequately serviced by infrastructure; AND

3. What land contains physical and environmental constraints that can be appropriately overcome; AND

4. Ownership makes the land available for development.

What lands are leftover as potential alternate locations, are those within one of the following sub planning areas – Rural 10, Rural 40, or Park Residential. The following section of this RFI response discusses these leftover lands; we refer you to the Community Infrastructure mapping in Appendix 7 enclosed. Upper Ross Area Sheet 2 of 6 in Appendix 7 identifies amongst other things, the Upper Ross area, ie land south of Hervey Range Road. Sheet 2 identifies Thuringowa Central as a focal point, being the primary service centre for the western greater Townsville area, currently and into the future. Being cognisant of the abovementioned criteria, no practicable or workable alternate locations in the Upper Ross area could accommodate the proposed development of approx 300-lot residential subdivision that does not require extensive capital costs (both developer and government input) towards road and reticulated services, also flood mitigation works. What the mapping in Appendix 7 identifies is the proximity of the subject site to Thuringowa Central. The subject site is identified to be wholly within the 5km radius of Thuringowa Central. In comparison, the approved (and partially constructed) residential development River Parks in Kelso, is borderline 8km from Thuringowa Central. What also is evident is the ample social infrastructure and services that already exist close to the development site. Northern Beach Area Sheet 4 of 6 in Appendix 7 identifies amongst other things, the Northern Beach and Bohle Plains areas, ie land north of Hervey Range Road. Sheet 4 identifies the Sub Regional Centre at North Shore (currently under construction) as a focal point, being the primary service centre for the Northern Beaches area. Being cognisant of the abovementioned criteria, for the purposes of a thorough logical assessment of practicable/workable alternate locations, we consider the following:  Land identified on Sheet 4 as No. 4-9 (refer to the Legend) – whilst these land parcels are in freehold title and of a similar land area as the subject site on Lynam Road, Gumlow, these lots are constrained by their location on rivers/ wetlands, in the coastal zone and low lying topography. These lots are currently identified in the Open Space, Rural 40 or 400 sub planning areas.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 38 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

 Jensen – this suburb has a grid-layout comprising mainly 8ha allotments in multiple ownership. The coloured lots identified on Sheet 4 in this suburb represents allotments owned by the same person(s). Ownership is considered the single biggest factor to restricting this suburb as a future development front. Unless joint ventures or significant acquisitions are facilitated, the size of individual land parcels is not adequate to subdivide for urban purposes. The Jensen area is generally identified within the Rural 10 sub planning area. Where lots are identified in the Park Residential sub planning area, they have an approx. area of 2ha or smaller. Unless significant change in ownership occurs, it is highly unlikely that these lands will be practicable or workable alternate locations for an approx. 300-lot residential subdivision.  Shaw/ Deeragun – several allotments on the western side of the quarry on Shaw Road may be available for development. This lands proximity to the Key Resource Area being the quarry is an undesirable location for an approx 300-lot residential subdivision. These lots are identified in the Rural 10 or 40 sub planning area.  Bohle Plains State Land – the State Government in November 2007, released a report on the Bohle State Evaluation Project (by DERM). The large purple tract of land shown on Sheet 4 of 6 was flagged in the said report as an ‘Urban’ designation. Lot No. 17 on Sheet 4 located outside the UGB, was designated as ‘Reserve for Water and Camping’. The land flagged for urban uses has an approx. land area of 2,200ha, the future stages of the Townsville Ring Road traverses the land (refer Sheet 1 of 6); it is currently identified in the Rural 40 sub planning area. In reality, this land is the only possible viable alternate location for an approx 300- lot residential subdivision similar to that proposed by Willowbend. Again, ownership is considered the single biggest factor to restricting this land as a future development front. With respect to the provision of social and community infrastructure, the subject site is proximate to both sub regional centres – it’s borderline within the North Shore sub regional centre 8km radius, as well as within 5km of Thuringowa Central. The existing/ expanding traditional residential estates at Bushland Beach is only borderline within the 8km radius of the North Shore sub regional centre. Sheet 3 of 6 identifies a plethora of existing social infrastructure within less than 5km of the development site (also refer the social infrastructure assessment in Appendix 6).

PART A(4) CONCLUSION In conclusion except for a small sliver of State land on the Bohle Plains adjacent Kalynda Chase/ Shaw Road being within the 5km radius of Thuringowa Central, the same level of practicable and workable alternate lands does not exist in the Thuringowa planning scheme area to establish a similar development as being applied for in this application. This statement is made based on the criteria in Tables A1 and A2 above, which generally concludes: (i) In the main, land provided with existing/ ready access to adequate infrastructure has physical/ environmental constraints that restricts its development potential; (ii) In the main, existing residential zoned land is not practically available for development; and

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 39 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

(iii) existing social infrastructure as those afforded the development site at Lynam Road, Gumlow can not be found in such close proximity to other lands elsewhere in the Thuringowa planning scheme area. Accordingly, as no viable alternative location exists, in conformance with Character Statement 3.1.1(f) and P6 of the rural Planning Area Code non rural development such as the one proposed, is able to be located in the Rural Planning Area.

A(5) Rural Intention Council’s RFI states the proposed development is inconsistent with the IPA Planning Scheme and does not comply with:- … The Character Statement for the Rural Planning Area, specifically section 3.1.1 (b) (iii) … 3.1.1 (g) (i) …; the Rural Planning Area Code, specifically … P7 (existing and future amenity) which states: [Rural Planning Area: Character Statement - 3.1.1 (b) (iii)] (b) The Rural Planning Area is intended for Rural Development that contributes to the amenity and landscape of the area. In particular - (iii) development is compatible with the rural landscape or has a nexus with Rural Development; and… [Rural Planning Area: Character Statement - 3.1.1 (g) (i)] (g) Three sub-areas are identified for the Rural Planning Area based on land capacity and lot sizes: the Rural 10 sub-area, ... . These sub-areas are shown on Map 3.1 and - (i) the Rural 10 sub-area is intended for Agriculture on a minimum lot size of 10 hectares. Intensive Animal Husbandry, Abattoirs and Stockyards are inconsistent with the desired development outcomes intended for this sub- area; … [Rural Planning Code: Performance Criteria P7] P7. Development will not detrimentally affect the existing and future rural amenity and landscape of the Rural Planning Area, taking into account - (a) the manner in which the proposed development will affect the desired future character of the area; and (b) the degree of impact on the area.

Existing and future rural amenity and landscape In light of the assessment and decision criteria outline in Section 4.0 and Part A(1) above, we consider the higher level assessment criteria being the Performance Criteria P7 first. The Applicant emphasises - the subject site is not designated Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL) in the planning scheme and has little economically viable rural purpose. It is often the case with generic character statements for broad areas in a planning scheme, that site specific review shows that the site itself does not support a particular intent or performance criteria.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 40 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The Applicant further submits that P7 has a further relationship with the Thuringowa planning scheme’s Urban Growth Boundaries Code and its associated planning scheme policy in terms of the “no viable alternate location” argument required of Performance Criteria P6 of the Rural Planning Area Code, and the Urban Growth Boundaries Code generally. The expressed view that urban development can only occur within the defined urban growth boundary, is only one way in which the performance criteria can be achieved. In other words, there may be another acceptable solution - and in the case of P7, performance criteria P6 of the Rural Planning Area Code provides it. As to whether development will not detrimentally affect the existing and future rural amenity and landscape of the Rural Planning Area is considered two-fold: i) the manner in which the proposed development will affect the desired future character of the area; and ii) the degree of impact on the area. We refer to Appendix 7 Sheet 3 of 6. In terms of (a) above, the subject site is not isolated from urban development, ie the subject site is not totally rural in character. The effect of the proposed development on the surrounding character of the area should include in this analysis (i) lands with a common boundary, and (ii) adjacent lands to the development site. The adjacent lot (Lot 2 AP3562) to the west and south of the subject site is owned by the State of Queensland and forms part of the Pinnacles Key Resource Area buffer. This land is identified in the Rural 10 and 40 sub planning areas. To the north of the subject site across the Little Bohle River, the allotments accommodate a caravan park, Bedrock Landscape Supplies, but mainly Dwelling Houses on acreage including ancillary uses as forestry and a truck depot. To the east across the Bohle River, Carlyle Gardens and traditional residential estates have been established. The Applicant offers that the proposed approx 300-lot predominantly large lot size residential subdivision on the subject site will not detrimentally affect the abovementioned existing character of the area, as outlined in Table A3 below. In conclusion, if the proposed development is unlikely to detrimentally affect the existing and future amenity of the character of the area, mainly because the rural amenity and landscape is already affected by encroaching urban development from the north and east, the proposed development complies with the Rural Planning Code: Performance Criteria P7 The degree of impact on the area should now be considered. Degree of Impact The degree of impact on the areas’ character might be considered by the Assessment Manager in terms of ‘precedence’ following approval of the said application. Precedence of such an approval should not be taken out of context of merits based planning; not all developments will have similar merit. The sphere of influence of how development may detrimentally affect rural amenity in the ‘whole’ of the Rural Planning Area, should not be taken out of context to the site specific nature of a development application.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 41 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

TABLE A3 Affect on Desired Future Character of the Area

1. The proposed use is consistent with the existing developments to the east, ie Carlyle Gardens and residential areas in Condon being Florentor Court, Chelsea Drive and Bowhunters Road.

2. Lot 2 AP3562 to the west/south, is Unallocated State Land - this lot is generally unimproved and does not accommodate any agricultural/ rural pursuits that the proposed development may impose reverse adverse impact. The lot will remain land-locked unless appropriate all-weather river crossings are provided across the Little Bohle from the north, or the Bohle River from the east/ south. The proposed development will provide positive community physical benefit to Lot 2 AP3562 in this regard.

3. The proposed development includes a Q50 immune road crossing of the Little Bohle River. This river crossing will assist the State in the short-medium term to access lands further south, ie access to the Pinnacles quarry, aquaculture and other industries, for emergency purposes.

4. Should it be necessary, the proposed Little Bohle River bridge may be useful in terms of an alternate access to the Pinnacles quarry and/ or the Condon Sewerage Treatment Plant during the wet season.

5. The proposed use is compatible with the existing developments to the north, ie Kalynda Chase and Dwelling Houses.

6. Approximately six (6) dwelling houses gain access off Lynam Road (north) or are in close proximity to the Little Bohle River adjacent the subject site. In the main these properties are large rural residential allotments. Only 3 houses have ancillary rural uses. The establishment of a residential subdivision on the subject site will improve the amenity for these existing residences in the locality by providing additional structured parklands, better access to the rivers, reduce fire hazards and providing better road access by upgrading the current Lynam Road (north) carriageway and intersection with Hervey Range Road.

7. Strategically speaking, the establishment of a residential subdivision on the subject site may provide a positive community benefit in the locality, encouraging gentrification of rural/ commercial operations. As previously stated in the common material lodged with this application, the sites fronting Hervey Range Road/ Lynam Road are ideally located for a local convenience store as the closest appropriately zoned/ approved site for a local convenience store is approximately 1km (which has its own established population catchment being Kalynda Chase).

It is not common sense to consider rural zoned land on Lynam Road, Gumlow against more pristine rural lands like at Hervey Range, for example, where huge land holdings operate as extremely viable rural business. Surely the degree of impact should focus on more immediate areas surrounding the development site.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 42 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The Rural Planning Area: Character Statement - 3.1.1 (g) (i) states the Rural 10 sub area is ‘intended for’ Agriculture on a minimum lot size of 10 ha. The Thuringowa planning scheme defines the following: Agriculture: Premises used – (a) to propagate, cultivate or harvest plants, including cereals, flowers, fruit, seeds, trees, turf and vegetables; or (b) for on site handling, packing, processing of produce grown on the premises, on a commercial basis. The subject site therefore has an expectation that such commonly known uses as growing and handling of plants, mariculture specialising in aquaculture involving marine organisms; and viticulture dealing with vineyard, should be approved for this land. The opposition to this development expectation is mainly odour and noise impacts on nearby existing residential uses. Nonetheless awareness of pesticide or herbicide spray drift from horticulture uses also has greater ramifications than these other adverse impacts. The reverse impact of establishing any of the abovementioned self assessable, or any code assessable development on the subject site will be detrimental to the future urban expansion of Townsville within the 5km radius of Thuringowa Central. It is extremely unlikely that future development on this site will be developed for such low yielding uses as allowable by the Table of Assessment 3.1.2 in the Thuringowa planning scheme as road access to the site would be cost prohibitive. Furthermore, the Applicant emphasises the subject site is not designated Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL) the planning scheme – the site is therefore not fundamentally prime for growing/ keeping rural pursuits. With regards to the site specific sphere of influence, the proposed urban development minimises impacts to the character of the immediate area, contributing to the amenity and landscape of the area by minimising the development footprint on site - approx. 38ha of open space is provided (approx. 39% of the total site area). The protection of approx. 18ha of the development site for regional ecosystem enhances the proposed developments [compatibility] with the rural landscape retaining a ‘leafy’ setting. In the main, the proposed lot layout provides sufficient fire management strategies, emergency access to adjacent lands further south, and the larger lot sizes proposed facilitates low-medium density urban development rather than extensive development. The Applicant offers that the proposed development minimise the adverse impacts on the adjacent and surrounding rural lands. The proposed development provides a suitable ‘transitional’ use between urban and rural pursuits in the immediate sphere of influence.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 43 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

A(6) Urban Growth Boundaries Code Council’s RFI states the proposed development is inconsistent with the IPA Planning Scheme and does not comply with:- … the City Wide Codes specifically section 5.6 (Urban Growth Boundaries) where areas outside the City’s urban growth boundaries are retained for economic, social and environmental purposes. The pertinent Purpose statement of this Code states: (d) areas outside the City's Urban Growth Boundaries are retained for economic, social and environmental purposes such as agricultural land, visual and natural resource protection, significant water catchments and World Heritage Areas; The Thuringowa planning schemes’ Urban Growth Boundaries Code (“UGB Code“) is supported by the Urban Growth Boundaries Planning Scheme Policy (6 December 2003) (“UGB Policy”). The correct construction of the Policy and Code is that, by way of guideline, it allows consideration to be given to residential development outside the boundary. A planning scheme policy may apply to all or part of a planning scheme area21. A planning scheme policy may include guidelines or advice about satisfying assessment criteria in the planning scheme22. This is what the UGB Policy is - a guideline. So much is apparent from the language of the policy in the heading to Provision 1.2. In paragraph 4, the UGB Policy provides guidance as to how a development proposal involving land outside the urban growth boundaries (“UGB“) identified on Map 5.6 of the Thuringowa planning scheme can address Performance Criterion P2 of the Urban Growth Boundaries Code.23 In terms of responding to Council’s RFI, the Applicant provides the ways the proposed developments minimises the conflict with the planning instrument, ie the development site is located outside the UGB. The UGB Policy requires, for urban development beyond the UGB, information to be furnished that the location be demonstrated as necessary and represented a well- planned, orderly development. A contrary position to the defined urban growth boundaries must be justified in respect of the matters outlined in Table A4 below. Council’s expressions in the RFI are reliant on provisions that have simply been overtaken by events – hard infrastructure is now available on the doorstep of the development site; no viable alternate locations exist as workable and practical lands have been taken up; and urban development is the new character of the area. The proposed development at Lynam Road, Gumlow has the potential to create a community envisaged by the UGB Policy. Whilst all planning policies are by their nature speculative in the context of planning guidance for future development, the urban growth boundary in the vicinity of the development site that follows Hervey Range Road and the Bohle River is, in the Applicants’ view, an arbitrary line that recognises the ‘existence’ of nearby residential development (eg Kalynda Chase and Condon) but condemns such areas as distant urban locations with a less than optimal residential community status. This policy direction does not easily facilitate fluid planning outcomes.

