The 4432 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 25 March 2014 at 2pm



Download 475.5 Kb.
Page2/8
Date04.09.2017
Size475.5 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the Standing Committees? Councillor MARX.



Question 1

Councillor MARX: Thank you, Madam Chairman. LORD MAYOR, I understand that it is difficult to design a one-size-fits-all approach to crime prevention, and that for a strategy to be successful, it must be both specific as well as flexible. I also understand that Council continues to hand out a number of grants to small community groups across our city. Can you please detail why these small grants can make such a significant impact on crime reduction and prevention for our local residents and communities?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MARX for the question. It is true that Council has a multi-pronged approach to crime prevention in our city. The matter that Councillor MARX has raised through her question today relates to the Suburban Crime Prevention grants. This is a grants program which provides $250,000 each year towards multiple numbers of organisations around our city. The type of organisation that is eligible to make application for these grants are suburban businesses, not-for-profit community groups, sporting clubs, and it is all designed to both deter crime and improve community safety throughout our suburbs.

The Suburban Crime Prevention Program will benefit all Brisbane residents and visitors, in particular, by implementing safety measures that will reduce opportunities for crime; improve the perception of safety in their suburbs and the surrounds; improving safety through the application of crime prevention through environmental design principles—in other words, doing those sorts of things where there is expert advice that will assist in that reduction, and the perception of safety and also the reality of providing a safer environment; educating local residents on personal safety and property security; providing improved public spaces in business precincts for people to enjoy; implementing effective graffiti prevention removal and management strategies; as well as partnering with other stakeholders to resolve safety concerns in their community.

So, Madam Chairman, we provide funding in each application area of between $1,000 and $10,000. So, $10,000 at the upper end, and applicants are required to provide 20 per cent of the project costs. In other words, Council will provide up to 80 per cent of the cost to a maximum of $10,000. The applicants that can be eligible are a registered small business, a consortium of small businesses, a chamber of commerce, small business body corporates, not-for-profit community groups, and sporting clubs.

The next round of grants will open in late July this year, and again $250,000 will be provided. In this financial year we have provided some 40 grants to different groups. It might be opportune to just have a look at a few of the examples of the sorts of organisations that are becoming beneficiaries of these grants, and through that, the broader community. The Windsor Royals Sports Club received a grant of some $3,544 for the upgrading of fencing in Holloway Field to better manage the access to the facility and reduce graffiti opportunities on their property. We gave a grant to the Youth Advocacy Centre, and this was an opportunity for that centre to conduct workshops and develop resources about responsible partying, to inform and educate young people on the legalities of hosting parties.

We provided The Gap Pastimes Club Inc. with a grant of some $9,750 to install nine CCTV cameras to provide better surveillance of the clubhouse facility and the surround area. Similarly with Burnie Bray Centre, they have received a grant to install six CCTV cameras, to upgrade their lighting, to remove graffiti, and repair community garden infrastructure, particularly around foliage, to ensure a safe outcome.

Creative Doll in Woolloongabba has installed one additional camera to an existing CCTV system to deter any social activity at that centre. Eastern Suburbs Hockey Club were provided with a grant to upgrade and improve four security lights and install 10 CCTV cameras at the club facility within the Clem Jones Centre. Toombul District Cricket Club are installing sensor lights around the clubhouse, car park and the small shed area to deter vandalism and graffiti and to improve lighting to areas where the anti-social activity is occurring.

So these are some really clear examples—and in that last case, the sensor lighting one, $3,161; so all of these are adding to the safety and security of Brisbane.

Chairman: Thank you, LORD MAYOR; Councillor DICK.


Question 2

Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. You haven't published any of your decisions made at your weekly Civic Cabinet meetings on Council's website since November 2013. Why do you persist in delaying or hiding your Civic Cabinet decisions from the residents of Brisbane, and will you release these decisions today?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Councillor DICK, you have stumped me on that one, to be quite frank. I will certainly investigate that and get back to you with an answer before the day is out as to why that would be the case.

Chairman: Further questions; Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.


Question3

Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question this afternoon is to the Chairman of Finance, Economic Development and Administration Committee, Councillor SIMMONDS. I understand that the Brisbane Airport curfew has been lifted. Can you please explain what this will mean for our economy and for the wider Brisbane community?

