Office of the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The 4432 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, 1
held at City Hall, Brisbane 1
on Tuesday 25 March 2014 1
at 2pm 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS i
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS 1
OPENING OF MEETING: 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1
QUESTION TIME: 6
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: 18
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 18 A THE GRANTING OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEASE TO TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED, IN RESPECT OF PART OF THE LAND AT BARTLEY’S HILL RESERVOIR 21
B PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE AT BUKULLA STREET, WACOL 23
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 25
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – OPEN LEVEL CROSSING REPLACEMENT PROJECTS 29
B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO PROVIDE MORE MOTORCYCLE PARKING IN THE SOUTH BRISBANE AND WEST END TWO-HOUR ZONES 30
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 33
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ACTIVE SCHOOL TRAVEL SECRETS TO SUCCESS 34
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 36
A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (DISTRIBUTER-RETAILER) UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 – PROPOSED MULTI-UNIT DWELLING – 26 TO 42 GLADYS STREET, GREENSLOPES – CORBEE PTY LTD 41
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 44
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CAMERA TRAP MONITORING IN NATURAL AREAS 45
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE 46
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – GARAGE SALE TRAIL 47
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE 48
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COUNCIL’S MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH WESTFIELD AND CENTRO FOR DISABILITY BAY PARKING ENFORCEMENT 50
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 51
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – COUNCIL’S ZERO HARM STRATEGY 52
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION - “Share the Road” style campaign: 53
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – Installation of rubbish bins, seats and trees in the parkland at the corner of Inskip Street and Melbourne Street, Rocklea: 68
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 72
GENERAL BUSINESS: 73
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 80
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 80
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP
The Chairman of Council, Councillor Margaret de WIT (Pullenvale Ward) – LNP
LNP Councillors (and Wards)
ALP Councillors (and Wards)
Krista ADAMS (Wishart)
Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)
Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)
Vicki HOWARD (Central)
Steven HUANG (Macgregor)
Fiona KING (Marchant)
Geraldine KNAPP (The Gap)
Kim MARX (Karawatha)
Peter MATIC (Toowong)
Ian McKENZIE (Holland Park)
David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)
Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)
Angela OWEN-TAYLOR (Parkinson) (Deputy Chairman of Council)
Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)
Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor)
Andrew WINES (Enoggera)
Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)
Milton DICK (Richlands) (The Leader of the Opposition)
Helen ABRAHAMS (The Gabba) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)
Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly)
Kim FLESSER (Northgate)
Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)
Victoria NEWTON (Deagon)
Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)
Independent Councillor (and Ward)
Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.
The Minutes of the 4431 meeting of Council held on 18 March 2014, copies of which had been forwarded to each councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor MURPHY, seconded by Councillor MARX.
Ms Sue Bremner – Fees for residential parking permits
File number: 137/220/701/172
Chairman: I would like to call on Ms Sue Bremner who will address the Chamber on fees for residential parking permits. Orderly, would you please show Ms Bremner in.
Ms Bremner, you have five minutes; please proceed.
Ms Sue Bremner: Thank you, Madam Chair. LORD MAYOR, Councillors, thanks for the opportunity to come and address Council today. My name is Sue Bremner; I am the spokesperson for RAPPP—Residents Against Paid Parking Permits, and we represent residents across Brisbane who are strongly opposed to the imposition of this fee over-and-above our rates.
Our ePetition currently has about 624 signatures last time I checked this morning, and with three other petitions that I know have been up there, 1,266 people have signed the petition, and that is quite significant compared to an average last year of about 100 per petition. I know others have written to Council and to the local Councillors, and I am aware that there are a couple of submissions to the Ombudsman in at the moment. So a lot of people are actually quite upset about this charge, and they want it gone.
In the short time that I've got, I'd like to refute the rationale for the fee. Council talks about escalating costs. A few years ago Council brought in these beautiful new adhesive stickers, a bit fancier than the old paper ones that we used to have, but I am concerned that they are actually part of the rising costs of this scheme. I understand that the process is also outsourced to Victoria, and I don't know why that is.