21 Section 2.1.17 of IPA 22 Section 2.1.23(4)(e) of IPA 23 Moncrieff v Townsville City Council[No.2] [2011] QPEC pp89& 25

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 44 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

TABLE A4 Additional Information For APPLICANT’S RESPONSE Proposals Beyond The UGB24

a. Reasons justifying why the  UGB is out of date; has been overtaken by events Urban Growth Boundary Code should not apply;  UGB is an arbitrary line that has not fully considered some lands outside may not be constrained  Certain areas within the UGB are not serviced with ‘adequate’ infrastructure and to do so would require significant capital costs to local and State government, over and above developer contributions

b. Demonstration that areas  Refer Tables A1 and A2 above within the urban growth boundaries cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed urban development;

c. Demonstration that the long-  The provision of infrastructure to the development site, term environmental, whilst outside the Urban Growth Boundaries, is not economic, social and energy considered inappropriate nor unfeasible consequences resulting from the use of the proposed site  Concept Plans have been prepared for the Bohle with measures designed to Plains area north of Hervey Range Road located within reduce adverse impacts are the Urban Growth Boundaries. Whilst the Concept not significantly more adverse Plans provide guidance regarding the broad layout of than would typically result particular areas, limited progress and development has from the same proposal being been achieved in the regards. As such these concepts located within the defined should be revisited in light of the fact that the policy boundaries, and direction has simply been overtaken by events

d. The proposed development is  The proposed development is compatible with other compatible with other adjacent adjacent uses, is outlined in PartA(5) above uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to  measures designed to reduce adverse impacts include reduce adverse impacts. – flood mitigation works associated with the Little Bohle River bridge will reduce flood impacts generally in the area; vegetation clearing is controlled by a certified PMAV; and lot layouts provide appropriate buffers to waterways.

As determined by the judgement in Moncrieff25 Kalynda Chase and Condon are a reality; they are existing communities. They should not be shunned as the ‘end of suburbia’ from a planning perspective, undeserving of surrounding infill development depriving the need and desire of its current and future residences of improvements and enhancements which are reliant on critical mass. It is commonly understand that critical mass can only be realised by increasing population in a certain locality/

24 Section 6.2 – UGB Policy 25 Moncrieff v Townsville City Council [No.2] [2011] QPEC

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 45 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

catchment. These suburbs cannot simply be discounted or ignored in the holistic planning scheme context of Thuringowa. Kalynda Chase is not an isolated and unsupported settlement unrelated to and disconnected with the greater urban footprint of Kirwan/Condon. This newly created suburb is connected and supported in a community sense. The aerial photography taken in 2009 (refer Appendix 15) and the current smartmaps show how Kalynda Chase is connected to Thuringowa by road and open space networks (which will be even more evident when the Harris and Hogarth development on Lots 11 and 13 SP191768 are constructed). The social infrastructure and economic needs analysis included in Appendix 6 and 8, provides that in the Kirwan/ Thuringowa Central community there is need for a critical mass of population that will enable the provision of services to which other residential communities are accustomed to be provided on a viable basis. The subject land is suitably located and provides a logical expansion to the urban area. In the context of logical urban expansion, the land has obviously been previously contemplated by the continuation of the gazetted Lynam Road reserve on the subject site and the provision of infrastructure "connections" onsite/ proximate to the boundary. The proposal would provide consistent development outcomes as expected elsewhere in the city. Community benefits from additional population and additional public open space would be realised. The houses to be built on the land will be subject of the same or similar planning and Queensland Development Code requirements, consistent with existing development elsewhere in the planning scheme area. Areas outside the UGB The Purpose of the UGB Code incorporates five (5) provisions. Councils’ RFI however, focuses on non compliance with only one provision being (d) - “… the proposed development is not supported by Council’s Thuringowa planning scheme and does not comply with:- … section 5.6 (urban growth boundaries) (d) areas outside the City's Urban Growth Boundaries are retained for economic, social and environmental purposes such as agricultural land, visual and natural resource protection, significant water catchments and World Heritage Areas; …”. The purpose statement mentions areas outside the UGB are retained for a range of ‘purposes’. The Applicant has considered and sought to identify what those purposes could be in terms of the Thuringowa planning scheme area on a broad-scale:  Economic – nickel refinery, Pinnacles quarry and KRA, extractive industries, Ross River Dam catchment, town refuse facility, Defence lands, rural pastures/ grazing lands, forestry, good agricultural land;  Social – isolated/ remote communities;  Environmental – far northern beaches and coastal areas, isolated/ remote bushlands and hinterlands, recognition of National Parks and conversation areas, protection of - riverine protection, scenic amenity, habitat corridors. Interestingly, the subject site seems to hold none of the above values that would justify its location outside of the urban growth boundary as indicated by the UGB Code. The proposed development is considered to enhance the integrity of the Thuringowa planning scheme. The subject site has by default, or purposefully, become part of a development node (geographically) focussed on the new Ring Road intersection immediately adjacent and its allowance of ready-access to all areas of the greater

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 46 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Townsville area – which includes the residential development of Kalynda Chase and a future residential estate on the north – eastern side. Whilst the UGB as a policy statement provided a clear graphical intent in the 2003 planning scheme for Thuringowa, this should not negate any consideration by Council that future development and planning cannot occur in areas outside the UGB. But rather, adjacent areas to the UBG that have no clearly identified economic, social and environmental purposes - will be considered on merit. In terms of the proposed development it is only assumed by the Applicant that the subject site was not included in the UGB due to its historic rural pastures for minor grazing pursuits (economic purposes), and the site’s location at the confluence of major drainage corridors being the Little Bohle and Bohle River (environmental purposes). Firstly the Applicant considers the possible economic purposes of the site. From an agronomy point of view, the Applicant has generally considered the viability of the subject site for rural pursuits:  It is reiterated, the subject site is not designated GQAL;  The subject land has an area of 97ha (of which approx. 40% is below the Q50 level not being ideal for horticultural pursuits);  Soil and land type significantly influences native grass types, which dictates to some degree the sustainable feed available for grazing purposes;  DEEDI can provide an indication of what grazing capabilities are for the native pastures in the area, giving an approximate carrying capacity for grazing purposes. It should be noted that a lag period in turnover for grazing pursuits is likely in the first instance;  Regardless of whether grazing or horticultural pursuits are established on the land, it is very unlikely that a viable water supply would be accessible, ie ground water to the effect of approx. 200mL/ pa may be required for horticultural pursuits. It is very unlikely that such a supply of water will be sustainable from the adjacent river systems. Whilst this response to Council’s RFI advocates connection to the reticulated water supply is viable and relatively easy, the use of treated water for grazing or horticultural pursuits may negatively affect production and quality of the produce. Also connection to the town water supply will be cost inhibitive; and  Vehicular access to the site plays a significant role in justifying the viable use of the land. Road access at present is seasonal, and will not necessarily coordinate with the seasonal nature of some grazing or horticultural pursuits to gain access to market. On a best guess of the land being viable for grazing or horticultural pursuits, subject to further expert opinion in this regard, it is very unlikely that this 97ha landholding will be profitable enough to make the necessary repayments (rates, mortgage), construct necessary infrastructure (water supply, cattle yards, sheds), let alone be a profitable enterprise. The only viable and valuable use of the land is for a house, or redevelopment as proposed by this application. The point about road access is reiterated in the context of the land being viable for a single house lot; road access at present is seasonal and the cost to provide permanent bridge access would make this option unviable. Further discussion on the matter of economic need is provided in Part B(1)of this RFI report.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 47 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Secondly, the proposed development has considered the environmental purposes of (i) the Thuringowa planning scheme; (ii) State referral jurisdictions; and (iii) the Commonwealth Governments’ environmental protection. The State has provided reasonable and relevant conditions regarding wetlands, vegetation acid sulfate soils (refer Appendix 9 for the DERM response dated 12 August 2010). The development has been deemed a ‘controlled action’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and the Commonwealth has requested additional information regarding a Black Throated Finches survey (refer Appendix 10 for the BTF Survey report prepared by C&R Consulting dated June 2010). In terms of the purpose of the UGB Code to retain the development site for environmental purposes, it is assumed the site’s location at the confluence of the Little Bohle and Bohle River plays a role in this importance. The Applicant believes they have provided sufficient evidence to minimise the conflict; as demonstrated by conditions issued by DERM. Further discussion on this matter is provided in Part D - Environmental Section of this RFI report. With regards to the environmental constraints of flood, the Council’s RFI in the Engineering Part C references the AECOM Report, and the proposed development is in conflict with the assumptions of the Council commissioned report. On closer analysis of the associated mapping in the said report, it is clear that several land holdings in the UGB which have already gained approval by Council for traditional residential development are also identified as being flood prone – to a similar extent to the development site. It is offered therefore that these existing approvals were able to satisfactorily provide sufficient evidence despite the constraint. This would have been applied by conditions on the approval for lessening the impacts. Further site specific discussion on this matter is provided in Part C - Engineering Section of this RFI report.

A(7) Conclusion The applicant does not deny a technical conflict with the Thuringowa planning schemes’ Urban Growth Boundaries Code, particularly: [Urban Growth Boundaries Code: Performance Criteria &Acceptable Solution] A1. Urban development occurs within the defined Urban Growth Boundaries defined on map 5.7. [ie. 5.6] … P2. Areas outside the City's Urban Growth Boundaries are retained for non- urban development. … If those provisions are read without the context of the rest of the scheme, the response in Part A above duly outlines the true weight of what those technical conflicts are to be considered against in terms of the planning grounds that minimises the conflict, as followings. Minimise the Conflict a) The site is adequately serviced by infrastructure – refer Appendix 3-5; b) There are no other viable alternate locations to establish a similar development as proposed, elsewhere in the Thuringowa planning scheme area; c) Locations in the Townsville City Council planning scheme area are not relevant in the context of a development application in the Thuringowa planning scheme area;

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 48 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

d) The development site is not unconnected to the existing urban concentration of Kirwan/Condon, and the proposal when completed will emerge as a sustainable and consolidated community with the adjacent urban extent; e) The degree of impact on the area should not discount ‘positive’ impacts. The development site is considered in-fill development as stated above:  The development site is 2.9km from Thuringowa Central;  Existing urban residential development is located less the 1km north and east of the development site, with the interim lands mainly containing riverways and road reserve; and  The development site is connected to Thuringowa Central by road and open space networks; f) The site is not good quality agricultural land, and has no economic, environmental or social reasons to be retained as it currently is; g) Economic need is proven – refer Appendix 8; h) Other locations within the urban growth boundary do not meet the ‘need’; i) Community benefit and demand is proven - refer Appendix 6; and j) There are beneficial environmental outcomes – the proposed flood mitigation measures will assist long term flood management, the regional ecosystem vegetation will be retained long term by its inclusion in the onsite open space network, the riverine areas are appropriately buffered from future development, and fauna has been considered and will continue to be protected.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 49 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Part B - Planning

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 50 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

PART B- PLANNING Further to Section 4.0 and Part A(1)of this report that outlines the appropriate assessment and decision protocols required to be undertaken pursuant to IPA, this Part B of the Applicant’s response to the Assessment Manager’s RFI provides itemised responses to each request item. Part B contains the following sub parts: B(1) Need B(2) Availability of existing land - development envisaged by the scheme B(3) Relevance of Rocky Springs B(4) Proximity B(5) Viability of Thuringowa Central B(6) Associated Potential Flooding Impacts B(7) Market Controls B(8) Parkland Allocation B(9) Lot Layout B(10) Conclusion

B(1) Need Council’s Request for Further Information states: 1. The Residential Needs Assessment prepared by Core Economics in 2006 is out dated and does not have relevance to the current day situation. It is indicated on Page 15, Application History that it is your intention to submit a supplementary report. The Needs Assessment must consider the following: a) the Report must address the residential need and demand in a manner which is not ‘specific to the needs of the client’; Firstly, “planning need” has been the subject of extensive legal determination. Put simply, and in the Applicant’s understanding, the law says “planning need” is: ‘Need’ “does not mean pressing need, critical need, widespread desire or anything of that nature. A thing is needed if its provision, taking all things into account, improves the physical wellbeing of the community”.26 Similar to the case of Glenella Estates Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council and Ors, the Thuringowa planning scheme provisions provide that “out of sequence” urban growth can occur where a need for additional land is demonstrated and the need can be balanced against the cost of providing infrastructure, including community facilities and services, and the impacts on the environment; and further: “… the phrase 'public need' as involving a different concept from the word 'demand'. The latter suggests a subjective desire for the development.

26 Cut Price Stores Retailers Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPLR 26, 131

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 51 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

It is difficult to imagine the existence of a public need without the presence of a recognisable demand, but the presence of the latter does not necessarily establish the existence of the former."27 Secondly, we advise that an independent economic analysis has been undertaken, which achieves the outcomes sought by Council’s RFI. Location IQ provides an economic and needs assessment (July 2011) (refer Appendix 8 for a larger lot size residential development on a site at Gumlow in the former Thuringowa City local government area, now in the greater Townsville area, including any economic implications, both positive and negative, likely to arise as a result of the proposed development. The Executive Summary of the said report states: ii. The site is zoned Rural 10, however, it has an extensive range and provision of facilities close by than the residential land in the developing Northern Beaches area and the Rocky Springs release area. There are retail, community, educational facilities, medical facilities and leisure and sports centres located within the established area surrounding the Gumlow site as compared with other growth areas in Townsville. iii. The site is situated within close proximity to a number of major employment nodes, such as Willows Shoppingtown, Stockland Townsville, Townsville Hospital, Lavarack Army Barracks and James Cook University. ABS data indicates that the highest employing industries within the area surrounding the site are those within major employment nodes located in the nearby area, illustrating that people working within these industries prefer to live within close proximity to their place of employment. As a comparison, over 25% of residents residing within the area surrounding Gumlow, live and work in the same area, whilst only 12% of persons residing on the Northern Beaches also work on the Northern Beaches. … The economic and needs assessment (Location IQ; 2011) also states: vi. … , over the period to 2031 the Greater Townsville area is estimated to demand approximately 41,700 – 45,700 new dwellings, with 80% of this demand for new houses. Conservatively, of this overall demand some 26.8% (or 8,900 to 9,800 lots) is projected to be for large sized residential lots (i.e. lots of 900 sq.m and greater). This would correspond to in‐excess of 420 – 470 larger sized lots being demanded each year within Townsville. vii. The proposed Gumlow development would only supply some 3.0%‐3.3% of the total amount of large sized residential lots that are likely to be demanded in the greater Townsville area over the next 20 years, or around one years supply. viii. An analysis of the current supply of residential lands being released to the Townsville market shows very few developers are offering large sized lots. Overall, in excess of 28,630 lots are currently being planned within the Townsville area. However, it is our understanding that few, if any, of these release areas will be dedicated large sized lot developments, like the proposed Gumlow residential development. The majority of housing released in these areas is likely to be small sized lots, with only a limited, if any, provision made for larger lot properties. ix. Our research indicates that there is less than 2,000 large lots available on the Townsville market which is less than five years supply. There is a critical

27 Glenella Estates Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council and Others [2010] QPEC 132

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 52 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

shortage of such facilities and the proposed development at Gumlow will supply less than one year’s supply and is urgently needed. x. The smaller sized lots (less than 900 sq.m) would not adequately cater to those residents who require the larger lot sizes for either their occupation or leisure purposes or for those families who wish to provide their children with more space/larger backyards. The above analysis establishes a clear planning "need" for a larger lot size residential product. Planning "need" is something that will enhance the physical wellbeing of a community and that the proposed development would do so by providing positive community and public benefits without their being unacceptable impacts on amenity. The development application as lodged in August 2007 proposed an approx. total yield of 560 lots ranging in size from 600sqm – 800sqm. The application lodged in June 2010 reduced the total yield to approx. 520 incorporating similar allotments sizes. Following receipt of Council’s RFI, the proposed development has also modified its yield and product mix to a larger-lot size residential product yielding an approximate total of 296 allotments (that is approx. 230 lots less than applied for). Accordingly the supporting technical reports have been revisited and amended to assess these specific clarifications. The total lots proposed in Stages 1A and 1B remain the same, at a total of 60 lots.