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you to Councillor OWEN TAYLOR for the question and, of course, her continued interest in the economic growth of our city. Last week the Chamber will recall that the Federal Government announced that there would not be a curfew imposed on Brisbane Airport. This is significant and good news for our city. The Chamber might be interested to know that, in Committee this morning, we received a briefing on the latest modelling of just what an important and positive impact this will have for our city going forward.

In making the announcement last Thursday to the Tourism and Transport Forum, I note that the Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said these words: 'A curfew at Brisbane Airport would have had an ongoing impact on the Brisbane economy, not to mention the tourism industry. At the same time, it would have done very little to mitigate the aircraft noise impact, particularly during peak periods, on Brisbane residents.'

Brisbane City Council, of course, strongly welcomes this outcome having advocated for it in our submission, and given how clear the benefits are for our city. The committee heard this morning how the latest research from the economist Deloitte demonstrated that Brisbane Airport is estimated to contribute $5.4 billion in economic contribution this financial year alone. This is expected to grow by 2.5 times to a staggering $13.4 billion by 2033. This is in direct and indirect economic benefits.

We know already that Brisbane Airport is the nation's third-busiest airport, with more than 20 million passengers and 107,000 tonnes of air freight and mail moved during 2012. But, what is of particular interest to this Chamber is that, of that $5.4 billion in growth by 2033 that I mentioned, so this is in billions, $1.9 billion would have been wiped out through the introduction of a curfew. That is $1.9 billion less spent in our economy, in our city, that we can now count on thanks to the wise decision of the Federal Government. $1.9 billion in jobs, in money, to the local retail sector, into the tourism sector within our city.

If that wasn’t ample evidence enough, the analysis shows that within that lost economic growth, it would be Brisbane and South East Queensland that would bear the brunt of any of this loss. Of course, for those of us in favour of economic growth and jobs, and anti a curfew, it has always been pretty obvious that those politicians such as Councillor SUTTON and the former MP Kevin Rudd, who have been advocating for a curfew, have been far more interested in politics than the residents of this city.

Consider Councillor SUTTON's own words, Madam Chairman, her own comments on this issue. In an article titled 'Noise; What Noise?' by Tony Moore in 2009, Councillor SUTTON said she attended a meeting with Brisbane Airport Corporation and Seven Hills residents who live under the flight path. Her direct quote in the article was this: 'It happened to be on a night when there weren't many planes flying overhead, disappointingly.' Well, yes, it must be disappointing when reality doesn't meet your political expectations, your political argument. That must be frustrating.

It is the same frustration I suspect that overcame Councillor SUTTON this morning when she attacked officers during the presentation for not presenting the point of view that she wanted presented—a quite incredible comment from Councillor SUTTON this morning. As the Minister pointed out in his announcement, the nearest house to the airport is more than six kilometres from the runway, double the buffer at Melbourne Airport where there is currently no curfew.

When will Councillors opposite wake up to the fact that they are elected in this place to promote the growth of our city, not the growth of column inches that they achieve in their local paper?


Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS: I was reading through the Air Services—well, okay, I will take the interjection from Councillor NEWTON that they are representing the community. I read through some of the submissions. One of them, interestingly, quoted some Air Services Australia comments about how many complaints are made about aircraft noise.

It might interest the Chamber to k now that in the 12-month period to June 2013, three—that is three—one, two, three—individuals were responsible for 61 per cent of the total complaints made about aircraft noise. In a one-year period, those three individuals made over 3,000 complaints—between those three individuals. Now, some might wonder in this Chamber if one of them was Councillor SUTTON. Well, in the famous words of a politician, albeit a fictional one: 'You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

But what I can say is this to the Leader of the Opposition and the Councillors opposite: don't sell almost $2 billion in economic growth and jobs for this city down the river in an obscene example of politics over what is best for our city—

Chairman: Your time has expired, thanks, Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS: —support—

Chairman: Councillor DICK.



Question 4

Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. The E&C decision disclosures for E&C meetings prior to December 2013 published and on Council's website indicate that, on average, your Civic Cabinet makes just three decisions per week—the lowest rate of decisions in 20 years. Why are you only making three decisions per week, or are you simply hiding them from the public?

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, the decisions we make are big ones.

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: People can see—

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: —people can see—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

LORD MAYOR: —around this city that the decisions that we have made over the last decade have been game-changing decisions for Brisbane. Big infrastructure projects which have moved this city forward.