Interestingly, the State Government will actually phase-out stickers like this for car registration this year, so obviously there is technology around already to identify vehicles. So I ask: ‘Why has Council has introduced old and probably too expensive technology for this scheme?’
The next part of the rationale: these charges exist in all other capital cities in Australia. Technically, that is correct, but as an old Maths teacher, I used to talk to students about ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’. So here are some stats that I found in a quick internet search. Brisbane City Council is the largest council in Australia, representing over 1 million people. It has a budget of $2.9 billion, a rates income of $890 million, and gets $50.4 million from parking meters and parking fines. Sydney City Council, on the other hand, represents only 190,000 people, and does indeed have fees for permits. However, Waverley Council around the inner-city suburbs of Sydney, no fees.
Melbourne City Council, 100,000 people, has a fee. However, Bayside City Council, southern suburbs of Melbourne, no fees for permits. I think I have made my point without going to the other cities. They are nothing like Brisbane. Mostly consisting of small councils across metropolitan areas. Sydney has a population of four times that of Brisbane, but Sydney City Council only represents about one-fifth the number of people that Brisbane City Council does. It is a spurious argument.
The abuse of permits. Council officers have said to me a number of times that there have been increases in the number of visitors' permits in the last few years, and it is because of widespread abuse of the system. People are giving them away or selling them on. When we met with Councillor SCHRINNER last month, he actually did say to us that Council didn't have any hard evidence that the permits were being abused. Wouldn't it be better to investigate this properly rather than just slugging residents with a fee?
The major issue in all of this is congestion in our residential streets. We have heard from many residents who fear they're paying for a service that they can't use, because they can't get a park in their street. I fail to see how a fee does anything to solve the congestion issue.
Brisbane City Council is a huge council, large projects like Legacy Way. Some supporters of ours are concerned that developers have been given permission for buildings with inadequate parking, placing pressure on surrounding residential streets, and they feel let down by their Council. The issue is that the little people, the residents of Brisbane, your constituents, and might I add your voters, are not getting the attention they should. So we have Brisbane City Council, large, little people, residents. I agree with what Councillor SCHRINNER said to us at our meeting: it is time to actually restore that balance.
Please listen to us. The cost of this scheme is really small beans to a Council with a budget of billions of dollars. Repeal this inequitable fee and focus on the real issue: congestion in our residential streets. Thank you, Madam Chair, LORD MAYOR, Councillors.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms Bremner.
Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, would you like to respond?
Response by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee
DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Sue, for coming in. It is a pleasure to see you again, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback and also on behalf of your members as well. I certainly have listened to what you have said and have also listened to many other people that have provided feedback to Council on the issue of paid parking permits.
Certainly while we might disagree on certain aspects of it, there is one particular thing that I agree absolutely with the feedback that we have received, and that is that Council needs to do better to manage the current parking restrictions that are in place in many locations.
At the moment we have a situation where this bit of chalk is essentially the only thing that stands between residents in areas like yours and the many outside commuters and various other people that come in and park and overstay the time periods in those areas. That essentially makes it hard for residents to find a park in their own street, and rightly is something that they are upset about. So many of these areas have particular time limits, like a two-hour zone, and we know from the feedback that we have been getting that many people are overstaying those time limits. We certainly hear that, and that has been probably the number one bit of feedback that we have received.
People are saying, look, we don't particularly like the fact that the permits are being charged for, but we would be prepared to pay that fee if there was better enforcement, and that is essentially what so many people have told me. So we have listened as a Council. We accept that we need to do better.
Over the past year there has been a 26 per cent increase in complaints about parking. Those complaints are people asking Council to carry out enforcement. So there is an issue here.
DEPUTY MAYOR: We are not about to bury our head in the sand and say that this is something that can be ignored. Like I said, we do need to do better in terms of managing the limited available parking that is available in our inner city areas. We can't create more on-street parking. Essentially on-street parking, the amount that is there at the moment is the amount that will always be there, so we need to manage that available parking better.