B(2) Availability of existing land - development envisaged by the scheme Council’s Request for Further Information states: b) the Report must not rely upon Market generated data alone but should take into account the availability of existing land (approved or not approved) within the current planning schemes, that is, development which can occur as envisaged in the schemes; The needs analysis has addressed the need for the proposed development and demand in a manner which is not ‘specific to the needs of the client’. The Location IQ (July 2011) economic needs report (refer Appendix 8) has not relied upon market generated data alone but has taken into account the availability of existing land (approved or not) within the greater Townsville City local government area. Accordingly this analysis provides an updated demand and supply discussion establishing planning need. To respond to Council’s RFI, the Applicant provides a three-fold holistic analysis of need: i) an economic needs assessment (refer Appendix 8); ii) an extensive social impact analysis (refer Appendix 7); and iii) a town planning assessment based on a SWOT28 analysis (refer Part A) – of land use, ownership and constraints. The extracts from the Location IQ report (July 2011) in Part B(1) above, summarises the established economic basis for need for the proposed development within the greater Townsville City local government area.

28 Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 53 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The following part discusses the availability of existing lands that are viable “practicable/ workable” alternate locations (refer Part A(4)) in the Thuringowa planning scheme area.29As requested by the RFI, the economic needs assessment has considered Rocky Springs in the Townsville City planning scheme area, which is discussed further in Part B(3) below. Whilst the amount of land (generally) in the Thuringowa planning scheme area is extensive, the ‘availability of existing land’ in this same area is drastically limited when scrutinised in detail. Large tracts of land on the Bohle Plains are State owned. Whilst this land has been flagged for urban purposes in the DERM Bohle State Evaluation Project Report (November 2007), it has not yet been sold nor has an Enquiry by Design been released. Accordingly from a viability and the ‘availability of existing land’ point of view, it is premature to consider these lands, some 2,200ha, as a practicable and workable alternate location that the proposed development could be located. The adjacent suburb to the west of the Bohle Plains State land is Jensen. Jensen is a historic park residential area – average allotments sizes are 8ha, serviced by a limited reticulated water supply and most of the suburb is not connected to reticulated sewage. The some 750ha of land is disjointed in its ownership therefore very unlikely to experience uplift and redevelopment into a similar product as proposed by this application. Brabon owned land on the eastern side of Black River, Beach Holm (refer Appendix 7 and reference to ownership of these lands in the Legend), is likely to be constrained by coastal and riverine inundation processes and adverse environmental impacts. Similarly is the L Owens &H Samuels lands south-east of Bushland Beach. These coastal areas will likely be impacted by the provisions of the new Queensland Coastal Plan. The State Planning Policy for Coastal Protection contains seven (7) general policies for development. Policy 1.4 provides that a planning instrument is to avoid allocating new areas for urban purposes within a coastal hazard area, other than for (a) coastal dependent development; (b) industrial development; or (c) temporary or relocatable uses, including open space or recreation facilities. We note viable alternate locations for residential subdivision should not include a blanket of all areas within the UGB as they are not all adequately serviced by infrastructure (refer Criteria 3 in Table A1). Balgal Beach, Saunders Beach and Toolakea for example, are located in the UGB but are not serviced by reticulated services. Council’s RFI expressly states a revised needs assessment should consider the ‘availability of existing land’ (approved or not approved) within the current planning schemes, that is, development which can occur as envisaged in the schemes. It is the Applicant’s expressed opinion that in determining the availability of land for the said purpose, it is superfluous to consider approved lands that form part of a master planned community, ie North Shore, Sanctum, Kingston Park, Brendale, and lands south-east Bushland. Similarly, zoned or existing industrial lands should not be included in the ‘availability of existing land’; nor lands immediately adjacent these uses for fear of reverse impacts – ie new residential uses established next to an existing industrial use increases the likelihood of complaints from new residences about the existing industrial use. Accordingly the Shaw Road industrial precinct is ruled out of being includes in the

29 Refer Section 4.0 of this report – The ‘Planning Scheme Area’

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 54 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

‘availability of existing land’ to establish viable alternate location for the proposed development. In the Upper Ross, vacant lands exist but are likely to be constrained by inundation from the Bohle River flood plain, coupled with limited road access without significant road infrastructure funding by the developer and/ or government. Again these land holdings are restricted in their availability by current disjointed ownership. At this point we reiterate a couple of pertinent points made above in Part A; the Assessment Manager should only consider the Thuringowa planning scheme area applicable at the time of lodgement, ie the area covered by the former Thuringowa City Council planning scheme (October 2003). The subject site at Lynam Road Gumlow is amongst very few other land holdings of similar size in the Thuringowa planning scheme area. As a bonus the land is within the 8km radius of the identified sub-regional centres at North Shore and Thuringowa Central in the Thuringowa planning scheme area. This radius has been nominated as an arbitrary distance that seems to encompass the identified ‘urban’ area included in the UGB. With regards to ‘distance’, the social impact assessment report (UAA; June 2011) states: 6.2.1 ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT NODES … The relevance of these distances is outlined in the next sub-section, which presents summary data on distance decay functions by mode of transport and purpose of transport. … 6.2.2 CONVENIENCE OF ACCESS TO SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Accessibility is often measured against a number of key considerations, namely:  Gravity-based measures, … destination opportunities – such as employment opportunities or social services – are weighted by the cost of their interaction. This cost is usually specified by the distance decay function component i.e., the extent to which the accessibility of a particular destination opportunity diminishes the further away it is from the originating location. The critical variable here is therefore travel distance versus the attractiveness of the destination opportunity;  Cumulative opportunity measures account for the number of opportunities that can be reached within a specified period of time; and  Behavioural or utility-based measures, which consider accessibility to be a function of the attributes of a destination and the cost of travel, as revealed by consumer choices. It reduces accessibility to monetary units. In terms of gravitation measures, distance decay function studies for different transport modes point to some broad conclusions.30 These are summarised as follows for non-vehicular modes:  Most walking trips tend to cover distances of less than 3 kilometres. The distance decay curves take on similar forms for work, shopping and restaurant trips, … Indeed, up to 30% of pedestrian trips are for distances of around 1km – far more than the usual ‘rule of thumb’ of 400m.

30 Iacono, M.,Krizek, K., and A. El-Geneidy (2008) Access to Destinations: How Close is Close Enough? Estimating Accurate Distance Decay Functions for Multiple Modes and Different Purposes

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 55 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

 Cyclists are willing to travel much longer distances than pedestrians, … Work trips by bike are the next longest type of trip, with most trips falling within a range of approximately 20km. Bike trips for work, shopping … tend to be shorter on average, with the majority of trips falling within 10km. [The Thuringowa Central shopping and commercial precinct and] nearby Riverway Precinct are actually within ~4km of the urban growth. By road, the travel distance is estimated to be ~4.5km. … it is well within the accessibility limit of 10km for bicycle access. As noted above, key employment centres of Thuringowa Central, the Base Hospital and the University are also within an acceptable tolerance for bicycle access. From a cumulative opportunity point of view, the concentration of social infrastructure and services in and around Thuringowa Central also supports the high accessibility precondition that the urban growth offers. Put plainly, a single trip into Thuringowa Central can accomplish many needs. Therefore in terms of the proposed development, the site is perfectly located in terms of distance decay to provide beneficial community benefit. We refer to the Community Infrastructure mapping in Appendix 7. These maps are a comprehensive analysis of the lands in the land use planning sphere of influence of the proposed development – being the Thuringowa Central and Kirwan areas, south to the Upper Ross and north to the Bushland Beach area. The maps also include immediately adjoining suburbs in the adjacent Townsville City planning scheme area – Douglas, Cranbrook, Vincent, Heatley, Mount Louisa, etc. Generally these maps analysis: a) the lands included in the UGB of the Thuringowa planning scheme area; b) existing social infrastructure – schools, child care centres, institutes, parkland, social and community facilities; c) ownership; d) vacant lands; e) valid development approvals; and f) existing uses. Accordingly, these maps take account of the availability of existing land (approved or not) within the planning schemes as requested by Councils’ RFI. PART B(2) CONCLUSION In conclusion the Applicant has provided a needs analysis and community benefits assessment addressing the need for the proposed development and demand in a manner which is not ‘specific to the needs of the client’, taking into account the availability of existing land (approved or not) within the greater Townsville City local government area. Within the applicable planning scheme area for the component of the application for MCU under s3.1.6 of IPA, there are no practicable and workable alternate lands to establish a similar development as being applied for in this application. Simply the Thuringowa planning scheme has been over taken by events.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 56 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

B(3) Relevance of Rocky Springs Council’s Request for Further Information states: c) the Report must take into consideration other approvals which override the Schemes such as Rocky springs; The Applicant has considered this request item in two parts:  Independent Economic Analysis – Rocky Springs; and  Planning Assessment – Rocky Springs. Independent Economic Analysis – Rocky Springs The “planning scheme” with which an application for Preliminary Approval of the proposed Material Change of Use must not conflict (unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict) is the Thuringowa planning scheme which applies to the subject land. To provide further evidence that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict, the Applicant provides an independent economic analysis by Location IQ (July 2011) (refer Appendix 8), which achieves the outcomes sought by Council’s RFI and includes Rocky Springs in the needs analysis. Whilst the following section will discuss the economic analysis inclusive of the recently approved (approx. 2009) Rocky Springs development, the planning analysis continues to refute its applicability to the relevant IPA assessment and decision criteria outlined in Section 4.0 and Part A(1)of this report, for a development site in the Thuringowa planning scheme area. The Location IQ report states: [Executive Summary] … xii. It is widely accepted that providing a range of housing options is a vital component in ensuring housing affordability within a given area is maintained. Housing choice is known to improve life opportunities for residents in areas such as family, work, education, recreation, as well as other pursuits. [s2.2] … viii. The Gumlow development proposes the construction of some 295 larger sized residential lots. The development is likely to accommodate a population of between 885 residents (assuming 3 residents per lot), which would account for only some 0.8% of the total population growth in the greater Townsville area over the period to 2031 (given the projected population increase of around 109,802 persons). If 30% of housing requirements continue to be demanded within the areas of influence (or around 33,000 people) then the Gumlow estate would account for only 2.7% of the total population growth within this area (the primary and secondary areas of influence) over the period to 2031. ix. As such, the development will not limit the potential for other housing projects being planned within the former Thuringowa municipality and the Townsville area, and particularly within the areas of influence. Whilst the development would have limited, if any, impacts, it would boost competition within the Townsville housing market and add to the housing choice and variety available to Townsville residents, particularly in relation to large residential lots, ... [s2.3] … Summary i. The above analysis clearly indicates that in the primary area of influence where there are a large number of larger lot sizes, there is a specific higher

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 57 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

income family market who own their own house. There is a particular type of resident, therefore, who is specifically seeking larger lots and this market needs to continue to be accommodated for within the Townsville area in the future. [s2.4] …Distance to Major Employment Nodes iii. Map 2.11 shows the major employment nodes within the Townsville urban area. Table 2.3 shows the distance to these nodes for residents of the Gumlow site, as compared with residents of developing areas of Deeragun and Bushland Beach and the future residents of the approved Rocky Springs residential development. iv. As shown, residents of the proposed Gumlow development will have five major employment nodes located within 10 km by road of the site, including Willows Shoppingtown, Stockland Townsville, Townsville Hospital, Lavarack Army Barracks and James Cook University. Almost all major employment nodes within Townsville are located within 15 km by road of the site. v. This can be compared to Deeragun which has two employment nodes within 10 km of the site, with majority of employment nodes at least 12 km by road away. None of the major employment nodes are located within 10 km of either Bushland Beach or Rocky Springs, with majority of current and future residents likely to travel at least 15 km and as far as 26 km to reach the nearest major employment node. [s2.4] … Summary i. The preceding analysis shows that the development of the Willowbend Gumlow site for residential uses will better utilise existing infrastructure provided within its immediate area. The use of infrastructure will increase the return on the public and private assets and is an economically viable way to house future residents of the Townsville area as compared with Greenfield residential development, where new infrastructure is required.31 [6.3]...v. The largest residential release area proposed within the Townsville area is the Rocky Springs release area. Delfin Lend Lease are currently proposing the construction of some 1,600 hectares of land into a new residential estate. The Delfin estate could potentially contain around 15,000 to 18,000 homes, accommodating some 35,000 to 38,000 residents. Development is likely to occur over a 35 year time frame, with construction yet to begin even though it is approved. Over the longer term, the Rocky Springs release area has the capacity to accommodate some 55,000 residents. Rocky Springs is located a substantial distance from existing community infrastructure. vi. Overall, in excess of 28,630 lots are currently being planned within the Townsville area. However, it is our understanding that none of these release areas will be dedicated large sized lot developments, like the proposed Gumlow residential development. The majority of housing released in these areas is likely to be small sized lots, with only a limited, if any, provision made for larger lot properties. … vii. Although an adequate provision of Residential land may have been zoned in the City of Thuringowa Planning Scheme, only a limited amount of large sized residential lots are currently being sold on the market.

31 Location IQ (July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 58 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

viii. Many of the estates have been approved on lands that were not zoned for the use of Residential under the City of Thuringowa Planning Scheme, with new small lot estates being developed on land zoned Rural 10, Rural 40 and even Rural 400. Whilst this commonly occurs in areas such as the greater Townsville area where stronger than expected population growth is occurring and the supply of zoned land is quickly depleting, it is still important to ensure that there is a variety of land and housing options being released to the market. Planning Assessment – Rocky Springs In the Thuringowa planning scheme, a clear policy direction has been included to discourage ‘out of sequence’ development where outside the UGB and where infrastructure cannot be provided in an orderly, efficient and cost effective manner. Further, whilst land may be zoned in a non urban planning area, the UGB policy direction still allows land to be considered appropriate for urban development subject to other criteria, eg Greater Ascot was industrial land, North Shore was Rural 400 land, Sanctum was Rural 40 land. In the adjacent planning scheme area, ie the Townsville City Council planning scheme (adopted January 2005), an UGB has not been adopted. The scheme allocates non urban zoning and applies the fundamental philosophy that the inherent Desired Environmental Outcomes are robust and will be sufficient to assess ‘out of sequence’ development based on certain criteria – ie. land that cannot provide infrastructure in a cost efficient manner, does land have access to services and establishes coherent communities, etc. It is the Applicant’s opinion that this is an effective example of merits based planning to determine development outcomes on the ground. This approach removes the arbitrary nature of a ‘line on the map’ that an UGB promotes. It is interesting that Council’s own RFI raises the Rocky Springs development as a point of interest with respect of ‘need’ to assess of the proposed development at Lynam Road, Gumlow. Rocky Springs was approved in a different scenario to achieve a different purpose. From a planning need point of view, at the time Rocky Springs was anticipated to generally enhance the physical wellbeing of the Townsville City community as the LGA had run out of viable development land. Generally the Rocky Springs development would do so by providing positive community and public benefits without their being unacceptable impacts on amenity,32 and this was achieved by appropriate conditions on the approval. Rocky Springs was conceived as a prime location to accommodate the workforce required for the expansion of the Townsville State Development Area at Stuart – an employment hub that has still not eventuated. Whilst Rocky Springs may be on the cusp of being a reality; it is a community that does not yet exist. The social and community benefit of the Rocky Springs approved development is not yet a reality; the social and community infrastructure required to create this community is not yet on the ground. The social and community infrastructure needs to be brought forward, extensive capital expenditure is required to facilitates the hard and soft infrastructure to this future community. In comparison, the proposed development at Lynam Road, Gumlow: … the proximity to existing social and community infrastructure and services generates vitally important positive effects for future residents. Future residents would have immediate access to existing facilities. ...