On the basis of Councillor DICK's question, it is a bit like: never mind the quantity, feel the width. The decisions that we have made have been decisions which have been all about making Brisbane Australia's New World City. They have been decisions based on economic growth for this city. They are decisions that are based on ensuring that we are planning for the future.

If you have a look at even the last 12 months, what have we produced? We have produced a new City Plan. We have produced a draft City Centre Master Plan which has now, of course, been approved by this Chamber. We have produced River's Edge Strategy. We have produced, and continue to roll out, an Access and Inclusion Plan. We have a youth strategy. There are all of the big ticket items that need to be done in terms of the city, moving it forward; they are all the things that are exercising this Cabinet's mind. We are less about the mundane and more about the making sure that the strategic direction of this city is the thing that we spend our time on.

Let's have a look at the Valley as an instance of that .About two years ago we set a pathway to—


Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON!

LORD MAYOR: —to put a new vision in place for Fortitude Valley as a Cabinet. Out of that we have now seen growth in the Fortitude Valley Chamber of Commerce from 150 to 400. We have got $1 billion worth of investment happening in that part of the city. These are the sorts of things that this Cabinet spends its time and its efforts upon—strategic direction for this city.

That is the long and the short of it. We can talk about numbers of submissions, and I don't know whether the claim being made by Councillor DICK is right or wrong, to be quite frank. I suspect it is probably not right, but I will just say this: it is about the quality of discussion, the direction of the city, that the people out there in the suburbs of this city want us to deal with. In the end, they will be the final judge and jury around this Cabinet and this Council, this Administration's performance.

Chairman: Further questions; Councillor McKENZIE.

Question 5

Councillor McKENZIE: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER. I read over the weekend that a parking sensor trial will be undertaken in order to ensure that residents have access to more on-street parking with greater turnover, which will ensure that car parking cheats are no longer able to hog valuable spots. Can you please explain in more detail why this trial is being undertaken and what it will mean—


Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS!

Councillor McKENZIE: —for Brisbane residents?

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you for the question, Councillor McKENZIE. Unlike the other side of the Chamber, this side is about results, not legislation, not more red tape and legislation—


Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —we're about results.

Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON! Just a minute, DEPUTY MAYOR—

DEPUTY MAYOR: Parking is an area that, as I said before—

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, just a minute.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Sorry.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, if you continue to interject in that way, you will be warned. Be quiet. DEPUTY MAYOR, thank you.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Parking is an area, as I said before, that this Council needs to do better in. The reality is, in a growing city—and every growing city faces the same challenge—there is a finite amount of on-street parking available, and as the city continues to grow, that space becomes more and more contested and more and more in demand.

So it is not a problem that other cities haven't faced, but it is a problem that growing cities around the world face, and Brisbane is no different. We need to do better in managing the use of that space to protect the residents and the business people, and also the schoolchildren in drop-off areas around the city so that parking restrictions, which exist for a reason, are enforced.

At the moment, as I said earlier, this piece of chalk is often the current best tool that we have in enforcing parking restrictions. Many of those time-limited parking restrictions are enforced using chalk at the moment. In a modern world, with all types of modern technology, we need to move past the chalk.

Councillors interjecting.

DEPUTY MAYOR: We need to do better—

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —than the chalk. So Brisbane City Council is going to trial some new technology with the aim of replacing the chalk. There are three types of technology, all in-ground parking sensors, that we will be trialling. I've got a little bit of show and tell here. It's been a little while since I've done show and tell, but I have the three parking sensors here.

This one here will be buried in the ground this way, covered over with a bit of bitumen. This one will be the same. They are essentially the same item; both are buried in the ground. This one here is actually bolted on top of the ground. So we are trialling all three different types of technologies from three providers to see which one suits Council's needs. And to see if it is indeed an effective replacement of chalk.

Why are we doing this? As I said, enforcement of parking restrictions, which exist for a reason, is there to protect the residents and businesses of this city. It is about ensuring the residents in areas such as the parking permit areas have a better chance of finding a park in their own street or in their own area. It is about ensuring that business people who rely on the turnover of those car parking spaces can ensure that people aren't over-staying and hogging those spaces.

We saw, for example, the owner of Mary Ryan's Bookstore out at Milton, who made the comment that the 15-minute zone out the front of his store was constantly being over-stayed, and that really cuts down on his customers' ability to find a park, and it costs him business, and it ultimately costs jobs. We know how precarious many businesses, particularly such as bookshops, are, and they need all the customers they can get, and they need effective management of parking to ensure that they can get the customers access to their particular premises.

So we are trialling these sensors, 300 of them in total, at various locations, including the CBD. They are also in Fortitude Valley, Teneriffe, Newstead and Milton. This trial will run for around three months. Once we've got the technology in the ground, obviously we'll be doing some testing on it, and then we will use it to determine the effectiveness of the three different types of technology.

One thing that is particularly interesting and worthwhile to Council is that it will provide data on the usage of each spot. So we will know how often a spot is turning over; we will know where the spots are being regularly abused, and we can obviously target our efforts according to that information. It is so much better in my view than the traditional form of chalking tyres, which is what is largely relied on at the moment.


Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: So, I say to all Councillors—

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS!

DEPUTY MAYOR: —this rollout and this trial is an opportunity for all of us to ensure that we do better for the community, that we protect the community, and make sure that the limited available on-street parking is better managed, and that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity of getting access to those spaces.

One example of where this technology can be used is in loading zones .Many of those loading zones around the city are two-minute zones. That two-minute zone is a fair and reasonable amount of time for people either to pick someone up or drop someone off. But if someone sits there for 10 minutes, they are robbing people of the opportunity to access that zone.

Chairman: Thank you, DEPUTY MAYOR; your time has expired. Before we continue, I would like acknowledge and welcome Councillor Mike Creed from the Hawkesbury City Council, who is in the Public Gallery joining us this afternoon. Welcome, Councillor Creed.

Further questions; Councillor SUTTON.


Question 6

Councillor SUTTON; Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Last week the DEPUTY MAYOR revealed $30 million would be needed to be set aside for land resumptions for Stage 1 of the Wynnum Road upgrade. Your colleagues have said that up to 130 properties may have to be resumed as part of your plan. Will you confirm that 130 figure today, and why are you refusing to still release the alignment maps for the Wynnum Road upgrade?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, can I just in responding to Councillor SUTTON, say this: the $30 million to which the DEPUTY MAYOR refers to, is an estimate, and it is a pretty rounded figure, $30 million. There is no detailed design plan for Wynnum Road at this stage. I made that clear to Councillor SUTTON and this Chamber last week.

So this is in its very early stages. As you know, Councillor SUTTON, there was a study done some years ago now, which outlined a number of options for Wynnum Road, and you have been—and I know, because I was the Infrastructure Chairman at the time and I gave you a briefing through the officers of the options surrounding the future of Wynnum Road.

But can I say to you that we are in the early stage period of working on Stage 1 of that Wynnum Road upgrade. We have indicated, through the DEPUTY MAYOR last week, that there could be around $30 million involved in resumptions. But we don't know precisely which properties. We don't know, because there is no detailed design. What I am saying to you is that you have to be careful not to get overly excited at this early stage. When we get to a detailed design, we will then know—we will then know the sorts of properties that might be implicated, and we will absolutely be out on the doorsteps of those people making sure that, at that stage, they are aware of the implications.

But I am concerned that the Labor Party, by running around as they are at the moment, is simply going to be acting to the detriment of those residents. It will have a negative impact upon them, and I just caution you all to just slow it down a bit. We are a while off getting any road works happening in Wynnum Road. We will be a while off getting any road works in Wynnum Road. The first stage of that will obviously be in terms of any requirements for land in regard to the road widening. That will be the first stage. We will have to undertake resumption of certain lands.

But I am not going to pre-empt which properties at this time, because there is no detailed design. I have been through enough projects to know that there can be great shifts between a concept plan and a detailed design. I have been around long enough to know that the last thing you want to do is to put people in a position where their property becomes more difficult to sell because of people scaring the horses. Until we reach a detailed design plan, I would just suggest that everybody takes a deep breath in relation to this project.

There will be some very clear opportunities and provisions made through the budget process this year which will show the rollout in terms of the project itself—stage 1 of the Wynnum Road upgrade. Again, the local Councillor will be given every advice once we reach that point of a detailed design plan, the implications, and the properties affected, as indeed will the individual householders. I cannot say, and I am not going to say, any more about this than that, because that is the truth of the matter.

So, Madam Chairman, again, is it an important project? Yes, it is. Councillor SUTTON has indicated previously her support for the Wynnum Road upgrade.


Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Well, that's good. Because, you know, it is not going to be an easy project. I have sort of said that from day one, and I am prepared to wear any heat that there will be associated with the upgrade. We have been through many projects like this where it has been difficult—Clem7 was difficult, but it had to happen. Other projects around this city have been difficult. I faced the shouting crowds of the Hale Street link, now the Go Between Bridge—and they are the biggest users, the ones that were shouting at me.

So, Madam Chairman, these are the realities of life. But we are committed to the Stage 1 upgrade, but again, until we know what that detail design includes, it would be, I think, wrong, wrong and doing a disservice to people that live along that corridor to be speculating over which properties may or may not be involved until we are in a better position to know.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS! Councillor WINES.

Question 7

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the Brisbane Lifestyle Committee, Councillor ADAMS. I understand that when people park inappropriately in disabled spots, they are being fined in a number of shopping centres across our city following memorandums of understanding (MOU) between Council and these private companies. Can you please explain the sorts of projects that benefit from these PINs (Penalty Infringement Notice), as I understand that money from these fines goes directly to Access and Inclusion programs?

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Councillor WINES for the question. I will be talking later in the Committee presentation about our program and our MOUs that we have with our private companies, but I would like to this opportunity from that question to talk about the type of projects that we are directly funding from this fantastic project. As the LORD MAYOR said before, Access and inclusion is one that is dear to our heart, getting on with the business of making Brisbane more accessible and more inclusive to all our residents in Brisbane.

First of all, imagine how you would feel if you suffered from a disability or you're a carer-driver, and you've turned up at the pre-designated park that has the big blue sign on the ground, and an able-bodied person had parked there just for their convenience, or they had missed they sign on the ground—oops, oops. Well, I know I get frustrated not being able to find a park full stop, so I can just imagine if you had to then manage yourself with a wheelchair or somebody you were looking after with a wheelchair as well.

We are hoping that these MOUs are going to take away some of that frustration and that people will realise that irresponsible shoppers who are doing the wrong thing in these spaces will eventually got caught, because we are spreading our compliance around these disability sites, and more importantly, they are going to be actually enhancing our facilities and services for people with disability by contributing to our Access and Inclusion programs.

So, as mentioned in the question, 2010-11 budget, the LORD MAYOR announced that the revenue from disability parking infringements would go directly to projects that benefited people with a disability, to improve our accessibility in Council services and facilities. This is not just from the MOUs that we've got with our private sector as well; it is also about all our disability parking across Brisbane as well. I have to say, as far as compliance goes, we are getting good results, because we are reducing the number of fines that we have since 2011. We are looking at about 1,400-plus fines in the 2011-12 financial year. We are on track to get that below 1,000 this year as we did last year. So compliance-wise, great news; not so great for our projects, but we continue with our budgeted program of Access and Inclusion, and this just adds on to that fantastic rollout of programs.

To give you a bit of an idea of what we actually look at for the guidelines for this revenue, we are looking around enhancing the access to a range of our mainstream projects and our services and facilities. This is not about our DDA compliance; that is a given that we do DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliance in Brisbane City Council. This is not about replacing our accessibility projects, but it is about funding and enhancing our existing facilities. So, where we may have a facility that is already built to the requirements of disability and access, we are actually wanting to make that facility above and beyond to become best practice example of access improvement as well.

We are making sure that we are nice and flexible around our Access and Inclusion projects, and we are trying to spread them across quite a range of different facilities in Brisbane City Council as well. So, some of the important projects that we have seen supported over the last couple of years—our Braille Trail through the City Mall and Post Office Square is a fantastic enhancement to the lives of those who are vision impaired and coming to visit our city. It makes us the most independently mobile city in the country. It is 1.6 kilometres, a pathway of bright yellow paving with dots and dashes to help those vision impaired get around our malls.

The Guide Dogs Queensland representatives said they loved the Braille Trail when we did the media out there last year, and they congratulate Brisbane City Council and hoping that it gets expanded out across the city for the vision impaired. We have also had a $98,000 upgrade to six of our community gardens. We know community gardens have been really ramped up in the last few years, but we are making sure that everybody can access community gardens as well. So Yoorala Street Community Garden at The Gap, Abbeville Street at Upper Mt Gravatt, Sandgate PCYC (Police-Citizens Youth Clubs) and the Lota-Wynnum Community Garden—they all looked at fantastic upgrades that gave them footpaths or raised beds and access for those in wheelchairs and with disabilities, to get in and be part of the community and share that experience of working in the garden and getting their hands dirty, and then actually being able to enjoy the foods that you've actually grown yourself.

The Banyo Community Garden had $15,900 spent on it, making their paths more accessible. The Multi-cap is the licence of the Banyo Community Garden, so they work in partnership with Earnshaw College, so we've got the schools coming on board, the Northside Multicultural Association, so we've got all the local community groups coming in, and multi-cap clients can use their wheelchairs to join with the school kids and the multicultural groups to enjoy that community garden.

We also looked at services to support Kingfisher Adult Learning programs as well in their community garden, which is another fantastic group that does so much in our Access and inclusion. Madam Chair, of course the Wynnum wading pool is our classic—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor ADAMS—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order—

Chairman: —your time has expired.

Councillor ADAMS: —and I am very proud of our projects.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON.


Question 8

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is again to the LORD MAYOR. You say that there are no detailed design plans for the options canvassed in the 2009 feasibility report on the Wynnum Road upgrade. That feasibility report contained 14 different options for the upgrade. These are the preliminary design plans for two of the options from that report. These plans do exist. My question to you is this: ‘which option of that report have you decided to pursue as your preferred alignment, and why won't you release the preliminary design plans for this option at the very least to the local councillors if you want to keep them confidential to the community?’

LORD MAYOR: Yes, I can just see Councillor ABRAHAMS doing that, Madam Chairman. But can I just say this in regards to the preliminary design plans—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: —Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor ABRAHAMS: Point of order, madam Chair.


Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Yes, point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Order! Order! Yes, Councillor ABRAHAMS.

Councillor ABRAHAMS: The LORD MAYOR was imputing—

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS, your microphone is not on.

Councillor ABRAHAMS: The LORD MAYOR was imputing motive, and I ask you to detract it.

Chairman: I don't think he was, Councillor ABRAHAMS.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, if I caused offence in any way, I am happy to withdraw for Councillor ABRAHAMS' sake. But she is very active and I give full marks to her, full marks to her for that.

Can I just say in response to Councillor SUTTON's question—and I made reference to this when I answered her previous question—there were a range of options that were out there, and Councillor SUTTON was privy to those. She was given advice as to all sorts of maps and so forth. This was done through a private sector company, I might say, in terms of developing up a whole range of options. So, again I can only reiterate what I said in answer to the previous question: ‘we are not yet at a stage of any detailed design.’

In fact, Councillor SUTTON I believe would be aware of the program in relation to this road project. I am quite happy to share that with the Chamber today. For the next period of months, we will be bedding down a business case in relation to this project. From July of this year through to December of this year, we will be developing a final concept design plan.

That then will go out to public consultation, stakeholder engagement. From there, we will get into the detailed planning, putting together the detailed design around that. Again, there will be a further period of consultation with this project. This is the standard process or practice that we use on all road projects. So it is that then the allocations relative to the budget will be set aside each year until stage 1 is completed.

So, Madam Chairman, there is a way to go yet before such time as we reach a stage where there will be bulldozers out on Wynnum Road. That is why I just say that everyone just needs to take a bit of a deep breath on this. We've got to go through some work yet before we will be at that stage.

Councillor SUTTON—and indeed, I might say, more so Councillor ABRAHAMS—will be brought in to the loop on this because stage 1, as I said last week, really does affect Councillor ABRAHAMS's ward far more than it does Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON's constituents will be the beneficiary of stage 1, no doubt about it, and that would apply equally to Councillor MURPHY's and Councillor CUMMING's constituents. They will all be the beneficiaries of stage 1 because it will take out some of the congestion points leading in to around the entry point to Clem7 and the Story Bridge.

So, Madam Chairman, there will be further stages at some time in the future, and I am not going today nominate when, because I don't know, myself, at this stage. But stage 1, certainly, we have a plan, we have a program—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Yes; point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: I have listened to the LORD MAYOR with respect, but my specific question at this time was: which option of the feasibility report have you decided to pursue as your preferred alignment?

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Now, I am grateful for the information he has given, but—

Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON!

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, there is no answer to that question. We haven't landed on any position in relation to the question that Councillor SUTTON is putting. So that is my direct answer to her. We have no position relative to those two plans that she refers to.

What I am saying to her—and she is aware of this, as I understand it—and that is that there is a clear program rollout in terms of business case, concept plan, community consultation, more detailed planning and design after that community consultation process, and then, after that detailed design plan, we get into more consultation around that before we get to the stage of acquisition of lands. So, again, we are a way off, and I am concerned that the continued—well, I am just hoping that the local Councillors do the right thing by those local residents at this stage. Until we reach that appropriate time in the process, it ought not be a case of creating an affected position on those residents unnecessarily.

Chairman: Further questions; Councillor HOWARD.


Question 9

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee, Councillor COOPER. I understand that this Administration is delivering on the planned outcomes for the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan. Can you please outline the planning requirements with regards to the public open space provisions in the plan?

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank Councillor HOWARD for the question. I think the LORD MAYOR is absolutely right when he said earlier that Councillor ABRAHAMS is being very active in her local area, but not necessarily accurate. I think it is important—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor COOPER: I think it is important to be very clear as to what is going on with respect to the planning in her local area. I think Councillor ABRAHAMS seems to be suggesting that the LORD MAYOR has broken a commitment for a new public park on the former Distance Education site. Madam Chair, this is completely false. There has never been a park identified at 405 Montague Road, West End—

Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor COOPER: —commonly known as the Distance Education site. It has never been zoned as parkland, nor has a park been identified on this location. In fact, if you refer to the relevant planning documents, a little further to the north, at the end of Bailey Street, you will see that Council has identified an area for new public open space, indeed.

So let's have a look—and I think it is good for the Chamber to actually review the planning and the community engagement that went on for South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan. Between August and September of 2009, a draft renewal strategy for the Neighbourhood Plan was released for public comment, and there is muttering from Councillor ABRAHAMS—she is quickly checking her facts. Perhaps she should have done that a little bit earlier, Madam Chair.


Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor COOPER: If we have a look at the plan, so we've got a document here, Precinct 7, Riverside South. If we have a look at the area in question, this area shows an opportunity for new open space, or urban plaza, at the end of Bailey Street. That is here, attachment A; we've got it all outlined.

Let's have a look at the publicly notified version of the draft Riverside Neighbourhood Plan in 2010 which clearly shows the Distance Education site, this site down here, Madam Chair. What is on that site?



Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS!

Councillor COOPER: Mixed use.

Chairman: Stop interjecting.

Councillor COOPER: Perhaps if she would pay attention, she might understand exactly what is in the planning documents. On that location, the publicly notified version of South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan 2010 shows the Distance Education site zoned as mixed use, medium density residential, with new public open space at the end of Bailey Street. Then, the final adopted version of the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan—

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor COOPER: —again shows the location of the new public open space at the end of Bailey Street. It seems to be there's a theme developing.

In terms of these planning documents, they show very clearly what we are talking about.


Councillors interjecting.

Chairman: Order!

Councillor COOPER: Then if we look at the Priority Infrastructure Plan 2012, Distance Education site, I see nothing—I see nothing proposed as a part of that document. So that does not include any trunk infrastructure on the Distance Education site.

Priority Infrastructure Plan 2014, again, Distance Education site, no trunk infrastructure on that proposed site. So I would say to Councillor ABRAHAMS, if she's got any evidence, any evidence, to the contrary, I would like to see that evidence, not just the theorising, not just the public commentary; I would like to see evidence in relation to her contention. Because it seems very clear when we look at the facts of the matter, Council has never zoned the Distance Education site as parkland. It has not been included in the Priority Infrastructure Plan for park during the neighbourhood plan process, or City Plan, or the Priority Infrastructure Plan process.

So this is very clear evidence to the contrary of the points made by Councillor ABRAHAMS. If we have a look at the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan with regard to new public open space in City Plan 2000, what does it say? If we look at page 241—I've got that right before me—it says, on sites where identified on Map C, on any site where these new public open spaces are to be provided, on any site equal to or greater than 10,000 square metres, one hectare, a minimum of 20 per cent of the site is to be publicly accessible. Publicly accessible, Madam Chair, all in the planning document.

So, the delivery of this provision would be assessed as part of any development application received. So, let's be clear: there were no changes made to the above in the conversion of the plan to new City Plan with the exception of a terminology change—

Chairman: Councillor COOPER, your time has expired; thank you.

Councillor COOPER: Madam Chair, it is clearly untrue.

Chairman: Thank you. That ends Question Time.





Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page