In relation to the issue of escalating costs of managing the permits, I accept what you are saying about the stickers. Unfortunately we did find, though, that when we had the paper permits, they were being photocopied, and there were quite a large number of photocopied permits available at that time. So that is not a problem that we have with the stickers, obviously, but it was a problem before, which is one of the reasons the stickers were introduced.
If we can find a better way of distributing the permits, we are certainly happy to look at those options, and we are investigating that at the moment to try to keep the costs down.
In terms of the size of the Council budget, and you mentioned that obviously it is a big Council and surely this is something that Council can afford, the money that comes from parking fines and parking meter revenue is invested directly into parks and footpath upgrades. Each Councillor at the moment gets an equal amount, right across the city, of that fine revenue which they use to upgrade footpaths and parks. So that money is actually tied to an outcome at the moment—
Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting.
Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!
DEPUTY MAYOR: —and each Councillor is reinvesting that money into their community, so there is actually a direct link between the parking revenue and the outcomes in the suburbs. So there is already a purpose for that money that it is being used for.
As I said, I think the key issue is Council needs to do better in managing the on-street parking, and we are certainly looking at ways that we can do that. Thank you for your time coming in and for expressing your views.
Chairman: Thank you. Orderly, would you please show Ms Bremner out.
Mr Jim Reeves – Development Application number A003732079 for 39 Colville Street, Highgate Hill
File number: 137/220/701/176
Chairman: I would now like to call on Mr Jim Reeves who will address the Chamber on the development application number A003732079 for 39 Colville Street, Highgate Hill. Orderly, please show Mr Reeves in.
Please proceed, Mr Reeves; you have five minutes.
Mr Jim Reeves: Thank you, Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR, Councillors; I thank you for this opportunity to address Council. I am here as the Chairman said to discuss an application to construct a five-storey multi-unit dwelling at 39 Colville Street, Highgate Hill. I and my wife have our almost empty nest in an adjoining apartment block, and along with some 50 other people from our neighbourhood, have lodged formal submissions opposing this development.
We contend that the proposal represents a significant over-development of the site. It flies in the face of the planning intent expressed in both City Plan 2000 and the most recently released draft of the new City Plan. Planning instruments need to be able to relied upon to represent how development will be managed and what form it will take. Council, through its decisions, must reinforce this reliability. Likewise, those who invest in and develop our cities need consistency and clarity.
The introductory section of City Plan puts it elegantly and simply when it says that the plan sets out what we and our neighbours can build. Prior to purchasing our apartment, we did due diligence, and we could reasonably anticipate the possibility of a multi-unit development on the adjacent block of two storeys and 8.5 metres, proposed to be 9.5 metres in the new plan. The intent for the zone was unequivocal, 'a mix of houses of two and three-storey multi-dwelling units and single dwelling units of a house compatible scale which co-exist comfortably with neighbouring houses, and a strict adherence to a maximum gross floor area of 50 or 60 per cent if in close proximity with public transport or on arterial roads.'
Our objections are detailed in our submissions to Council, Madam Chairman, and I am sure that you and your colleagues will give them due and objective consideration. To summarise the position, though, we are confronted with the prospect of a building that is more than four times the scale envisaged, with a gross floor area of 1233 square metres, four times the level that was to be strictly adhered to, a gross exceedance of the acceptable solution contained in the code. The proposed building is three storeys higher than specified in the code. The height ranges from 13.5 to 16.5 metres above natural ground level.
Colville Street is less than 10-metres wide, with a kerb to kerb road pavement of 6.5 metres. The plan states that, for a three-storey building, it must front a road reserve of 15.5 metres minimum. The same provision is reflected in the new draft plan.
There are many other requirements which the proposal fails to meet. It dwarfs and intrusively overlooks the property and habitable rooms of its neighbours to the southern side, and will have significant impacts on the amenity of its neighbours and the neighbourhood. The developer justifies these excesses by referring to the height of Dornoch Towers which was built 40 years ago. Dornoch Towers is the exception. It should not influence the rule.
Residents of Dornoch Towers are entitled to the same protection as any other residents. We should not have the enjoyment of our homes compromised because we live in an apartment complex. We are the pre-existing use and should not be the rationale for the over-development of adjacent sites. The developer says in their submission that we residents of Dornoch Towers have no entitlement to views. Likewise, the proponent has no entitlement to such gross exceedances in density and height so that residents in the new development can enjoy views. It is a blatant attempt to add value to the development at the direct expense of existing residents.
If approved, it will be a terrible precedent. Five storeys will become the yardstick. When the next block becomes available in Colville Street, the same arguments will be made for five storeys, and how can Council resist? This proposal is a try-on. We are not in denial; we have chosen to live in an apartment in a highly urbanised area, and we are happy with the choice.
The West End peninsula is a development hot spot. It is certainly pulling its weight in doing its share to increase density across this city. The residential areas of West End are already densely settled, and the scale and pace of current medium and high density development is staggering. There is no shortage of opportunities for developers. There is a new crane on the skyline every week. This development makes the retention of the scale envisaged in this low-medium zone even more important.
I was surprised to read in the Request for Information from the Council in December by the Planning Department that they suggested it might be reduced to four storeys, still two storeys higher than the code. Shoe-horning five-storey—
Chairman: Mr Reeves, sorry, your time has expired; thank you. No, time has expired, thank you.
Mr Reeves: Okay.
Chairman: Councillor COOPER, would you like to respond?
Response by Councillor Amanda Cooper, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much Mr Reeves, for coming in. I know that you know Council well, so welcome back for a brief visit. So, thank you for coming in this afternoon. I understand you also are representing another resident, a Dr Mortess, who I think is away and was unable to come in, so thank you for representing him also here this afternoon.
This particular application you spoke about was lodged with Council on 29 October of last year and triggered the highest level of assessment. So it is impact assessable. That, of course, really is indication that it isn’t in accordance with the acceptable solutions of the current City Plan.
So the information I have had from officers is this is a proposal for 12 units, and it is proposed to be six storeys with five car spaces in a site that is currently zoned low-medium density. So, it went out for public notification from 9 January to 1 February this year, and I believe there were 56 submissions received, with 53 of those being formal submissions, and I do believe that you are actually a formal submitter to this application. Thank you very much for lodging that formal submission. Certainly you have provided very comprehensive feedback to the Council officers, so that is very much appreciated.
Of course, you know that this also entitles you to formal appeal rights, so whatever the decision of Council is, you will be able to choose to appeal whatever that decision may be once it has been made. As you are aware, Council has a number of particular concerns about this application. In December of last year, when we issued the information request, we raised issues about the height and the bulk of the proposed development, setbacks, car parking impact—so that is really about things like potential noise, fumes from cars, light from headlights; all those sorts of things. These were all raised as a part of that information request.
There were also issues that Council had with driveway access, retaining walls, road dedication, landscaping and issues about a bio-retention basin and its location in the proposed design. This was a very extensive information request; I think it was about five pages detailing all of the issues that Council had with this application. That is quite indicative of the fact that officers considered this application to have all of those issues that have not currently been satisfactorily addressed as a part of that. So quite a number of concerns, and I think you also gave us some technical advice from a town planner in support your submission, which similarly expressed concerns.
At the moment the applicant responded to our information request on 8 January this year. Again Council officers have identified a number of outstanding issues. The assessment manager is in the process of actually preparing a further information request letter. Again, we will be going back to that applicant and saying that we do not believe that they have addressed those issues, and we are asking for them to respond again.
Those particular further issues will be again the height, the gross floor area, setbacks and footpath, driveway width, refuse collection, design of the actual building, as well as asking them to respond to how those submissions have been addressed as part of the application.
So this is an ongoing application, but there is a lot of information that Council is continuing to ask the applicant to provide a response to. At this point in time, no decision has been made on the application. But certainly the issues that you brought forward were issues that were shared by the Council officers. We certainly do thank you for coming in today and providing your feedback. We will make sure that a copy of what you have said obviously will also be forwarded to the assessment manager to consider as part of the assessment of the application. Thank you very much for coming into Council this afternoon.