32 Cut Price Stores Retailers Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPLR 26, 131 - ‘Need’ “does not mean pressing need, critical need, widespread desire or anything of that nature. A thing is needed if its provision, taking all things into account, improves the physical wellbeing of the community.”

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 59 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

My assessment is that the proposed development contributes positively to ‘people’s way of life’. It offers residential opportunity and choice to families in particular, in close proximity to existing social infrastructure and employment nodes. In this regard, the proposed development is also consistent with prevailing cultural mores and is likely to reinforce the existing family-oriented beliefs and values that would be expected to dominate in that part of the city… 33 Whilst the Applicant does not eschew Rocky Springs, nor is it thought that the development is ‘way too far away’ in a planning perspective – Rocky Springs is not infill development; it has to create and pay for its own critical mass to substantiate improvements and enhancements to a community that does not yet existing. Willowbend is needed as its development, taking all things into account, improves the physical wellbeing of the community.

B(4) Proximity Council’s Request for Further Information states: d) The Report should recognize that proximity alone to Thuringowa Central is not sufficient reason to override the Scheme. In terms of need the report must demonstrate as purported throughout your supporting information, why the existing and planned Sub-regional Centre is unsustainable, without the addition of Willowbend to the locality. Firstly the Application discussed ‘proximity’ in the context of Desired Environmental Outcomes No.4 – refer also Part A(2)above. More specifically to its City Strategies, the proposed development achieves:  the City’s Landscape Character Types are enhanced by the protection of the riverways and their riparian corridors;  the City’s tropical and spacious character is reinforced by provision of larger residential lot sizes rather than small high density products;  the community expectations of spacious larger residential lot proximate to services are met, lifestyle and sense of place is created by the setting and open space provisions, DEO 4 clearly refers to ‘proximity’ – the proposed development is ideally placed to achieve the intent of this DEO by its proximate location to urban services: (d) meeting the needs of the community including special needs groups such as youth, aged, ethnic, disabled, unemployed and indigenous people, by providing - (i) accessible and affordable housing and lot size choice; and (ii) equitable access to community and cultural services and facilities for all people. (e) ensuring equitable access for the City’s community to both active and passive open space and recreation opportunities that - (i) are safe, pleasant and accessible; (ii) promote social interaction;

33 s6.4 Integrated Assessment –Table 4; and Conclusions (UAA; July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 60 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

(iii) provide diversity of recreational settings and opportunities; (iv) link the City’s urban, rural, natural and coastal landscapes; and (v) contribute to a regional recreational and amenity network. (f ) evaluating the impact on the social aspects of the environment by - (i) evaluating the existing social environment of a community; (ii) forecasting how development may change the social fabric of a community; and (iii) developing means of mitigating adverse changes on the affected community34 Secondly, proximity is accentuated as a common benefit to good town planning; it is why high densities are encouraged in CBD for example. Proximity is not the primary justification to the conflict, but is continues to be emphasised as one of many sufficient planning grounds to approve the proposed development: From a social impact perspective, the question of proximity is not about whether the proposed develop will or will not ensure the economic sustainability of existing and future economic infrastructure. … Thuringowa Central’s viability is extremely unlikely to be impacted either way whether or not the proposed development proceeds. The issue of proximity between home and services is actually vitally important to the social wellbeing of future residents. The questions are: Does promoting close proximity between home and existing services enhance future residential and community amenity? What are the key features of social infrastructure provisioning that go towards a higher quality of life and residential amenity? …35 Further the Applicant contends that proximity is a major factor as to the appropriateness of the development site for residential development, as outlined in the ‘Social Impact Assessment – Proposed Residential Development, Gumlow’ prepared by Urban Analytics Australia (July 2011) (refer Appendix 6): [Executive Summary] … As for broader community impacts, again the assessment is that the proposed development is likely to generate positive implications. …The proximity to existing significant high-order social infrastructure is also a very important social benefit – arguably one of the most important reasons why this land should actually be included in the urban growth footprint. Not only does it mean enhanced efficiency in the utilisation of existing investments and facilities, it also means that future residential amenity would be enhanced from day one. … the subject site is presently outside of the urban growth boundary is, as such, something of an anomaly - at least from a social infrastructure and impact point of view. … [s3.2] … This hypothesis is tested from a social infrastructure and social impact perspective throughout this report, and it is concluded that there are strong reasons why the subject site should be used for residential purposes. …

34 Thuringowa Planning scheme – DEO 4 City Strategies 35 UAA (July 2011) p42

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 61 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

5 Existing Social Infrastructure Social infrastructure is understood in broad terms to include cultural and sporting venues and facilities, educational facilities (public and independent) and social services such as day care centres, health and emergency services etc. It does not include retail or commercial facilities though these do play an important role in the overall social fabric of a community. These are usually understood more strictly as ‘economic’ infrastructure. This assessment does, however, note the existence and location of these facilities to the extent that they provide employment opportunities, which are understood to be important preconditions to social health and wellbeing. … 6.1 BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH AND WELLBEING … urban planning can affect how resources are shared and accessed and, ultimately, utilised to provide the “social glue” that transforms fragmented individuals into a vibrant civil society. All of these factors impact on the development of social capital36 in our communities, and therefore, on people’s health and wellbeing. … The Queensland Government’s Health & Social impact Assessment of the South East Queensland Regional Plan (2005-2026) (2005) presents a detailed summary of the relevant literature and evidence on health and social wellbeing. … and focuses on factors that are directly germane to this present assessment… 6.2 WHY PROXIMITY MATTERS Much of the planning literature has clearly focused on the provisioning and design of communities in typical ‘green field’ environments. This is evident when the conceptualisation of sequential delivery is framed in such as way as to imply that the infrastructure provisioning takes place ‘hand in hand’ with residential development. This is obviously a sensible approach when planners are dealing with a ‘blank slate’. However, it is important to rearticulate the findings from the extensive literature into contexts where significant social infrastructure already exists, and how this existing infrastructure may be integrated with nearby (proposed) developments. It is precisely this rearticulation that is necessary in the context of the present evaluation because the proposed development is located in such as way as to be able to ‘take advantage’ of a significant existent body of social and community infrastructure. … 6.2.3 TRANSPORT MODAL CHOICE … The proposed development has locational attributes that are consistent with these strategies. 37 It must in this context be emphasised just how important the ability to utilise existing services is to promoting high amenity residential options. As Council’s observations recognise, the management of development sequencing must strive to ensure early availability of services and that

36 Social Capital refers to the connections among people involving factors such as trust, mutual understanding and shared values. Social capital is the ‘glue’ that binds communities and underpins cooperative behaviour. 37 Reference to the Townsville City Council’s Draft Community Plan (April 2010) ‘Emerging Planning Framework’.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 62 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

development that has access to existing services and facilities and has links to nearby employment nodes should be supported. The proposed development delivers on these aspirations. B(5) Viability of Thuringowa Central Council’s Request for Further Information states: 2. The proposal has limited potential to make any significant impact on short term and long term residential supply being limited to approximately 35 hectares of developable land with an approximate yield of 545 allotments. The Applicant is therefore required to demonstrate how this limited number can significantly ensure the viability of Thuringowa Central which appears to be the principle reason put forward by the Applicant to support the proposal. The economic needs assessment also supports the proximity argument in the context of this request item of as following:38 [6.1] ... iii. The Gumlow residential development proposes the release of around 295 large sized residential lots. The development will supply only 3.0%‐3.1% of the total amount of large sized residential lots that are likely to be demanded by the Townsville area over the next 20 years. [6.3] ... iv. As such, whilst the site may not be zoned for Residential development, the location and characteristics of the site makes it highly suitable for the proposed Gumlow large sized lot residential development, for a number of reasons: The site adjoins the Urban growth Boundary to the east and is located within close proximity to a range of both small and large sized properties, given the close proximity of the site to both the more established suburbs of Condon, Thuringowa Central and the growing Kalynda Chase development. The site would form a natural extension of the existing urban area. The low density nature of the proposal would mean the development would not significantly impact on the overall characteristic of the surrounding area. The development is located within close proximity to The Townsville Ring Road, allowing residents easy access to the broader Townsville area. A high percentage of persons residing within the key areas of influence also work in the surrounding area, with 25.4% residents both residing and working in the defined areas of influence. This can be compared to the Northern Beaches where only 12% both live and work on the Northern Beaches. Residents of the proposed Gumlow development will have five major employment nodes located within 10 km by road of the site, including Willows Shoppingtown, Stockland Townsville, Townsville Hospital, Lavarack Army Barracks and James Cook University. This can be compared to Deeragun, which has two employment nodes, and Bushland Beach or Rocky Springs, where there are no major employment nodes located within 10 km of the area… … The proposed development will better utilise the existing infrastructure and support their ongoing economic use which may not otherwise occur if planning is only focused on the outlying areas of the Northern Beaches.

38 ‘Gumlow Thuringowa- Economic Impact and Needs Assessment’; Location IQ (July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 63 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

[2.4] ... ii. Any additional residential development at the Willowbend site, therefore, would be providing a community benefit by adding existing residents to make greater use of existing infrastructure, without the usual infrastructure costs associated with Greenfield residential development areas. i. As well as being located within close proximity to a range of infrastructure, it is also important that new residential developments are built within close proximity to resident’s place of work. This not only reduces traffic on the Townsville road network, but also increases resident’s quality of life by reducing the time spent travelling to work and increasing the time spent at home with their families. ii. Journey to work data, sourced from the ABS, indicates 25.4% of persons residing within the Gumlow primary and secondary areas of influence also work within the areas of influence. This can be compared to the Northern Beaches, where only 12.0% of persons residing on the Northern Beaches also work on the Northern Beaches. 5.5 Impact on Infrastructure i. Section 2 previously outlined the existing infrastructure which would be better utilised as a result of the development of the Willowbend Gumlow site. Some examples of this include: Willows Shoppingtown in the Thuringowa central area is proposed for further expansion with a development application currently lodged with Townsville City Council. Additional population within close proximity to this centre will add to the vibrancy and vitality of this centre as well as surrounding facilities such as the cinema precinct. Significant investment has been made in the Riverway precinct and additional residents within close proximity will result in greater usage of community infrastructure. Substantial investment in the Townsville Ring Road will be reaped with a greater population in close proximity to the Ring Road who would use it to access major employment nodes, as will be the case with residents of the proposed Willowbend Gumlow site. In conclusion: xv. The Gumlow site is needed as a large residential lot development. Developing the site into residential will benefit a number of stakeholders, including land owners, surrounding residents, future residents and workers and Council itself. The proposal will meet the immediate need for further large sized lot developments, which is in severe short supply, within the Townsville market. Consequently, there is very strong need for the proposed development, with limited, if any, detrimental impacts likely to occur.39

39 Location IQ (July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 64 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

B(6) Associated Potential Flooding Impacts Council’s Request for Further information states: 3. The s3.1.6 application must demonstrate whether or not there are planning merits to vary the effect of the IPA Thuringowa planning scheme, and sufficient grounds to support the proposal despite any identified conflicts with the planning provisions. It appears that the primary reason put forward for overriding the scheme is the proximity of the site to the city centre. In view of the extensive issues associated with potential flooding, a risk assessment is required outlining the risk and primary issues for Council, should the development proceed. The Applicant has undertaken and provided a full flood modelling of the proposed development (refer Appendix 3 and 4 providing updated engineering reports) which identifies flood mitigation measures that minimises the potential risk to people and property. The Applicant considers the main risk for Council, should the development proceed, is whether the approved flood immunity standard will be directed by the State to change as a result of recent natural disasters and associated public inquires. Should this be the case, Council can impose the relevant standards at the ROL and Operational Works stages. Should this not eventuate, risk associated with the flooding potential of this site is limited if mitigation measures recommended by the flood report are implemented and risk is able to be answered by imposition of conditions. B(7) Market Controls Council’s Request for Further Information states: 4. The town planning report advocates that ‘the market and financial feasibility of a development will appropriately dictate and control urban development’. This fresh approach to planning is fundamentally at odds with planning principles. The Applicant is requested to supply some form of justification for this approach and demonstrate how this fits in with the ‘Vision Document’ and structure plan which relies upon land external to the subject site and not within the Applicant’s control. Firstly, the Applicant believes that the common material previously lodged with Council has been taken out of context. Generally speaking, Townsville’s historic urban developments with provision of urban services such as reticulated water and sewer, were sequential and orderly resulting in efficient and cost effective provision of civil infrastructure. This report advocates that the market and financial feasibility of a development will appropriately dictate and control urban development. An urban growth boundary can bias, prejudice and incorrectly influence disorderly, inefficient and cost prohibitive development. To comprehensively assess the proposed development of the subject site in Gumlow for urban residential development, Council will have to scrutinize the areas currently in the urban growth boundary against the intent of the Urban

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 65 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Growth Boundary Code, ie urban development occurs in an orderly, efficient and cost effective manner. 40 Secondly, the previous statements made are not incorrect. A planning instrument is a fluid document, retrospectively allocating land use ‘groupings’ to existing and historic land use patterns. A planning scheme is not set in concrete and will evolve and change with ‘market and financial feasibility’ of any given development (individually or collectively across a planning scheme area. To this end and to further justify the statement, the Applicant has analysed the historic growth pattern of the greater Townsville urban area utilising aerial photography. Aerial montages have been produced (refer Appendix 11) for every decade from the 1960’s to 2010’s. The imagery identifies the urban expansion of Townsville from the historic Townsville CBD/ port area on the coast generally westward in concentric/ sequential circles following the transport routes of Charters Towers Road, Ross River Road, Dalrymple Road and respective sectors of the National Highway to Ayr, Ingham and Charters Towers. This urban expansion occurred ‘sequentially’ - progressively and systematically - until the 1980’s when the former Thuringowa City Council approved the first stages of Bushland Beach – an isolated pocket of development by some 17km from the main town area for approx. 10 years. A statutory planning tool to kerb urban expansion in the Townsville/ Thuringowa area, was not introduced into the greater Townsville urban planning mix until October 2003 in the form of the Urban Growth Boundaries Code adopted in the Thuringowa planning scheme (generally reflecting the non-statutory regional plan, ie the Townsville Thuringowa Strategic Plan; 2000). By 2003, Bushland Beach had already established; Rangewood and Rupertswood had already been developed, and Rocky Springs had been conceived on paper but not approved nor supported by Government. These isolated fringe developments were not the norm, as urban expansion continued to press westward from the Townsville CBD on the coast ‘filling the gaps’ towards the Willows/ Thuringowa Central at the confluence of Thuringowa Drive and Hervey Range Road. The ‘concentric circles’ urban settlement pattern is a well known town planning principle and widely studied and acknowledged. The historical Townsville aerial montages enclosed in Appendix 11 is a exceptional example of this theory. We note a statutory urban growth boundary (UGB) has never been adopted in the Townsville City local government area. Regardless urban expansion has continued to be concentric and systematic in the Townsville City local government area - driven by locations close to amenities (existing, and potential for future amenities), proximity to hard and soft infrastructure, and market demand. Market demand is considered further by Urban Analytics Australia and Location IQ (refer Appendix 6 and 8). The Applicant therefore contends that market and financial feasibility of a development will appropriately dictate and control urban development – developers will not proceed without reasonable financial gain and demand will drive supply. This is obvious from the historic settlement pattern discussed above; which is not a fresh approach to planning. The Applicant reiterates that several large tracts of land within the urban growth boundary have been given priority over Willowbend for future urban purposes as a

40 s7.1 ‘Ripe’ Development: Orderly, Efficient & Cost Effective; ETP Report (June 2010)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 66 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

result of their location in the UGB but distant from reticulated services and social infrastructure. Based on the historic urban settlement pattern of Townsville, the land at Gumlow is ‘ripe’ for development as it has direct connections to reticulated services onsite or in very close proximity; and within 5km of all social infrastructure in the western Townsville area. Therefore if the UGB was removed from the local planning context, the next sequential locations for urban expansion in the greater Townsville area are: (i) to the west - Bohle Plains/ Gumlow (ii) to the north - Shaws Road/ Burdell (iii) to the south - Roseneath/ Oak Valley. Evolving the 2003 planning area maps in the Thuringowa planning scheme, residential zoned lands in these areas in reality have changed – ie. the Greater Ascot and Harris & Hogarth estates have been approved on Shaws Road from rural and industrial zones; the North Shore estate has been approved in Burdell from a rural zone. The last remaining sequential area in the north and western sectors of the greater Townsville area is south of Hervey’s Rage Road, Gumlow and south of Carlyle Gardens, Condon. The development report lodged on 9 June 2010 states:  A simplistic enforcement of a regional structure plan is biased towards a certain outcome rather than establishing a merit-based approach. …  For the social, commercial and economic vitality of the region, it is offered that the majority of the population growth needs to be within the city centre catchment, to benefit existing residents through maximising the use of existing facilities, infrastructure, social networks, community facilities and other urban services, …  Based on the location of the identified urban stock, the majority of future population growth will not support the Townsville CBD nor Thuringowa Central. The northern beaches corridor which dominates future supply, has the potential to threaten the function of Thuringowa Central. …  This report advocates that the market and financial feasibility of a development will appropriately dictate and control urban development. An urban growth boundary can bias, prejudice and incorrectly influence disorderly, inefficient and cost prohibitive development. … The Assessment Manager mentions in this RFI about the ‘Vision Document’ and structure plan. To this end the Applicant reiterates the reason the Vision Document as lodged in August 2007 provided supporting information to this proposed development: … a local area planning process has been undertaken incorporating adjacent lands and the subject site. As you will note from the attached Vision Document …, what has been rationalised is a structure plan cognisant of lands external to the subject site. Adopting this strategy has identified how the ‘study area’ is a logical extension of the existing urban fabric, and how this could address some of the strategic level affordability and land supply issues the greater Townsville region is presently facing. Similarly, it also identifies how the proposed structure plan for the subject site will operate in a wider context. … 41

41 S6.1.1 PMM Report (August 2007)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 67 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Therefore to answer Council’s RFI, the referred Vision Document contemplates future development on adjacent lands, should the market and other planning merit justify urban expansion onto the adjacent lands to the development site.

B(8) Parkland Allocation Council’s Request for Further Information states: 5. It is noted that the Applicant ‘will develop the site in stages and that the total area of parkland is to be credited against the entire site’. Please provide details of where the usable parkland is to be located, exclusive of all land to be used for drainage purposes. Furthermore the structure plan must be amended to include all the usable parkland in order to establish a hierarchy of pedestrian/bikeway connectivity. Refer Parkland Hierarchy Plan in Appendix 12. The proposed development minimises the development footprint onsite providing approx. 38ha of open space (approx. 39% of the total site area). The protection of approx. 18ha of the development site for regional ecosystem enhances the proposed developments[compatibility] with the rural landscape. SK16 in Appendix 12 identifies the Open Space Contributions per stage; generally where a particular stage is not allocated a portion of open space, the open space network is augmented in the following stage. Design for the Q50 line has been a prominent design feature of the proposed developments’ layout; similar to other developments already approved along the Bohle River. The open space utilised for drainage purposes therefore plays an important role and forms a significant feature of the development. Because nearly 40% of the development site is dedicated to open space (ie. passive, active, regional ecosystems or drainage), the identified useable parkland provided in the southern portion of the site is considered more than adequate in terms of planning scheme compliance. The Applicant is able to further answer this request by imposition of conditions.

B(9) Lot Layout Council’s Request for Further Information states: 6. Proposed lots 43 – 51 back onto an area reserved for detention purposes being park and community areas. In conjunction with the engineering request which follows, consideration needs to be given, as to how the open space/ecosystem will be afforded adequate protection and buffering. The Applicant is advised that an appropriate solution is to design the road as a boundary to the protection area thereby reducing potential ‘edge effects’ associated with such a design. 7. Stage 1A of the reconfiguration indicates an undesignated central parcel of land. Provide confirmation as to the intended use of this land parcel.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 68 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

With regards to Item 6 above, please refer to the revised plans in Appendix 1 and 12. The modified layout has reduced the number of lots directly backing onto the drainage area/ PMAV precinct/ adjacent allotment. In some circumstances, a road has been incorporated to provide a protection area to reduce potential ‘edge effects’. Regardless the State has provided reasonable and relevant conditions regarding vegetation protection which was assessed against their relevant State policies (refer Appendix 9 for the DERM response dated 12 August 2010). The referral response approved the layout as lodged with the Agency in July 2010; the response therefore approved the protection and buffering of the open space/ ecosystem under their jurisdictions to be adequate. The Applicant will forward this response to DERM for completeness. With regards to Item 7 above, please refer to the revised plans in Appendix 1 and 12; the feature has been removed.

B(10) Conclusion

“Planning need” has been the subject of extensive legal determination. Put simply, and in the Applicant’s understanding, the law says “planning need” is: ‘Need’ “does not mean pressing need, critical need, widespread desire or anything of that nature. A thing is needed if its provision, taking all things into account, improves the physical wellbeing of the community”.42 Following receipt of Council’s RFI, the proposed development has modified its yield and product mix to a larger-lot size residential product yielding an approximate total of 296 allotments (that is approx. 230 lots less than applied for). Accordingly the supporting technical reports have been revisited and amended to assess these specific clarifications. The total lots proposed in Stages 1A and 1B remain the same, at a total of 60 lots. An independent economic analysis has been undertaken, which achieves the outcomes sought by Council’s RFI. Location IQ provides an economic and needs assessment (July 2011) (refer Appendix 8) for a larger lot size residential development on a site at Gumlow, including any economic implications, both positive and negative, likely to arise as a result of the proposed development: vii. The proposed Gumlow development would only supply some 3.0%‐3.3% of the total amount of large sized residential lots that are likely to be demanded in the greater Townsville area over the next 20 years, or around one years supply. viii. An analysis of the current supply of residential lands being released to the Townsville market shows very few developers are offering large sized lots. Overall, in excess of 28,630 lots are currently being planned within the Townsville area. However, it is our understanding that few, if any, of these release areas will be dedicated large sized lot developments, like the proposed Gumlow residential development. The majority of housing released in these areas is likely to be small sized lots, with only a limited, if any, provision made for larger lot properties.43

42 Cut Price Stores Retailers Ltd v Caboolture Shire Council [1984] QPLR 26, 131 43 Executive Summary; Location IQ (July 2011)

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 69 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

The above analysis establishes a planning "need" for a larger lot size residential product. Planning "need" is something that will enhance the physical wellbeing of a community; the proposed development would do so by providing positive community and public benefits without their being unacceptable impacts on amenity. Council’s RFI expressly states a revised needs assessment should consider the ‘availability of existing land’ (approved or not approved) within the current planning schemes, that is, development which can occur as envisaged in the schemes. The Location IQ report (July 2011) does this, and is supported by a town planning analysis which concludes the subject site at Lynam Road Gumlow is amongst very few other land holdings of similar size in the Thuringowa planning scheme area (regardless of the current zoning of any land). The Applicant has produced Community Infrastructure Mapping (refer Appendix 7). These maps are a comprehensive analysis of the lands in the land use planning sphere of influence of the proposed development. Generally these maps analysis: a) the lands included in the UGB of the Thuringowa planning scheme area; b) existing social infrastructure – schools, child care centres, institutes, parkland, social and community facilities; c) ownership; d) vacant lands; e) valid development approvals; and f) existing uses. These maps provide tangible evidence of existing social infrastructure and the proximity of the subject site. Within the applicable planning scheme area, there are no practicable and workable alternate lands to establish a similar development as being applied for in this application. Simply the Thuringowa planning scheme has been over taken by events. ix. … Whilst the development would have limited, if any, impacts, it would boost competition within the Townsville housing market and add to the housing choice and variety available to Townsville residents, particularly in relation to large residential lots, ... i. … the development of the Willowbend Gumlow site for residential uses will better utilise existing infrastructure provided within its immediate area. The use of infrastructure will increase the return on the public and private assets and is an economically viable way to house future residents of the Townsville area as compared with Greenfield residential development, where new infrastructure is required.44 Whilst Rocky Springs (notably located in the adjacent planning scheme area) may be on the cusp of being a reality; it is a community that does not yet exist. The social and community benefit of the Rocky Springs approved development is not yet a reality; the social and community infrastructure required to create this community is not yet on the ground. The social and community infrastructure needs to be brought forward, extensive capital expenditure is required to facilitates the hard and soft infrastructure to this future community.

44 Op.cit, Footnote 43 above

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 70 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

In comparison, the proposed development at Lynam Road, Gumlow: … the proximity to existing social and community infrastructure and services generates vitally important positive effects for future residents. Future residents would have immediate access to existing facilities. ... My assessment is that the proposed development contributes positively to ‘people’s way of life’. It offers residential opportunity and choice to families in particular, in close proximity to existing social infrastructure and employment nodes. In this regard, the proposed development is also consistent with prevailing cultural mores and is likely to reinforce the existing family-oriented beliefs and values that would be expected to dominate in that part of the city… 45 The application discussed ‘proximity’ in the context of the planning schemes’ Desired Environmental Outcomes No.4, which clearly refers to ‘proximity’ – the proposed development is ideally placed to achieve the intent of this DEO by its proximate location to urban services. In conclusion: xv. The Gumlow site is needed as a large residential lot development. Developing the site into residential will benefit a number of stakeholders, including land owners, surrounding residents, future residents and workers and Council itself. The proposal will meet the immediate need for further large sized lot developments, which is in severe short supply, within the Townsville market. Consequently, there is very strong need for the proposed development, with limited, if any, detrimental impacts likely to occur.46 The Applicant has analysed the historic growth pattern of the greater Townsville urban area utilising aerial photography (refer Appendix 11) for every decade from the 1960’s to 2010’s. The imagery identifies the urban expansion of Townsville which occurred ‘sequentially’ - progressively and systematically - until the 1980’s when the former Thuringowa City Council approved the first stages of Bushland Beach – an isolated pocket of development by some 17km from the main town area for approx. 10 years. The Applicant therefore contends that:  This analysis has established a planning "need" for a larger lot size residential product;  The proposed development provides a positive community and public benefits without their being unacceptable impacts on amenity;  The subject site at Lynam Road Gumlow is amongst very few other land holdings of similar size in the Thuringowa planning scheme area; and  The development will not limit the potential for other housing projects being planned within the former Thuringowa municipality and the Townsville area, and particularly within the areas of influence.

45 s6.4 Integrated Assessment –Table 4; and Conclusions (UAA; July 2011) 46 Op.cit, Footnote 43 above

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 71 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Part C – Engineering

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 72 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

PART C – ENGINEERING Council’s Request for Further Information is stated below (in bold italics); followed by the Applicants response: REQUEST 1. LOT LAYOUT & ACCESS a) Require a proper interconnectivity network design that takes into consideration the possible development of the surrounding area. This should include connectivity to the land to the south of the proposed development from internal roads, and not just Lynam Road. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Refer revised plans in Appendix 1 and 12. We note DTMR have previously requested that the proposed Willowbend Structure Plan remove ‘future’ roads on land not subject of the application. In response to Council’s RFI, the revised Willowbend Zone Plan in Appendix 1 identifies road stubs with appropriately allocated road reserve widths to accommodate future traffic growth, that being:  two connecting southwards;  two provisions for access to the land/ State-controlled road reserve to the north (but not identifying a future road alignment on the adjacent lands); and  Lynam Road along the western boundary has the capacity for a connection point to lands to the south and west if required. The Applicant is dedicated to establishing the proposed development being cognisant of the appropriate regional context extending beyond the site boundaries. The Applicant has previously lodged and considered an ‘interconnectivity network design’, which is included again below as Figure 3. Satisfying this regional context also includes identifying the ease of providing infrastructure to the land, satisfying the minimum criteria for ‘out of sequence’ development. An analysis of a proper interconnectivity network design should extend to surrounding areas for other than road infrastructure. The proposed development of this land may not be in sequence with the current service provision of the local government, but that does not mean that infrastructure cannot be provided in an orderly efficient and cost effective manner as required by the UGB Code and Policy of the Thuringowa planning scheme. b) Road cross section type information according to road hierarchy is required for all roads, including internal roads. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: The proposed development will comply with the relevant standards, refer Appendix 4 and 13. c ) Road and lot layout in Stages 1A&1B need the following amendments i) Road fronting Lots 1 – 6, 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 needs to be redesigned to provide access to these allotments without requiring such a large section of road reserve

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 73 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

FIGURE 3 INTERCONNECTIVITY NETWORK DESIGN’

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 74 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

ii) The road reserves containing the Anomalous Tee intersections in front of Lots 40 and 47 must be widened to allow appropriate treatment of these intersections including splitter islands, line marking, road furniture and road deflection in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. iii) Lot 43 only has 5.4m road frontage. Realign Lots 42 – 44 to allow greater road frontage for Lot 43. iv) The road reserve containing the roundabout fronting Lots 11, 13, 27 and 37 must be sized to allow appropriate roundabout design elements, including splitter islands, centre median islands, road furniture and line marking. v) The road reserve containing the roundabout fronting Lots 23, 28, 125 and 251 must be sized to allow appropriate roundabout design elements, including splitter islands, centre median islands, road furniture and line marking. vi) Details of internal road hierarchy must be submitted, including how hierarchy has been determined based on the proposed function of the road. vii) Preliminary designs for the roundabouts on Lynam Road are required to demonstrate that sufficient space has been allowed for these intersections to be built. viii) The lots along Lynam Road are required to front this road, with access off the rear allotments to prevent a ‘gun-barrel’ effect on Lynam Road. ix) Provide bollards/similar preventative measures at the end of the roads and edge of roadways to prevent vehicular access into Open Space & adjacent properties. x) A temporary turnaround is required at the end of the road fronting Lots 61 and 79. This turnaround may need an easement to be placed over the adjoining parcel of land. xi) Provide bollards/similar preventative measures at the end of the Autocourt between lots 1 and 19 to prevent vehicular access onto the 22.6m wide road. xii) Road cross sections must be in accordance with Council standard cross sections, including minimum widths. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Refer amended layout and plans provided in Appendix 1 and 12. Also refer to the Preliminary Road Hierarchy Plan SK05 in Appendix 4. The development will comply with Council’s standard drawings. Due to the revised design and layout, in the main, the abovementioned request items are no longer applicable. Nonetheless in most instances, where still applicable the requested detail can be appropriately dealt with during the detailed design phase. Reasonable and relevant conditions can address the outcomes sought. With regards to Lynam Road (south) within the development site, it is proposed to be a Trunk Collector with a 30m-wide road reserve. The amended layout provides direct access to allotments on Lynam Road (south) (refer revised plans in Appendix 1 and 12). This configuration, similar to that approved for nearby Kalynda Parade in the Kalynda Chase development, is considered appropriate to minimise the ‘gun-barrel’

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 75 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

effect on Lynam Road (south) which is the usual outcome if access is denied from a trunk collector street. The amend layout will encourage the built form on these relevant allotments to front Lynam Road (south) providing a suitable and active streetscape as well as access from this road. The Applicant has provided all the requested information to this request item. REQUEST 2. WATER a) The report is based on 3.2 EP/lot, the old Thuringowa Scheme. The current values are 2.8 EP/lot. The assessment must be updated to reflect the new rate, including Townsville’s peaking factors. b) A copy of the water network model must be provided for Council’s review, in particular to ensure that the operation of the Mt Margaret pipeline/reservoir system is not compromised by the development. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: A revised Water Supply and Sewerage Planning Report has been included in Appendix 5 utilising updated standards as requested. We understand that a water network model is commonly dealt with through conditions of approval and assessment during the detail design phase. Nonetheless, the Applicant has enclosed a water network analysis in Appendix 5 for Council’s consideration. The Applicant also provides a more specific response to this request in Appendix 3. REQUEST 3. SEWER a) The report is based on 3.2 EP/lot, the old Thuringowa Scheme. The current values are 2.8 EP/lot. The assessment must be updated to reflect the new rate, including Townsville’s peaking factors. b) Council’s sewer strategy has changed since the report was completed (Wastewater Upgrade Project). Condon Treatment Plan is approaching capacity and this development will have a bring-forward impact on this upgrade. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: A revised Water Supply and Sewerage Planning Report has been included in Appendix 5, which is cognisant of Council’s revised city-wide sewer planning including the decommissioning of the Condon treatment plant. The Applicant also provides a more specific response to this request in Appendix 3. REQUEST 4. STORMWATER The Stormwater Design must be updated and address the following as a minimum: a) The detention basin on the Bohle River appears only to function to offset the impact of filling for the proposed development without providing any reductions in the base-line flood levels. b) Further details are required identifying where/how the “Drainage Channel to Surcharge Path” or “Additional Flood Storage” drain to allow Council to determine that these features will be low water maintenance areas as identified in the Open Space System. c) A local flow path traversing the site from west to east does not appear to be accommodated in the preliminary stormwater layout plan.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 76 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

d) There are increases in the 50-year ARI flood level upstream of the ‘Access Road Bridge’ of up to 70mm. Council’s standard is no increase. e) It has not been clearly demonstrated that the flood immunity for the house within Lot 4 RP748184 has not been decreased due to the development. f) Further information is required to identify whether there is an increase in erosion potential resulting from the proposed infrastructure, including the ‘Access Road Bridge’, ‘Drainage Channel to Surcharge Path’ or ‘Additional Flood Storage’. g) A more detailed review of the hydraulics and impacts on flooding associated with the ‘Access Road Bridge’. h) This review should include reviewing events larger than the Defined Flood Event, identifying the level of immunity for the bridge, quantifying the maximum afflux associated with the bridge, reviewing the change in flood immunity for upstream properties and detailed reporting of hydraulics at the bridge (including upstream and downstream flood levels, flow rate and velocities) so that the hydraulics of the bridge can be properly verified. i) The proposed development is inconsistent with stormwater infrastructure planning strategies. The area between the Bohle River and the Little Bohle River (Gumlow) has been identified to remain undeveloped as part of the Desired Environmental Outcomes of the Bohle Plains Flood Planning Report (AECOM 2010) DRAFT. Retaining the land use of the Gumlow area as rural is part of the overall stormwater infrastructure planning strategy for the Bohle River catchment. Development within this area may significantly increase the infrastructure requirements to mitigate increases in flood level adjacent to existing downstream development. j) The site is affected by the Defined Flood Event and a development with approximately 550 residential dwellings between the Little Bohle and Bohle River floodplains, significantly increases the population vulnerable to the flooding hazard. The submission does not demonstrate the flood immunity provided by the ‘Access Road Bridge’, as the only evacuation route for the development. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: UDP Consulting Engineers have provided a detailed response to this request item; refer enclosed Appendix 3. Reasonable and relevant conditions can also address the outcomes sought, if warranted.

REQUEST 5. STORMWATER QUALITY A conceptual Stormwater Quality Management Plan (CSQMP) is required to identify the proposed WSUD measures to demonstrate: a) A suitable area is available within the structure plan for the WSUD measures which achieve the percentage reduction targets; and b) The WSUD maintenance measures following completion of the development.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 77 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: In response to the RFI, BMD Consulting has provided a Preliminary Stormwater Quality Management Plan which is enclosed in Appendix 16. Reasonable and relevant conditions can also address the outcomes sought, if warranted. REQUEST 6. ROADS AND TRAFFIC The Traffic Engineering Report has not been updated since 2007 – a new updated report will be required, which must include as a minimum: a) Analysis of traffic impact up to 10 years with 5 year increments after full staging completion b) Apply recent updated data, for example traffic volume data. This data needs to be less than two years old c) Analysis data to demonstrate proper intersection layouts with desired LOS C before and after the intersection relocation based on the Department’s ultimate layout for this area, including carriageway duplication of Hervey Range Road & Lynam Road connecting to a service road arrangement and a new 4-way signalized intersection at Kalynda Parade. d) All input/output data e.g. SIDRA (intersection layout, input/output summary) to allow Council review and check for compliance. e) Lynam Road width must be upgraded to 30m and road to North-South Trunk Collector to respond to future traffic demand within TCC road hierarchy system. f) Development, while within 5km of Thuringowa CBD, is isolated from other residential development of the Bohle River system and the Townsville Ring Road and there is no traffic containment, that is there are no proposed commercial uses within the site therefore everyone has to leave this development through the access. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Refer UDP Horman Consulting Engineering letter in Appendix 13 which includes the ‘Willowbend Residential Development – Paramics Modelling Report’ prepared by Cardno Eppell Olsen dated February 2011. The Paramics modelling has been completed in response to the Department of Transport and Mains Road RFI dated 2 August 2010. The conclusion of these updated traffic analysis is the Hervey Range Road/ Lynam Road intersection requires minor upgrading at the time of approximately 60 lots being created/ used. In specific response to Council’s RFI, Lynam Road (north) external to the development site between Hervey Range Road and the Little Bohle River is capable of accommodating the anticipated traffic generation from the proposed development in accordance with Council’s standards. Road profiles are detailed in Appendix 4 and 13. With respect to ‘containment’, the proposed development does not include a commercial component to suggest containment is relevant. Relevant assumptions regarding traffic are included in the updated traffic analysis provided. Reasonable and relevant conditions can also address the outcomes sought, if warranted.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 78 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

REQUEST 7. PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE ROUTE Provide further detail of the bridge proposed over the Little Bohle, including what allowance will be made for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. A pathway route Map and its connection to the internal and external road network also needs to be provided. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Refer Appendix 12 – SK16 Preliminary Internal Connectivity Plan. Further the UDP Consulting Engineering letter dated 27 June 2011 in Appendix 3 and 4 outlines how cycle and pedestrian access will be provided on the proposed Little Bohle River bridge. The social benefit of the existing and connection to, the local bicycle networks are also considered in the social impact assessment in Appendix 6. Reasonable and relevant conditions can also address the outcomes sought, if warranted. REQUEST 8. PUBLIC TRANSPORT The developer is required to provide a desirable public transport circuit on Road Hierarchy Plan, demonstrating that 90% of the lots are within 400m walking distance. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Refer Appendix 12 - SK16 Preliminary Internal Connectivity Plan. The plan demonstrates that more than 90% of the proposed residential lots are within 400m walking catchments from the proposed bus routes. We note that in Stage 3 in the southern part of the development, the proposed bus route follows an access place - this is only a temporary arrangement, as outlined in the UDP Consulting Engineers letter in Appendix 3. Reasonable and relevant conditions can also address the outcomes sought, if warranted. REQUEST 9. OPEN SPACE a) How does having open space areas spread throughout the site affect open space connectivity? b) The Planning Report suggests that stages without parks will not need to provide park contributions as the requirements are to be assessed over the whole site. This system is okay, as long Council is never ‘behind’, i.e. parks need to be provided at the same rate or ahead of schedule of lots. c) In order to address the above issues the Applicant is requested to submit a detailed Open Space Masterplan. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Refer response to Part B Item 5. We understand that a detailed open space masterplan is commonly dealt with through conditions of approval and assessment during detail design phase. Reasonable and relevant conditions can address the outcomes sought, if warranted.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 79 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Part D – Environmental

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 80 of 95I 8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

PART D – ENVIRONMENTAL Council’s Request for Further information states:  The Bohle River and the Little Bohle tributary are environmental corridors within the Thuringowa planning scheme. Integrated Sustainability Services (ISS) – a unit within Council, considers the area undesirable for development due to its position at the congruence of the two reaches and subsequent inundation that occurs there. The flooding mitigation measures required, particularly the size of the detention basins strongly indicates this.  Prolonged inundation in the corridors can be detrimental to several flora and fauna species and can degrade the quality and functionality of the corridor.  ISS also questions the need for residential development in a rural zone and considering other developments are occurring in less inundated areas. The following issues have been identified and must be addressed in the Information response. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: Noted, no response required. REQUEST 1. BIODIVERSITY The DERM advice issued on 25/09/2007 states that the lot contains and adjoins a number of riparian systems. These are part of important corridors linking the Pinnacles and Hervey Range area through to the Town Common. The value of these has been identified in the TTSP and recognized through their identification as environmental corridors in Thuringowa’s Thuringowa planning scheme. The retention of these areas and their associated vegetation is important to the maintenance of biodiversity within the local government area. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: As a result of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) Adverse Information letter dated 24 October 2007, the Applicant analysed and gained approval for a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) under the Vegetation Management Act 1994. The PMAV was certified by DERM on 23 March 2009 and protects the riparian vegetation along the Little Bohle River where the subject site has a common boundary, and in the eastern section of the subject site. The detention basins required for flood mitigation for the proposed development, have been designed to be outside of the PMAV areas and subsequently approved by DERM (ie. Referral Response dated 12 August 2010). The PMAV areas are included in the Green Space Zone/ PMAV Precinct identified on the proposed Willowbend Zone Plan included in Appendix 1. In direct response to Council’s RFI, the retention of the riparian systems and their associated vegetation is retained, maintaining the biodiversity within the local government area as requested in this RFI item.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 81 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

REQUEST 1.1 MATTERS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE a) The DERM advice, issued 25/09/2007, stated that: “A fauna survey carried out by the EPA on the adjoining state land returned a number of records for the black-throated finch. These records are not currently in the wildnet database and the environmental consultants, Natural Solutions, would not have had access to these to inform their report. This habitat is continuous with that on Lot 26, and as the regional ecosystem present on Lot 26 are known to provide habitat for the species it is expected that finches utilize the lot. While the current proposal retains the majority of remnant vegetation on the site the EPA believes that habitat retention should be maximized and all remnant vegetation occurring on water courses and their tributaries retained”. b) The Flora and Fauna Assessment Report by Natural Solutions, August 2007 performed an opportunistic fauna survey (site meander) on 20/06/2004, to assess the current fauna use of the site. ISS believes an opportunistic observational data over one day is not sufficient to discount the presence on site or utilization of the site by the black throated finch or any other endangered, rare or vulnerable species. c) The report states the “Significant species which have the greatest potential to occur on site area the Star finch and the black-throated finch due to the availability of food resources and potential nesting sites”. d) Taking into consideration the above points; suitable habitat is present on site, DERM recorded sightings on adjacent property and the opportunistic survey over one day does not comply with DEWHA guidelines, ISS recommends targeted surveys be performed at appropriate times of the years using survey methods approved by the DERM and DEWHA. e) According to DEWHA, a section 95a Letter was issued to the Applicant requesting further information for a Preliminary Documentation Assessment. ISS request a copy of this letter as part of the information request. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) Noted. b) Please refer Appendix 17 and 18 for copies of reports by Landscape Assessment, Management and Rehabilitation Pty Ltd (July 2008) in support of the PMAV application, and also referred to the DSEWPC. A Fauna Report (by Glen Ingram dated 21 July 2008) is also enclosed in Appendix 20. c) Noted. d) A Black-throated Finch survey was undertaken by C&R Consulting for the development at Willowbend (Lot 26 on EP124278), Lynam Road, Thuringowa, between 11th - 14th May 2010– refer Appendix 10.  The survey methodology was devised in context with the Significant Impact Guidelines for the Endangered Black-Throated Finch (Poephilacinctacincta),

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 82 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (“EPBC”) policy statement.  While the land supports one of the requirements for the presence of the Black-throated Finch (ready access to suitable annual and perennial species of seeding grasses), the site does not, and never has, supported a permanent source of fresh water, and all suitable nesting and roosting sites (e.g. woodlands dominated by eucalypts, especially Eucalyptus platyphylla, paperbarks or acacias) have been removed, primarily for grazing purposes.  Therefore, it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will significantly impact on this threatened species. e) As requested please find attached a copy of the letter dated 3 September 2009 from the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) (former Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts), requesting further information for a Preliminary Documentation Assessment – refer Appendix 14. REQUEST 1.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR a) The proposed flood detention basin encroaches into the 50m buffer required for the environmental corridor. ISS recommend reconfiguration to exclude this infrastructure from the corridor. b) The Applicant must provide and maintain at least a 50m environmental corridor from the top of the high bank of the Bohle River and Little Bohle tributary. The top of the high bank must be identified by the DERM who have jurisdiction under the Water Act 2002. c) A plan of management to protect and maintain the corridor must be provided to Council. The Corridor Management Plan must address the following matters:  Ensure the continuity, functionality and floristic compositions of the corridors  Identify and stabilize any areas of bank erosion or slump and outline methods that will be taken  Identify revegetation areas and revegetate using best practice methodology  Source of endemic seed  Identify and control introduced flora and fauna in the corridor using best practice methodology  Fire management  Ensure and outline how the corridor is protected from intrusion during all stages of development  Nominate a person who is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the plan and its associated works

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 83 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

 The corridor will be subject to a 3 year maintenance period and must be inspected by ISS before it is agreed the corridor is off maintenance. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) In the main the proposed development, including the detention basins are removed from the river bank buffer area. This alternate solution is deemed acceptable considering the detention basins required for flood mitigation have been designed to be outside of the PMAV areas and approved by DERM in their Referral Response dated 12 August 2010. With regards to the 50m buffer from the top of bank, the State has provided reasonable and relevant conditions regarding their jurisdiction for wetlands and vegetation (refer Appendix 9 for the DERM response dated 12 August 2010). Therefore due regard to the provisions of the Natural Areas Code in the Thuringowa planning scheme has been given and a higher power determined that the proposed outcome satisfactorily addressing this element. b) With regards to a Corridor Management Plan; the Applicant has not provided additional information in this regard and requests that a reasonable and relevant condition be imposed, if considered necessary. It would be suggested that such arrangements would be dealt with through an overall Landscape & Open Space Masterplan for consideration and approval of Council. Such a masterplan would appropriately consider the development, revegetation and management of each of the respective natural areas in conjunction with other passive and active open space proposed within the development. REQUEST 1.3 WATERWAYS a) The Applicant states that the environmental corridor extends for 50 metres from the top of the high bank. The top of the high bank can only be defined by a Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) accredited surveyor under the Water Act 2002. ISS recommend that DERM officers perform a site inspection to confirm the location of the high bank. b) According to the current layout, the unnamed tributary to the Bohle River that flows west to east across the site will be straightened to align with the straight open space allocated strip. ISS recommend that the space be expanded to accommodate the tributary in its natural form and flow path. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) DERM has approved the proposed development with conditions issued in their Referral Response dated 12 August 2010. A site inspection will be undertaken, should it be required pursuant to the referral agencies jurisdiction. b) With regards to the unnamed tributary of the Bohle River that traverses the site west to east towards the southern boundary, we offer the following. The flood modelling reports lodged as common material with this application (dated June 2007 and October 2008) have continually analysed the storage capacity of this drainage line. The proposed Willowbend Zone Plan in Appendix 1 is cognisant of the said modelling, therefore the Applicant does not consider the requested amendment to be warranted.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 84 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

REQUEST 1.4 VEGETATION a) ISS support the DERM recommendations that riverine wetlands and associated remnant vegetation are retained in their natural state to maintain water quality, wildlife habitat and corridor values. Any vegetation retained on site in its natural state must have a plan of management that must address the following matters:  Ensure the continuity and floristic compositions of the natural areas  Identify revegetation areas and revegetate using best practice methodology  Source of endemic seed  Fire management  Ensure and outline how the damage to the natural area is minimized during all stages of development  Nominate a person who is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the plan and its associated works b) Natural areas will be subject to a 3 year maintenance period and must be inspected by ISS before it is agreed the corridor is off maintenance. The natural area management plan may be incorporated with the environment corridor plan as long as the elements unique to the environmental corridor are addressed (i) Native vegetation must be retained under the bridge to a degree to facilitate wildlife movement through the corridor but not interfere with bridge structural integrity and user safety (ii) The corridor and natural areas must have a buffer of open space from any residences (iii) Flood mitigation measures are not to be carried out in the environmental corridor (iv) Any recreation proposed in the environmental corridor must be passive and requires approval from ISS (v) Any recreation in the natural areas must be passive (vi) Unauthorised vehicle access to the environmental corridor and natural areas is prohibited (vii) Controlled accesses must be installed in suitable locations to allow access to the natural areas and environmental corridor for maintenance purposes c) To offset the proposed vegetation clearing for the development a clearing in the south-east corner could be rehabilitated by the developer to improve the habitat values of that area and reduce edge effects. This would add to the applicants ability to comply with Performance Criteria P.1 of the EX COT Thuringowa planning scheme

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 85 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

(b) improve the condition and values of watercourses and wetlands and their associated terrestrial ecosystems. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) With regards to a Vegetation Plan of Management; the Applicant has not provided additional information and requests that a reasonable and relevant condition be imposed, if considered necessary. It would be suggested that such arrangements would be dealt with through an overall Landscape & Open Space Masterplan for consideration and approval of Council. Such a masterplan would appropriately consider the development, revegetation and management of each of the respective natural areas in conjunction with other passive and active open space proposed within the development. We reiterate, DERM has approved the proposed development with conditions issued in their Referral Response dated 12 August 2010. Further the PMAV was certified by DERM on 23 March 2009 and protects the riparian vegetation along the Little Bohle River where the subject site has a common boundary, and in the eastern section of the subject site. b) Refer to the response to Request 1.4 a) above. c) With regards to ‘offsets’, we note that during the extensive negotiations with DERM regarding the PMAV process, DERM did not encourage nor support offsets for this development. Therefore due regard to this RFI item has been given and a higher power determined that the proposed outcome satisfactorily addressing this element. REQUEST 1.5 WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN ISS support the recommendation in the Flora and Fauna Assessment for a Weed Management Plan. The report by Natural Solutions 2007 states “As discussed earlier, there are a number of significant declared weeds on the site. These include Chinese Apple, Rubber Vine and Lantana. Due to the stronghold that these species have on the site it will be vital that there is a stringent weed management plan in place during construction to ensure that these weeds are not spread. It will also be important to have a management plan to control and/or eradicate these weeds from the site. Management plans should be in line with the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water recommended methods for controlling and eradication of weed species. Such management plans may include equipment was down procedures and protocols for movement of fill material within and from the site”. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: As a result of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) Adverse Information letter dated 24 October 2007, the Applicant has analysed and gained approval for a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV) under the Vegetation Management Act 1994. Part of the common material lodged with the PMAV application, included two reports by Landscape Assessment, Management and Rehabilitation Pty Ltd – (i) PMAV Supporting Documentation Report, and (ii) Response to Information Request

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 86 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

“Willowbend” (refer Addendum VIII of the Changed Application Report lodged with Council on 9 June 2010; and re submitted herewith in Appendix 17 and 18 of this response). With regards to a Weed Management Plan; the Applicant has not provided additional information and requests that a reasonable and relevant condition be imposed, if considered necessary. The development will comply with Council’s standard. REQUEST 2. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control a) Flora and Fauna Assessment by natural solutions identified soils susceptible to erosion with examples of severe gully erosion on site. ISS support the reports recommendation for a soil erosion and sediment control plan for the site. b) Bulk Earthworks and fill will disturb an area >85,000m² of potentially dispersive/reactive soils. ISS recommend that soil testing is carried out to determine the properties of soil and the presence of any acid sulphate soils in the location of the detention basin and if soil treatment is required. c) The site immediately discharges into two significant watercourses with potential to significantly impact on receiving waters both during bulk earthworks and prior to stabilization of the disturbed soil. Additionally, maintenance requirements and functionality post construction of the basin will be heavily influenced by soil treatment methodologies established as part of the soil erosion and sediment control plan. d) Due to the potential for significant erosion and sediment discharge from this project Soil and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (concept and methodology) must be provided as part of the information response. e) A detailed Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in accordance with City Plan Policy 1 – Supporting Information, Section 12 – Soil Erosion and Sediment Control will be required should Compliance Assessment for the development be required. The Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan must include but not be limited to:  Performance standards, hold points and end points  Include maps, calculations, timing/staging and rainfall events/ design criteria  Include specifications and construction details  Include soil and water management plans  Contain supporting documentation  Include a maintenance and monitoring program  Include geotechnical advice relating to the stability of the site during and after works including details on revegetation and stabilization of the site.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 87 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: The Preliminary Stormwater Quality Management Plan prepared by BMD Consulting and included in Appendix 16, provides direction to the level and arrangements of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (SESC) anticipated in association with future development of the site. Notwithstanding the Applicant also acknowledges that Council has adopted standards for the implementation of SESC to support any civil works conducted on a development site. This would be anticipated as a reasonable and relevant condition of approval with appropriate documentation to be submitted for Council review and approval with future applications for Operational Works. REQUEST 3. CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (i) Due to the location of the proposal, bordered by two waterways, it poses a high risk to water quality. ISS recommend a conceptual stormwater management plan be submitted at reconfiguration stage. (ii) A conceptual stormwater quality management plan (CSQMP) may be requested by Council as part of any Material Change of Use or Reconfiguration of a Lot application. (iii) The CSQMP must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person to address the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff from the site. The CSQMP should adopt the water quality strategy of the Australian Rainfall Quality (ARQ) guidelines and the plan must address, but not be limited to, the following items: a) Provide a site locality plan that identifies the receiving waters of the development. For the purposes of the CSQMP, receiving waters are considered to be a defined waterway or wetland under Townsville City Councils Waterways and Wetlands Code b) Identify all potential sources and water quality containments from both construction and operational activities likely to impact on the nominated guideline values of the receiving waters c) Nominate load based reduction targets for onsite stormwater treatment d) Provide a conceptual site layout including tentative locations of any proposed stormwater quality improvement devices (e.g. biofiltration, sediment basins, constructed wetlands or similar) e) Conceptual plan must also nominate locations for significant erosion and sediment control structures, in particular any proposed sediment basins f) Plan must propose asset manager/s for any major stormwater quality improvement devices (e.g. biofiltration, constructed wetlands, lakes or similar) g) Nominate any expected impacts the proposed stormwater quantity and quality improvement devices may have on open space or conservation areas

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 88 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

h) Provide evidence that the devices are appropriately sized for the development (iv) ISS recommends water sensitive urban design be utilized to treat all development run-off water during and post construction and operational phase. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: (i) The Preliminary Stormwater Quality Management Plan prepared by BMD Consulting and included in Appendix 16, provides direction to the level and arrangements of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (SESC) anticipated in association with future development of the site. (ii) - (iii) Notwithstanding the Applicant also acknowledges that Council has adopted standards for the implementation of SESC to support any civil works conducted on a development site. This would be anticipated as a reasonable and relevant condition of approval with appropriate documentation to be submitted for Council review and approval with future applications for Operational Works. (iv) The Preliminary Stormwater Quality Management Plan prepared by BMD Consulting and included in Appendix 16, among other things considers arrangements for implementation of WSUD within the Willowbend development to achieve Council’s adopted water quality standards. As overall civil design of the site will progress so will consideration and understanding of WSUD techniques to be employed generally in accordance with the Preliminary SQMP. This would be anticipated as a reasonable and relevant condition of approval with appropriate documentation to be submitted for Council review and approval with future applications for Operational Works. REQUEST 4 SITE LAYOUT a) ISS support the DERM (then EPA) recommendations that “The provision of a buffer between the remnant areas and the development would help protect the natural integrity of the riverine vegetation, by acting as a fire break and barrier to encroachment from neighbouring residences. b) This could be achieved by reconfiguring the lots to ensure lots fronting these areas are bounded by a road. Lots 1, 2 and 3 from stage 1A about the 50m buffer required for the environmental corridor. It would be preferable to reconfigure or remove these lots. c) It appears that the shape of the most easterly detention basin corresponds exactly with the referral agency response vegetation plan Map. ISS requests that information is provided in the conceptual stormwater quality plan that the additional storage basin is sized appropriately for the site. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) We reiterate, DERM has approved the proposed development with conditions issued in their Referral Response dated 12 August 2010. b) Further to (a) above, due to the revised design and layout (refer Appendix 1 and 12), in the main, the abovementioned request items are no longer

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 89 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

applicable. The proposed layout has reduced the number of allotments directly backing onto the drainage area/ adjacent allotment and to similarly provide appropriate road frontage to these areas. Nonetheless in most instances, where the request item above is still applicable the requested detail can be appropriately dealt with during the detailed design phase. Alternately, this RFI response will be lodged with the DERM for completeness. Reasonable and relevant conditions can also address the outcomes sought. c) With regards to the eastern detention basin, we note that the eastern part of the land will not be developed for several years until the later stages of construction. The flood modelling reports lodged as common material with this application (dated June 2007 and October 2008) have continually analysed the storage capacities required for the proposed development. The proposed Willowbend Zone Plan in Appendix 1 is cognisant of the said modelling. At this concept planning phase, details of the said detention basin is unknown at this time. Due to the vast vacant lands available in the eastern portion of the site that can be utilised for flood mitigation measures, the Applicant requests that reasonable and relevant conditions be imposed, if considered necessary. REQUEST 5. WETLANDS The site contains referable wetlands. According to the Regional Vegetation Management code for Brigalow Belt and New England Tablelands Bioregions Asp.2 states clearing should not occur – b) within 100m from any natural wetland. It appears that clearing is proposed within this buffer. Please provide further advice. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: DERM, the agency responsible for (i) vegetation management under the Vegetation Management Act 1994, and (ii) referrable wetlands - approved the proposed development with reasonable and relevant conditions issued in their Referral Response dated 12 August 2010. This referral response covers the said agencies jurisdiction of vegetation management, acid sulphate soils and wetlands. Therefore due regard to this RFI item has been given and a higher power determined that the proposed outcome satisfactorily addressing this element. No further information is provided in this regard.

REQUEST 6. GROUNDWATER a) Ground water investigations are required to determine if the cumulative impacts of detention basins will impact the ground water system and supply to the riparian vegetation communities along the Little Bohle River and any fauna that may also depend on this flow. b) Groundwater studies should include but not be limited to; baseline data for reference, recharge and discharge zones, potential impacts the development may pose and suggested management of these impacts must be provided. The developer must demonstrate that no negative effect is produced between groundwater, surface water, soils, wetlands and ecological communities.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 90 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: The Applicant has not provided additional information in this regard and requests that a reasonable and relevant condition be imposed for lodgement with the application for Operational Works, if considered necessary. The development will comply with Council’s standard. REQUEST 7. FLOOD MITIGATION a) A number of significant flood mitigation measures are proposed for this development. These include;  Filling of the development to raise it above the 50 year flood level  Construction of a detention basin at the eastern end of the development site to mitigate the impact of reduction in flood storage within the Bohle River floodplain  Construction of a 90m long bridge across the Little Bohle River  Construction of an access road embankment between the bridge over the Little Bohle River and development  Widening and deepening of the Little Bohle River surcharge path adjacent to the access road from the outlet of the detention basin to the surcharge path at the downstream boundary of the site  Construction of a detention basin upstream of the access road embankment. Drainage of this detention basin required; - installation of 12 / 3600 x 1800 culverts - excavation of a drainage channel that drains back into the Little Bohle b) The Maunsell report stated that the study did not investigate environmental issues associated with the proposed mitigation works. ISS recommend a report be produced by a suitably qualified professional to investigate the potential environmental impacts of these works. The investigation should include but not be limited to: 1. Ground water resources and interaction with the river systems. How will filling of the site, excavation of detention basins and alteration of flow paths affect groundwater systems and the associated wetland, flora and fauna communities on the site as well as upstream and downstream of the system. 2. Describe the impact that increased runoff from urbanization, filling and excavation and flood mitigation measures will have on the geomorphology of the river systems. 3. Describe the impact that increased runoff from urbanization, changes in water quality and quantity, filling and excavation, fragmentation and flood mitigation measures will have on the protected vegetation on site.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 91 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

4. Describe the environmental impacts of detention basins, as well as possible nuisance, odour, public safety, weed, siltation and maintenance issues and estimated associated costs. 5. Describe the impact that the access road embankment, bridge and culverts will have on the environmental corridor of Little Bohle River as well as impacts on wildlife movement. c) This report should also provide recommendations to reduce and/or manage these impacts. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) Noted. b) DERM has approved the proposed development with conditions issued in their Referral Response dated 12 August 2010. This referral response covers the said agencies jurisdiction of vegetation management, acid sulphate soils and wetlands. The Applicant will comply with the agency’s conditions. We also note the proposed development on the subject site has been determined a ‘controlled action’ under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999. Further detailed management plans are likely to be required pursuant to this legislation. c) With regards to addressing the impacts associated with the proposed flood mitigation works, the Applicant requests that a reasonable and relevant condition be imposed, if considered necessary, requesting a detailed Environmental Management Plan be lodged prior to issuing an Operational Works approval. This will include an analysis of the application process and measures to mitigate the environmental effects of the proposed rising main from the proposed pump station in the eastern portion of the subject site.

REQUEST 8. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN a) ISS recommend an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) be prepared and submitted to council to determine how the identified environmental impacts will be managed on site. This plan should state the developer’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the following report - Flora and Fauna Assessment, Natural Solutions, August 2007. b) The Environmental Management Plan should also include the findings and developer commitments to implement any suggested recommendations of the following requested reports: … c) Reports associated with an EMP are to contain details of – … d) An EMP is to also demonstrate commitments made to environmental management by: … e) The range of issues that may be required to be addressed in an EMP include, but are not limited to: …

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 92 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE: a) Since the lodgement of the Flora and Fauna Assessment prepared by Natural Solutions dated August 2007, the Applicant has commissioned and lodged with Council and relevant referral agencies the following subsequent reports:  PMAV Supporting Documentation Report prepared by Landscape Assessment, Management and Rehabilitation Pty Ltd – July 2008 (refer Appendix 17)  Response to Information Request “Willowbend” prepared by Landscape Assessment, Management and Rehabilitation Pty Ltd – July 2008 (refer Appendix 18)  Fauna Report prepared by Glen Ingram BScPhD - 21 July 2008 (refer Appendix 20) b-e) With regards to addressing the impacts associated with the proposed flood mitigation works, the Applicant requests that a reasonable and relevant condition be imposed, if considered necessary, requesting a detailed Environmental Management Plan be lodged prior to issuing an Operational Works approval.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 93 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

CONCLUSION

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 94 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

CONCLUSION In summary this report which forms a part of the Applicants’ response to the Townsville City Council’s Request for Further Information dated 23 July 2010 and has addressed all of the matters relevant to the assessment of this development application for a:

1. Preliminary Approval for Material Change of Use under s3.1.6 IPA which overrides the Council’s local planning instruments by: i) Adopting the Willowbend Zone Plan (refer Appendix 2); ii) Subsequent implementation of the Willowbend Zone Codes and Tables of Assessment (refer Appendix 2); and iii) Assuming any other applicable codes and definitions as set out in the local governments’ Thuringowa planning scheme currently in force for respective uses.

2. Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot for: . Stages 1A (1 into 50 Lots plus parkland and balance lot) . Stages 1B (1 into 25 Lots plus parkland and balance lot) (refer Appendix 1)

This application was lodged over land located at Lynam Road, Gumlow more formally described as Lot 26 E124278. In accordance with Section 3.3.8 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, this report and associated supporting documentation enclosed provides a response to all of the information requested from the Assessment Manager. Accordingly we ask that the requesting authority proceed with assessment of this development application.

Level 1 69 Eyre Street North Ward IPO Box 312 Belgian Gardens Qld 4810 IP> 07 47 210 177 M> 0458 110 177

Page 95 of 95I8004_TCC mi10-0026_RRFI_report v4.0_FINAL_220711

WILLOWBEND (NQ) PTY LTD

WILLOWBEND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LYNAM ROAD, GUMLOW

ENGINEERING REPORT MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE APPLICATION

Report No: WHE001/R02 Revision No: D DATE: 27 June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 EXISTING SITE ...... 1 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 1 4 STAGING ...... 2 5 TRAFFIC AND ROADWAYS ...... 2 5.1 General ...... 2 5.2 External Road Network ...... 2 5.3 Infrastructure Funding ...... 3 5.4 Internal Road Network ...... 3 5.5 General Roadworks Construction ...... 3 5.6 Public Transport ...... 3 5.7 Bikeways and Pedestrian Access ...... 4 6 ALLOTMENT EARTHWORKS ...... 4 7 STORMWATER DRAINAGE ...... 4 7.1 Internal Drainage ...... 4 7.2 Water Quality ...... 4 7.3 Bohle River Q50 Flood Line ...... 5 7.4 Bohle River Wildlife Corridor ...... 5 8 WATER AND SEWERAGE RETICULATION ...... 5 8.1 Master Planning ...... 5 8.2 Water Supply...... 5 8.3 Sewerage Reticulation ...... 5 9 POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS ...... 6

APPENDICES

Appendix A Preliminary Layout Plan (WHE001/SK09 Rev 2) Appendix B Preliminary Staging Plan (WHE001/SK06 Rev 6) Appendix C Preliminary Road Hierarchy Plan (WHE001SK05 Rev 4) Appendix D Preliminary Internal Connectivity Plan (WHE001/SK16 Rev 1) Appendix E Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Plan (WHE001/SK07 Rev 2)

Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd Willowbend Residential Development - Lynam Road, Gumlow Engineering Report – MCU Application

1 INTRODUCTION

This preliminary report assesses the civil engineering aspects of the proposal to develop land known as the Willowbend residential development, on the western bank of the Bohle River at Gumlow. The land is located immediately south of the Little Bohle River, and the Department of Transport and Main Roads Ring Road Extension Stage 2. Proposed access to the site is via Lynam Road.

The proposal is to change the current zoning from Rural to a Master Planned Residential Estate. The land is currently zoned Rural.

This report has been commissioned by Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd, owners of the subject land, and forms part of a Material Change of Use Application prepared by Everson Town Planning.

2 EXISTING SITE

The proposed development is located on an existing parcel of land described as lot 26 on E124278, and is bounded by the Bohle River to the east, the Townsville Bypass corridor and existing Park residential development across the Little Bohle River to the north, and rural lands to the south and west.

The development is seen as a beachhead residential development into the Gumlow area, allowing future residential development in lands most suitable for development within a 5km radius of the Thuringowa CBD.

The subject land is situated on the Gumlow Plains, a largely flat terrain draining eastwards to the Bohle River. The site is traversed by several minor gullies, typical of land form immediately to the west of the Bohle River. Access to the site will require formal construction of the existing Lynam Road corridor. Construction of this access will provide flood immunity to those existing residents to the west of the Bohle River, which are not currently serviced by flood proof river crossings.

The site is moderately vegetated, having been previously used as grazing land. Separate assessments of vegetation quality are provided elsewhere.

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is to create a master planned residential estate of approximately 296 allotments plus the required landscaped open space.

The following details preliminary development statistics, which have been used for initial assessments:

• Total Site Area 97.125 ha • PMAV 17.664 ha • Total Open Space 30.402 ha • Total Developed Area 49.059 ha • Total Number of Residential Allotments 296 lots • Gross Density 3.03 lots/ha • Nett Density (excluding Open Space) 6.01 lots/ha

A preliminary layout plan (WHE001/SK09 Rev 2) is provided in Appendix A.

WHE001 R02 Rev D Page 1 of 6 Date: 27 June 2011 Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd Willowbend Residential Development - Lynam Road, Gumlow Engineering Report – MCU Application

4 STAGING

It is proposed to develop residential areas progressively, with demand dictating speed of development.

The residential areas will be developed in numerous stages, with typical stages averaging between 25 and 40 allotments. This is consistent with proven development techniques followed by local developers on previous developments. A preliminary staging plan (WHE001/SK06 Rev 6) is provided in Appendix B.

It is expected that the ultimate development will take five (5) to eight (8) years to complete. Services infrastructure (i.e. road upgrades, water and sewerage reticulation, power and telecommunications) will be required to be developed to suit the needs of the developing population.

5 TRAFFIC AND ROADWAYS

5.1 General

TTM Traffic Engineers produced the original Traffic Report (12 August 2007) for the development. A subsequent detailed Traffic Report was produced by Cardno Eppell Olsen (May 2011) which analysed Lynam Road intersection with Hervey Range Road in conjunction with both the Kalynda Parade intersection and the signalised Ring Road off ramp intersection. These detailed traffic analyses for the proposed development have been undertaken in association with UDP Consulting Engineers.

The following is a brief summary of important issues relating to access.

5.2 External Road Network

The site is serviced by the following State-controlled Road Network:

1. Townsville Ring Road / Hervey Range Road

The Department of Transport and Main Roads has completed construction of the extension of the Townsville Ring Road from the existing Douglas Arterial Link at Condon to the existing Shaws Road connection to the Bruce Highway at Bohle in 2009.

Hervey Range Road was also upgraded to a four-lane divided carriageway from just east of Lynam Road intersection into the Thuringowa CBD.

2. Lynam Road

Lynam Road (north) is currently a two-lane, two-way rural roadway, which will require upgrading to a collector standard (COT – Type M Rural) to suit this and future developments. The Traffic Report (UDP Horman Traffic letter 24 June 2011) demonstrates that a Collector Road Type M is appropriate to service the proposed development and maintain suitable amenity to existing road users.

Extension of Lynam Road (south) is already allocated via road reserve, but has been restricted by crossing of the Little Bohle River. This development will provide this

WHE001 R02 Rev D Page 2 of 6 Date: 27 June 2011 Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd Willowbend Residential Development - Lynam Road, Gumlow Engineering Report – MCU Application

crossing, and enable further access to lands south of the development, thus providing practical access.

The above discussions show that there is sufficient surrounding road network infrastructure to cater for the proposed development.

5.3 Infrastructure Funding

It could be argued that the development provides in-fill development to the recently completed Townsville Ring Road and Hervey Range Road upgrade undertaken by the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

The proposed development requires no capital funding ($0/lot) from the State Government or Townsville City Council for the external collector roads providing road access from the proposed development to the State-controlled Road Network.

This compares very favourably to Council’s Infrastructure Charges costs of $3,014.00 per lot in adjacent areas, and is significantly improved on $4,991.00 per lot in the Northern Beaches area. This is explained simply by the proximity of the development to the recently completed Townsville Ring Road and Hervey Range Road, and other existing development roads, while the Northern Beaches area requires considerable road infrastructure to connect with the State-controlled Road Network.

It could also be argued that traffic from the proposed development will be more efficient in its use of the road network, being closer to major trip destinations (i.e. Riverway, Thuringowa Central, Cowboys stadium, Townsville Hospital, Lavarack Barracks and James Cook University).

5.4 Internal Road Network

An internal road network will be provided to service the development, in accordance with the requirements of Townsville City Council, and current industry standards.

A preliminary road hierarchy plan WHE001/SK05 Rev 4 is provided in Appendix C.

5.5 General Roadworks Construction

Pavement depths will be designed and constructed for the proposed development in accordance with Council’s Policy.

In response to Townsville City Council’s Request for Information of 23 July 2010, we note all intersections will be assessed and sized in accordance with standard practice to ensure all design elements are contained within the road reserve.

5.6 Public Transport

A Public Transport Circuit will form part of the internal road network and will ensure that 90% of the lots are within 400m walking distance. The Public Transport Circuit proposed has provision for an ultimate connection to the future development south of Willowbend, but will temporarily utilise an Access Street within Willowbend to connect back onto Lynham Road.

A preliminary internal connectivity plan (WHE001/SK16 Rev 1) is provided in Appendix D.

WHE001 R02 Rev D Page 3 of 6 Date: 27 June 2011 Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd Willowbend Residential Development - Lynam Road, Gumlow Engineering Report – MCU Application

5.7 Bikeways and Pedestrian Access

Bikeway and pedestrian pathway connections shall be provided throughout the development, and link to the open space corridors along the Bohle and Little Bohle Rivers.

Connectivity shall be provided to existing developed areas of Thuringowa via a bikeway connection in Lynam Road. This connection shall include an appropriate bikeway provision at the Little Bohle River crossing.

6 ALLOTMENT EARTHWORKS

All allotments shall be reshaped to ensure positive drainage towards roadways or drainage reserves.

Allotment slopes will be 1 in 200 minimum to roadways or drainage reserves from residential allotments, and 1 in 400 minimum to non-residential and open space allotments.

All allotment earthworks shall be carried out under level 1 geotechnical supervision.

Existing large and worthy vegetation shall be retained where possible on allotments, open spaces and within drainage reserves, notwithstanding the above filling requirements. Localised exceptions to minimum grades may be required around significant worthy trees to ensure retention.

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plans shall be prepared for the construction phase of the project, to minimise soil loss on the site prior to re-establishment of vegetation.

7 STORMWATER DRAINAGE

Stormwater drainage discharge shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Thuringowa City Council’s Aus-Spec Design Specification D5, and associated Handbook.

7.1 Internal Drainage

Minor system (Q2) stormwater shall be discharged from allotments to roadways via overland discharge, and shall be collected and transported via roadway kerb and channel, kerb inlet pits, inter-allotment drainage (if necessary), and underground stormwater drainage pipes to the major drainage paths through the site.

Major system (Q50) stormwater flows, surplus to the minor system capacity, shall be transported via the roadway systems to the main drainage paths, and discharged as per normal Council requirements.

The existing water courses draining to the Bohle River systems are proposed to be retained where possible.

A preliminary stormwater drainage plan (WHE001/SK07 Rev 2) is provided in Appendix E.

7.2 Water Quality

Stormwater Quality Management Plans shall be developed in association with current best practice Water Sensitive Urban Design techniques and solutions, which shall ensure that

WHE001 R02 Rev D Page 4 of 6 Date: 27 June 2011 Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd Willowbend Residential Development - Lynam Road, Gumlow Engineering Report – MCU Application stormwater runoff meets minimum requirements for Water Quality prior to entering the Bohle and Little Bohle River systems.

7.3 Bohle River Q50 Flood Line

As part of concept planning for the proposed development, an updated study of the Bohle River has been undertaken to assess the impact of development encroachment on the disjointed Q50 floodline in the area.

AECOM were commissioned (October 2008) to convert the Bohle River model in this section to a full Mike 21 (3-dimensional) model.

This report assesses the effects of the proposed development on the Bohle River floodline, including upstream and downstream effects. The proposed Little Bohle River crossing at Lynam Road has also been assessed.

Appropriate ameliorative measures have been proposed where necessary to ensure no detrimental impacts are caused by the development.

7.4 Bohle River Wildlife Corridor

As required under the former City of Thuringowa Planning Scheme, an approximate / average 50m wide environmental buffer has been provided to the Bohle and Little Bohle Rivers for the frontages to the development. Where this buffer is not 50m, we note the DERM has approved this encroachment, with conditions, for their jurisdiction of wetlands and waterways, dated 17 August 2010. It is anticipated that the existing vegetation and ecological values in this area will be maintained, to ensure the Bohle River and Little Bohle river corridor continues to provide connectivity for environmental values.

8 WATER AND SEWERAGE RETICULATION

8.1 Master Planning

The provision of water and sewerage infrastructure to the proposed development is detailed in a separate UDP Consulting Engineers report.

We note that this report proves that not only are water and sewerage services available to the development, but that the site is fortunately situated to ensure that the service authorities maximise the use of infrastructure in this area.

8.2 Water Supply

Water supply can be provided from the Mount Margaret pipeline in the Hervey Range Road corridor.

8.3 Sewerage Reticulation

Sewerage reticulation would be via gravity sewers and two (2) small pump stations, with connection to adjacent Council pressure main traversing the subject land.

WHE001 R02 Rev D Page 5 of 6 Date: 27 June 2011 Willowbend (NQ) Pty Ltd Willowbend Residential Development - Lynam Road, Gumlow Engineering Report – MCU Application

9 POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS

Negotiations shall be undertaken with utility service providers for the supply of electricity and telecommunications to the development.

Preliminary discussions reveal that the supply of power and telecommunications to the proposed development is possible, and does not involve significant infrastructure improvements.

We note there are existing electricity and telecommunications services to adjacent properties.

WHE001 R02 Rev D Page 6 of 6 Date: 27 June 2011

APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN

APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY STAGING PLAN

APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY ROAD HIERARCHY PLAN

APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY PLAN

APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN