Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities	14
2	Naming Application 1416/2019/NAME - Multi-Purpose Sports Hall and Community Centre - 134A Parkland Drive, Springfield Central	107
3	Court Action Status Report	112
4	Exercise Of Delegations Report	120
5	Men's Shed Proposal at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre	131
6	Repeal of Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Spring Creek Bridge, Mt Mort Rehabilitation Project	215
7	Acquisition of Land for the Spring Creek Bridge Rehabilitation Project	225
8	Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Loder Road, Thagoona Drainage Project Amendment	233
9	Council Service Relocations - S235 Other Exceptions Local Government Regulation 2012	240
10	Infrastructure Delivery Progress as at 26 March 2019	244
11	Heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, Goodna	255
12	**Deebing Creek Bikeway Corridor Plan - Stages 2 to 5	266
13	**12839 Rosewood Library Construction	276
14	**Road Dedication to facilitate the construction of Binnies Road and associated infrastructure between Grampian Drive and Daleys Road	295

Growth and Infrastructure Committee NO. 4

9 April 2019

AGENDA

1. Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities

With reference to a report concerning a new and improved governance framework for processing development applications and for development related activities, which is comprised of new, amended and repealed delegations, policies and procedures.

Recommendation

A. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Implementation of the Planning and Development Program’, as per Item 2 of the Planning and Development Committee No. 2015(08) of 18 August 2015 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 25 August 2015, be amended as detailed in Attachment 1 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated
22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

B. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Planning Act 2016’, as per Item 5 of the Planning and Development Heritage Committee No. 2017(05) of 23 May 2017 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 30 May 2017, be amended as detailed in Attachment 2 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

C. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Sustainable Planning Act 2009’, as per Item 5 of the Planning and Development Heritage Committee No. 2017(05) of 23 May 2017 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 30 May 2017, be amended as detailed in Attachment 3 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

D. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Exercise the Powers of Council under the Economic Development Act 2012’, as per Item 12 of the Growth and Infrastructure Committee of 27 November 2018 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 4 December 2018, be amended as detailed in Attachment 4 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

E. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Planning and Environment Court Act 2016’, as per Item 1 of the Planning, Development and Heritage Committee No. 2017(07) of 18 July 2017 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 25 July 2017, be amended as detailed in Attachment 5 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

F. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Determination of Development Applications, Precinct Plans, Area Development Plans and Related Matters’, as per Item 5 of the Planning and Development Committee No. 2009 (03) of 17 March 2009 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 24 March 2009, be amended as detailed in Attachment 6 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

G. That the policy titled ‘Property Numbering Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 7 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 1 April 2019, as per Item 1 of the Policy and Administration Board No. 2012(06) of 21 August 2012 - City Management and Finance Committee No. 2012(05) of 28 August 2012 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 4 September 2012, be repealed as of 1 July 2019.

H. That the policy titled ‘Kerbside Numbering Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 8 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 1 April 2019, as per Item 21.03 of the Works Committee No. 2004(10) of 6 September 2004 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 15 September 2004, be repealed as of 1 July 2019.

I. That the policy titled ‘Settlement of Planning and Development Appeals Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 9 of the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 1 April 2019, as per Item 1 of the Policy and Administration Board No. 2012(06) of 21 August 2012 - City Management and Finance Committee No. 2012(05) of 28 August 2012 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 4 September 2012, be repealed as of 1 July 2019.

J. That the policy titled ‘Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities’, as detailed in Attachment 10 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 1 April 2019, be adopted, with a delayed commencement of 1 July 2019, and 2 September 2019 for the section of the Policy which relates to the ‘Independent Decision Review Panel’.

2. Naming Application 1416/2019/NAME - Multi-Purpose Sports Hall and Community Centre - 134A Parkland Drive, Springfield Central

With reference to a report concerning the naming of a multi-purpose sports hall and community centre that is currently under construction by the Department of Education on Council owned land at 134A Parkland Drive, Springfield Central (Lot 1200 on SP283567). The purpose of the building is to meet the needs of the Springfield Central State High School for school purposes as well as incorporating a Council community centre facility to meet the needs of the local community.

Recommendation

A. That Council approve the naming of the multi-purpose sports hall and community centre at 134A Parkland Drive, Springfield Central, as outlined on the proposal plan designated “Place Naming at 134A Parkland Drive, Springfield Central”, as follows:

Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall

B. That the applicant, together with other relevant authorities and interested parties be advised of the above recommendation.

3. Court Action Status Report

With reference to a report by the Acting Development Planning Manager dated
29 March 2019 concerning the status of outstanding court actions.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

4. Exercise Of Delegations Report

With reference to a report by the Acting Development Planning Manager dated
29 March 2019 concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 5 March 2019 to 28 March 2019.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

5. Men's Shed Proposal at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre

With reference to a report concerning the proposed provision of a Men’s Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council decline the Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. request for space at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre for the construction of, and operation of a Men’s Shed as detailed in the report by the Principal Officer (Sport and Recreation Programs) dated 26 March 2019.

B. That Council continue preparation of the Draft Land Management Plan for the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre to extend the length of stay for camping from 3 days (up to 7 days upon Council approval) to 14 days (up to 21 days upon Council approval) without provision for a Men’s Shed.

C. That Council develop a policy on future Council support and assistance for the provision and operation of Community groups and facilities in Ipswich.

6. Repeal of Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Spring Creek Bridge,
Mt Mort Rehabilitation Project

With reference to a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 20 March 2019 concerning the repealing of the decision for the Acquisition of Drainage Easement for the Spring Creek Bridge Rehabilitation Project (A5314097).

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the previous decision of Council in relation to the Acquisition of Drainage Easement for the Spring Creek Bridge, Mt Mort Rehabilitation Project, as per Item No. 2 of the Growth and Infrastructure Committee No. 2019(02) of 19 February 2019 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 26 February 2019, as detailed in Attachment 1 of the report by the Senior Property Officer dated 20 March 2019, be repealed.

7. Acquisition of Land for the Spring Creek Bridge Rehabilitation Project

With reference to a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 21 March 2019 concerning the acquisition of land for road purposes for the Spring Creek Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) exercise its power as a “constructing authority” under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 to acquire the following property for road purposes:

a. Part of Lot 49 on RP46754, 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort

B. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate compensation and perform any other matters, arising out of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise, and to do any other acts necessary to implement the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009, to acquire the land.

8. Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Loder Road, Thagoona Drainage Project Amendment

With reference to a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 21 March 2019 concerning amendments to the committee report titled “Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Loder Road, Thagoona Drainage Project Amendment, as detailed in the report by the Senior Property Officer dated 11 January 2019, adopted at the Growth and Infrastructure Committee No. 2019 (2) of 19 February 2019.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) having duly considered this report dated 21 March 2019, be of the opinion that the following properties (shown in Attachments 1 and 2) (‘the land’) require an easement for drainage purposes:

a. Part of Lot 7 on RP85362, 6-8 Thagoona Haigslea Road, Thagoona (100m²)

b. Part of Lot 6 on RP85362, 10 Thagoona Haigslea Road, Thagoona (101m²)

c. Easement ‘A’ of Lot 10 on RP85362, 33 Rosewood-Thagoona Road, Thagoona be increased an additional 140m².

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) exercise its power as a “constructing authority” under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and acquire the easements, (as described in Recommendation A of this report dated 21 March 2019) for drainage purposes.

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate compensation and perform any other matters, arising out of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise, and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision to acquire this land in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

9. Council Service Relocations - S235 Other Exceptions Local Government Regulation 2012

With reference to a report concerning evoking Section 235 ‘Other Exceptions’ under the Local Government Regulation 2012. By resolution this will enable Council to enter into medium and large contractual arrangements when works are required to be undertaken by asset owners at the request of Council. These works will generally pertain the physical relocation of the asset, but may extend to other general asset works.

‘Assets owners’ for the purpose of this report can be defined as the owner of an asset which requires Council to request works or relocation activities be undertaken by the asset owner to enable the delivery of Council works.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve it is satisfied under section 235(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Regulation) that the exception under s235(b) of the Regulation applies and that the telecommunication and utility providers are the only suppliers reasonably available to provide relocation services and other general works for the following reason:

1. The assets are owned by the telecommunication and utility providers and as such, they are solely responsible for works associated with these assets.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) enter into individual contracts with telecommunication and utility providers as required for the provision of non-Council asset associated works.

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of the contracts to be executed by Council and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

10. Infrastructure Delivery Progress as at 26 March 2019

With reference to a report by the Commercial Finance Manager dated 26 March 2019 concerning the Infrastructure Services monthly activity report for March 2019.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

11. Heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, Goodna

With reference to a report by the Principal Engineer (Infrastructure Planning) concerning heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, Goodna to access the Redbank Industrial Peninsula.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council continue to monitor traffic data on Brisbane Terrace, Goodna, particularly the percentage of heavy vehicles, as part of its annual citywide strategic traffic count program.

12. **Deebing Creek Bikeway Corridor Plan - Stages 2 to 5

With reference to a report by the Senior Transport Planner dated 8 March 2019 concerning the outcomes of a corridor planning study for stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the preferred route alignment and configuration of Stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway, as outlined in the report by the Senior Transport Planner dated 8 March 2019, be adopted as the preferred configuration and be used to inform future detailed design activities.

B. That the footprint and network integrity of the adopted configuration of Stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway (refer Recommendation A above) be protected through Council’s strategic corridor preservation, tactical property acquisition and development assessment activities.

C. That the properties identified in the report by the Senior Transport Planner dated 8 March 2019 as being impacted by the future footprint of the adopted alignment and configuration of Stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway (refer Recommendation A above) be flagged as an interest to Council for future strategic active transport purposes in Council’s property database.

D. That the ‘order of cost’ identified in the report by the Senior Transport Planner dated 8 March 2019 for the preferred alignment (refer Recommendation A above) be noted and considered for future investment programming activities.

E. That an appropriate communication strategy be developed and implemented on the intent of the Deebing Creek Bikeway and the details of each respective stage as they progress to detailed design.

13. **12839 Rosewood Library Construction

With reference to a report by the Principal Officer (Contracts and Procurement) concerning the tender evaluation and subsequent contract award of Contract Number 12839 Rosewood Library Construction.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Tender No. 12839 for the Construction of Rosewood Library be awarded to the preferred contractor.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) enter into a contract with the preferred contractor for the Construction of Rosewood Library for the sum of Six million and sixty nine thousand, two hundred and twenty four dollars ($6,069,224).

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of the contract to be executed by Council and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

14. **Road Dedication to facilitate the construction of Binnies Road and associated infrastructure between Grampian Drive and Daleys Road

With reference to a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 19 March 2019 concerning the disposal of Council freehold land located at Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights (Lot 902) to facilitate the construction of Binnies Road and associated infrastructure between Grampian Drive and Daleys Road. This road project, which is located within the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area, is being pursued by Orchard Property Group (OPG) to provide access to their Daleys Road Development Project.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) that the exception referred to in section 236(1)(c)(i) of the Regulation applies to Council for the disposal of 541m² of vacant freehold land located at Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights, described as Lot 902 SP187287 (“the land”) to be dedicated as road to facilitate the Binnies Road, Ripley development by Orchard Property Group.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to dedicate as road part of Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights, described as Lot 902 SP187287 as detailed in the report by the Senior Property Officer dated 19 March 2019.

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of the proposed road dedication as detailed in Recommendations A and B of the report by the Senior Property Officer dated 19 March 2019 and do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

** Item includes confidential papers

and any other items as considered necessary.

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5426926

1 April 2019

TO: Acting City Planner

FROM: Acting Development Planning Manager

RE: Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities

Introduction

This is a report concerning a new and improved governance framework for processing development applications and for development related activities, which is comprised of new, amended and repealed delegations, policies and procedures.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related party matters associated with this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

Development applications and related activities are critical to Council’s growth and are therefore a fundamental part of Council’s business. These activities are of interest to multiple Council departments and other government agencies, the community and the development industry.

Ipswich is a significant growth area in the South East Queensland Region, with our population expected to more than double by 2041. The Ipswich Planning Scheme, and in turn development applications are the legislative vehicle through which this growth is managed. The development of land in Ipswich is regulated and influenced by various pieces of Commonwealth, State and Local legislation, and these legislative provisions define a strict framework prescribing what can and cannot be required by Council (including elements considered in the assessment of applications, and limitations on development conditions) and timeframes for decisions on various matters. Importantly, different legislative provisions apply in different areas of the City (i.e. the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area, and Springfield), which can impact the methodology for the processing of development applications.

Council does not currently have an overarching policy setting out the Council specific framework and core principles for processing development applications and development related activities and instead has relied predominantly upon the requirements of relevant legislation. At present, the operating framework and processes undertaken stem from multiple different instruments, including legislation, delegations, policies dealing with individual matters (such as the resolution of appeals), or procedures dealing with individual matters. In some instances, work practices are undertaken based on directions agreements and established practices that have existed for many years, and are not expressed in any single delegation, policy or procedure. As a result, this framework lacks transparency and in some instances is administratively burdensome and inefficient, which can cause inconsistencies and stakeholder confusion.

The core objective of the work documented in this report, including the instruments it proposes to adopt or amend, is to identify and compile the strategic directions, principles and work practices to be followed in the processing of development applications and development related activities. This will be reflected in updated delegations, policies and procedures, which will be able to be adjusted and built upon by Council over time to respond to changes in legislation, technological advancements and community needs.

The following sections provide a summary of the new or changed instruments which are to be adopted, or the recommended course of action.

Delegations

The various delegations relating to decision making for development applications all currently contain conditions which require a consultation process with elected representatives to be followed prior to the exercise of the delegation for all applications, excluding those of a very minor nature. Pursuant to these delegations, each development assessment decision is sent via email in draft form to the Chairperson of the (former) Planning, Development and Heritage Committee (and in instances where they are also the divisional Councillor, the deputy Chairperson of the Committee) and the relevant divisional Councillor, with a copy provided to the Mayor, and the adjoining divisional Councillor where the application is within 50m of a divisional boundary line. The consultation email contains the following response options:

I note the proposed exercise of delegated power [ ]

I request the matter be referred to the Planning & Development Committee [ ]

I wish to declare a material personal interest in the matter [ ]

I request the matter be held pending clarification of issue(s) below [ ]

I wish to declare a conflict of interest in the matter [ ]

COMMENTS/ISSUES (if any):

The Councillor then has an established timeframe to respond, including a ‘reminder’ process should a response not be received within the initial timeframe. This framework lacks transparency, is administratively burdensome and inefficient, causes delays to the release of decisions on simple and compliant matters, and invites a potential risk of inappropriate influence by Councillors in development application decision making.

In order to correct these issues, the existing delegations to the Chief Executive Officer are proposed to be amended as follows:

· Amend the Delegation titled ‘Implementation of the Planning and Development Program’ as per Attachment 1. Specifically, remove the consultation requirements, and require any exercise of the delegation to be in accordance with a proposed new policy titled Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities.

· Amend the Delegation titled ‘Planning Act 2016’ as per Attachment 2. Specifically, remove the consultation requirements, and require any exercise of the delegation to be in accordance with a proposed new policy titled Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities.

· Amend the Delegation titled ‘Sustainable Planning Act 2009’ as per Attachment 3. Specifically, remove the consultation requirements, and require any exercise of the delegation to be in accordance with a proposed new policy titled Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities.

· Amend the Delegation titled ‘Exercise the Powers of Council under the Economic Development Act 2012’ as per Attachment 4. Specifically, remove the consultation requirements, and require any exercise of the delegation to be in accordance with a proposed new policy titled Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities.

· Amend the Delegation titled ‘Planning and Environment Court Act 2016’ as per Attachment 5. Specifically, remove the consultation requirements, and require any exercise of the delegation to be in accordance with a proposed new policy titled Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities.

· Amend the Delegation titled ‘Determination of Development Applications, Precinct Plans, Area Development Plans and Related Matters’ as per Attachment 6. Specifically, remove the consultation requirements, and require any exercise of the delegation to be in accordance with a proposed new policy titled Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities.

Notably, the proposed changes to delegations have been reviewed by the Acting City Solicitor. Furthermore, the proposed new policy titled ‘Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities’ which is referred to in the proposed changes to delegations is included as Attachment 10 and discussed further below. In order to allow sufficient time to prepare and adopt the various sub-delegations and amend business practices to reflect these changes, it is recommended that the commencement of the amended delegations be delayed until 1 July 2019 to enable business readiness improvements to be implemented, including resolution of current applications to minimise impact on business processes.

Policies

As noted above, council does not currently have a single policy stating the Council specific framework and core principles for processing development applications and development related activities. The Planning and Development Department is responsible for a number of policies relating to incentives and dispensations which affect the application of the planning scheme requirements, and individual policies in relation to kerbside numbering, property numbering, and the settlement of Planning and Development Appeals. A new, overarching policy titled ‘Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities’ (refer Attachment 10) is proposed to be adopted, part of which will impact the operation of the delegations discussed above. The kerbside numbering, property numbering and settlement of Planning and Development Appeals policies are proposed to be repealed, and the strategic information from these policies reflected in the new Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities policy.

The following key points are noted in relation to the proposed new Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy:

· In place of the existing consultation requirements, all development applications and requests which are generally in accordance with the planning scheme and relevant legislative framework are to be determined under delegation by officers with the appropriate qualifications and experience, with an initial notification provided to the Mayor and Councillors of applications lodged in the previous week, and a record of the exercise of any delegation to decide a development application or request reported to the next practicable Committee meeting.

· The policy provides for certain applications to be reviewed by Committee and decided by Full Council, as follows:

o If the development application or request requires public notification and more than 20 properly made submissions are received objecting to the proposed development.

o If any part of the development application is for a Variation Request (which in simple terms can have a similar effect to a planning scheme amendment or rezoning).

o If the Chief Executive Officer determines that the scale, scope, nature and sensitivity of the application or request warrants a Council decision;

o If an application or request involves a matter of Strategic Public Interest or a Strategic Policy Issue, including as a result of a request from the Mayor or a Councillor to consider a matter to be of Strategic Public Interest or involve a Strategic Policy Issue.

o If a development application has been made by Council or a commercial entity of Council, and does not relate to the provision of standard local government infrastructure and facilities such as parks (including canteens, storage sheds, lighting and other similar facilities within parks), roads, libraries, community centres or meeting rooms, art and cultural facilities (including public art), emergency services facilities, utilities or the like.

The detailed procedure to be followed to implement these arrangements is outlined within the proposed new ‘Planning and Development Decision Making Procedure’ (refer Attachment 13 and the section below). A delayed commencement of 1 July 2019 is proposed for these arrangements to enable the various sub delegations to be prepared to reflect the delegation changes and give effect to this part of the policy, and to enable business readiness improvements to be implemented, including resolution of current applications to minimise impact on business processes.

· A more robust and detailed complexity rating system for development applications and requests is proposed to be implemented to categorise applications into three complexity ratings which reflect the consistency of the application with the legislative framework, the scale of the application and any identified risks to Council and the community associated with the processing of the application. The proposed new ‘Planning and Development Decision Making Procedure’ provides for increased scrutiny for applications with a higher complexity rating. The proposed new Complexity Rating Procedure is included as Attachment 14.

· The development industry are our customers as are the community. Our customers should expect the following:

o Respect: We welcome you and will listen to you and work with you to understand your individual needs.

o Easy access to Services: We will give you efficient access to the right services to facilitate development activities.

o Quality Information: We are committed to providing you with consistent, accurate and relevant information.

o Consultation: We value your feedback and we will work with you to understand how to improve our services.

o Respond: We will respond with care, courtesy and in a timely manner.

These values should be part of everything we do, and have therefore been embedded into the policy.

· As an additional innovation, the proposed new policy provides for an Independent Decision Review Panel consisting of one or more independent technical expert members to be established to review development applications for Sensitive Development Matters. Sensitive Development Matters are defined to include applications where a potential conflict of interest exists (including applications made by Council or a commercial entity of Council which do not relate to the provision of standard local government infrastructure and facilities, a Councillor or immediate family member, or a member of the Queensland Parliament or Parliament of the Commonwealth), or any development application or request which is particularly contentious, controversial or involves a significant departure from the planning scheme.

To appropriately implement and give effect to a number of the matters contained in the proposed new policy, a subsequent body of work is required to prepare new financial delegations, sub-delegations, a number of new procedures and changes to work practices and accordingly, a delayed commencement of the policy of 1 July 2019 is proposed to enable this work to occur. Furthermore, additional time is required to establish the procedure for operation of the Independent Decision Review Panel and as such, a delayed commencement of 2 September 2019 is proposed for the section of the Policy which relates to the ‘Independent Decision Review Panel’.

Procedures

The proposed new Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy refers to a number of procedures which provide the detail on roles, responsibilities and actions for officers to achieve the proposed policy outcomes. A description of these procedures under the headings contained in the proposed new Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy is set out below:

· Decision Process for Development Applications and Requests: The main procedure which has been drafted to implement this section of the policy is titled ‘Planning and Development Decision Making’, and included as Attachment 13. This new procedure will replace the existing ‘Consultation Procedures - Development Assessment Decisions’, which is proposed to be repealed on 1 July 2019.

· Complexity Rating: The ‘Complexity Rating of Development Applications and Requests’ procedure has been drafted to implement this section of the policy, and included as Attachment 14, for commencement on 1 July 2019.

· Customer Service Charter: The Planning and Development Department currently has a Customer Service Charter which complies with this section of the proposed new Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy. The Customer Service Charter is proposed to be updated and promoted leading up to the proposed commencement of the new framework on 1 July 2019. The Planning and Development Department also currently has a ‘Development Pre-lodgement Meetings Procedure’, and only minor changes are required to this existing procedure to fit in with the proposed new operating framework, which are reflected in Attachment 16.

· Initial Development Assessment Panel (IDAP): This policy outcome currently occurs pursuant to the existing Integrated Development Assessment Panel (IDAP) Procedure. Only minor changes are required to this existing procedure to fit in with the proposed new operating framework, which are reflected in draft form in Attachment 17.

· Draft Conditions: The draft conditions policy outcome is built into the proposed new Planning and Development Decision Making Procedure (refer Attachment 13).

· Legal Matters: A number of procedures and work practices currently exist in relation to the management of legal matters, including the Resolution of Planning and Development Appeals Procedure, Springfield Structure Plan Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure, Councillor Notification of Impending Legal Action or Significant or Sensitive Development Proposals Procedure, and an Appeals Manual. These procedures and work practices are currently being reviewed as part of a separate project in order to combine them into a single procedure to deal with Planning and Development Legal Matters, which will align with the proposed policy outcome and be completed prior to the commencement of the proposed new operating framework on 1 July 2019.

· Naming: The Naming Procedure was recently updated and approved on 27 November 2018, and is consistent with the proposed Policy outcome.

· Property and Kerbside Numbering: A new procedure is proposed to be adopted which replicates the information which is currently included in the Property Numbering Policy and Kerbside Numbering Policy (discussed above). It is considered more appropriate that this information be combined and contained within a procedure rather than the two (2) existing policies. A draft copy of the Property and Kerbside Numbering Procedure is included as Attachment 15.

· Infrastructure Charges, Offsets or Refunds – A new procedure is currently being developed in relation to all infrastructure charges matters, including levying, recording, collection, and dealing with trunk infrastructure matters. New Financial Delegations are also required to be developed to ensure the proposed Policy outcome can be achieved. This work will also satisfy a recommendation of the Queensland Audit Office following a recent review of systems and processes relating to the assessment and collection of contributions. This work is expected to be finalised prior to the commencement of the proposed new operating framework on 1 July 2019.

· Infrastructure Agreements – A procedure currently exists in relation to Infrastructure Agreements (Infrastructure Agreement Process Procedure) which is consistent with the proposed policy outcome and not proposed to be changed.

· Development Fees and Charges – A substantial benchmarking exercise has been finalised this year which reviewed the applicable fees for approximately 180 different fee categories listed in the Development fees and charges schedule against the applicable fees charged by all of the other local governments in South East Queensland. This information was compared against current and draft fees (for next financial year) and considered in the context of the time and resources required for Council officers to undertake their work to ensure cost recovery for each of the different fee categories and potential impacts on the budget in the event of amending individual fees. As a result of this exercise, recommendations have been developed for the review of the draft fees and charges proposed for the 2019/2020 financial year. Furthermore, new Financial Delegations and a new Fee Variation Procedure will be prepared and completed prior to the commencement of the proposed new framework on 1 July 2019.

· Development Approval Compliance – A new procedure will be developed in relation to development approval compliance which aligns with the proposed Policy outcome, and completed prior to the commencement of the proposed new framework on 1 July 2019.

· Independent Decision Review Panel – A substantial amount of work will be required to set up a framework for the operation of the Independent Decision Review Panel, to achieve the proposed policy outcome. In order to allow sufficient time for this work to be completed, a delayed commencement for this part of the policy of 2 September 2019 is proposed.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The following resourcing implications are identified in relation to the proposed operating framework:

· There will be a significant time-saving in the day to day administration of the consultation requirements of the current delegations. Conversely, there will be an increase in the number of development applications and requests that are reviewed by Committee and decided by Full Council, and it is expected that this will lead to a redirection (and balancing) of the administrative workload into preparing and administering these processes.

· It is anticipated that there will be a significant additional cost to Council in funding the Independent Decision Review Panel. Strict limitations have been included on the types of applications to be reviewed by the panel, and it is anticipated that no more than ten (10) development applications on average per year would require review by the panel. Depending on the number of experts appointed for each panel, the costs for each review on average are estimated in the order of $5000 - $10,000. Accordingly, an initial estimate of the annual costs of the panel is up to $100,000. The consequential benefits are also substantial, including a potential decrease in court related costs owing to early expert advice in relation to sensitive decisions, and an increase in transparency, community and customer confidence and accuracy in decision making on sensitive decisions.

· The proposed changes to the delegations to the CEO will require resources to be allocated to amending the various sub-delegations to officers. Consultation has been undertaken with the Governance Branch in relation to the completion of this work internally prior to the proposed commencement of the new framework on 1 July 2019. It is considered that the proposed lead time is adequate to complete this exercise.

· Other matters included in the policy are generally consistent with current work practices and are unlikely to cause any significant impacts to resources. It is considered that substantial efficiencies will be gained for the majority of development applications which are consistent with relevant planning requirements (i.e. approximately 90% of applications), and the balance of the applications which will require review by Committee and decision by Full Council will be substantially more administratively burdensome to manage, particularly where a review is also required by the Independent Decision Review Panel. In addition, there may be an increase in the number of these applications which exceed legislative timeframes in order to align with the Committee and Council cycle.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Mechanisms have been built into the proposed new Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy and related procedures to mitigate any identified risks associated with the new operating framework. For example, there is a risk that some applications which are required to be reviewed by Committee and decided by Council will not be able to be decided within legislative timeframes. The implication of this, for certain qualifying applications, could be a deemed approval in accordance with section 64 of the Planning Act 2016. It is worth noting that no development assessment applications have been subject to deemed approvals to date.

In order to address this issues, a specific clause has been included in the proposed new policy to mitigate this risk by requiring a Special Meeting of Council to be arranged to determine the application, prior to it being eligible for deemed approval. It is possible that a small number of applications which are not at risk of deemed approval will exceed legislative timeframes and be at risk of a ‘deemed refusal’ appeal to the court, though it is far more likely that the respective applicant will await the decision of Council prior to commencing this appeal, owing to the additional costs involved. To promote transparency, these measures and assessment processes will be conveyed to the applicants.

The following risks are considered to be significantly mitigated via adoption of the new proposed operating framework:

· The risk of Councillor influence on decision making ‘behind closed doors’, by providing mechanisms for Council decisions on particular development applications at Committee and Council meetings rather than via internal emails or other forms of communication;

· The risk of influence on decision making via a poorly managed conflict of interest, by putting in place measures to better manage conflicts of interest, and establishing the Independent Decision Review Panel for particularly sensitive conflicts.

· A potential decrease in appeal costs in relation to decisions on sensitive development matters, via up front comprehensive technical expert information through the operation of the proposed new Independent Decision Review Panel.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Local Government Act 2009

Planning Act 2016

Economic Development Act 2012

Building Act 1975

Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Prior to developing the new operating framework, a discussion paper was prepared and sent to the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA), Planning Institute of Australia and the Property Council of Australia in addition to Planning and Development contacts in most other South East Queensland Council’s. This paper invited comments in relation to the items raised in the discussion paper or any other matters that should be considered in the review. Internal consultation was also undertaken with key contacts across Council prior to developing the new framework. Many of the suggestions and comments raised through this consultation process have been incorporated into the proposed new operating framework.

There are some matters that have been suggested that will be investigated further and form the basis for subsequent work, and potential additions to the policy, including:

· A more rigorous framework around searches and plan sealing processes to reduce timeframes;

· Providing a service for the pre assessment of technical documents and material.

In addition to the above, a further innovation is under development being a ‘refusals protocol’ to provide notification and early information where an application is likely to be refused and provide defined opportunities to withdraw a proposal, modify the proposal to address the issues or to proceed with clear knowledge of the expected outcome.

Conclusion

As noted above, a new and improved governance framework for development applications and related activities is proposed to be adopted which requires changes to Council delegations, policies and procedures. Changes are proposed to existing delegations to replace the current Councillor consultation requirements with an established framework of development applications to be reviewed by Committee and decided by Council, and those that will be decided under delegation with no consultation. The framework includes a repeal of a number of existing policies, a new policy, and a number of draft new and changed procedures. Additional work is required to be undertaken to implement the new policy, including new financial delegations, sub delegations and new procedures, with a delayed commencement of the new proposed framework of 1 July 2019, and 2 September 2019 for the section relating to the Independent Decision Review Panel. These delegations and procedures will be presented to a future meeting of the Growth and Infrastructure Committee.

The new framework is substantially more efficient for processing the majority of applications, and will redirect resources which are currently dedicated to administering the current consultation processes into a more transparent governance system whereby the right types of development applications and matters are reviewed by Committee and decided by Council, with appropriate information provided to guide this process (including, in some instances, a prior review of recommended decisions by an Independent Decision Review Panel).

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Delegation - Implementation of the Planning and Development Program existing delegation to be amended ⇩
2.	Delegation - Planning Act 2016 existing delegation to be amended ⇩
3.	Delegation - Sustainable Planning Act 2009 existing delegation to be amended ⇩
4.	Delegation - Exercise the Powers of Council under the Economic Development Act 2012 existing delegation to be amended ⇩
5.	Delegation - Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 existing delegation to be amended ⇩
6.	Delegation - Determination of Development Applications, Precinct Plans, Area Development Plans and Related Matters existing delegation to be amended ⇩
7.	Property Numbering Policy to be repealed ⇩
8.	Kerbside Numbering Policy to be repealed ⇩
9.	Settlement of Planning and Development Appeals policy to be repealed ⇩
10.	Framework for Development Applications new policy ⇩
11.	Consultation Procedures - Development Assessment Decisions to be repealed ⇩
12.	Councillor Notification of Impending Legal Action procedure to be repealed ⇩
13.	Planning and Development Decision Making procedure to be adopted ⇩
14.	Complexity Rating of Development Applications procedure to be adopted ⇩
15.	Property and Kerbside Numbering procedure to be adopted ⇩
16.	Procedure - Development Prelodgement Meetings to be amended ⇩
17.	Procedure - Initial Development Assessment Panel IDAP Procedure to be amended ⇩

RECOMMENDATION

A. That the delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer titled ‘Implementation of the Planning and Development Program’, as per Item 2 of the Planning and Development Committee No. 2015(08) of 18 August 2015 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 25 August 2015, be amended as detailed in Attachment 1 to the report by the Team Coordinator (Central) dated 22 March 2019, with a delayed commencement date of 1 July 2019.

Mitchell Grant

Acting Development Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting City Planner

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5431923

26 March 2019

TO: Acting Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

FROM: Principal Officer (Sport and Recreation programs)

RE: Men's Shed Proposal at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre

Introduction

This is a report concerning the proposed provision of a Men’s Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre.

RELATED PARTIES

· Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc.

o Chris Bishop – President

o Karl Wesner – Secretary

o Paul MacMonigall

o Maynce Heuwesty

· Rosewood Show Society

o Pat Lenihan Snr

o Pat Lenihan Jnr

o Kate Lenihan - Secretary

o Mary Bryant

o Margaret Offer

o Shirley Branch (Rosewood QCWA)

o Eddie Branch

· Rosewood Camp Draft

o Renea Lenihan

o Scott Hall

· Rosewood Craft and Quilting

o Heather Winstanley

o Robyn MacPherson

· Rosewood Trail and Working Horse Association

o Amanda Herschell

o Samantha Herschell

· Rosewood Hack and Pony Club

o Sam Hayne

o Megan Hayne

· Lions Club of Rosewood

o Greg Tutt - President

o Ian Luetchford

o Lyall McEwin

o Julie Stirling

o Trevor Halter

o Bernie Newell

o David Kuhlmorgen

o Matt Dale

o Dennis Kenyon

o Christine Forrest

o Pat Gill

o Ian Gill

o Eirys Heit

· Bai Rui Taekwon-Do Rosewood

o Keith Broom

· South East QLD Team Penning

o Jason Gillett

o Robyn Hall

o Karla Thomas

o Doug Gillett

· QLD Barrel Racing Association

o Karen Roberts

· Country District Darts Association

o Lynne Berriman

· National Barrell Horse Association

o Amy Packer

· Rosewood Community Centre

o Sandy Lindh

o Kay Nicol

o Donna Hanlon

o Stewart Bleisner

o John Hansen

· Jim Madden MP, Member for Ipswich West

o Alison Young

· Brett Marsten (Bendigo Bank/Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland)

· Rosewood Community members

o David Pahlke

o Nigel Young

o Victor Gibbons

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

This report aligns with Advance Ipswich Theme: ‘Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure’, specifically Strategy 2 ‘Provide adequate land and infrastructure to support community development and economic activity’.

The report also aligns with Advance Ipswich Theme: ‘Caring for our community’, specifically Strategy 3.3 ‘Enhance the needs of the city’s community facilities to link community needs with appropriate services’.

Purpose of Report/Background

In April 2018, Council received a written request from the Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. (affiliated with Australian Men’s Shed Association) for space at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre to establish a Men’s Shed (see Attachment 1). The Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. is a new community–based, non-profit, non-commercial organisation accessible to all men, whose aim is to provide a friendly environment where men are able to work safely on meaningful projects at their own pace in their own time in the company of other men.

Council investigated this proposal from a space and land use perspective in consideration of both the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre Master Plan, existing user groups, the purpose of the land, community need and potential impact upon other community groups within the Rosewood community.

Concerns were raised that there was already a Men’s Shed located in Rosewood at the Rosewood Community Centre in School Street, Rosewood (less than 1km away) and that this new shed would be a duplication of services. It must be noted that the Rosewood Community Centre has previously approached Council about establishing an on-site presence at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre. These requests had been declined due to space restrictions on site and the potential impact that it would have on existing user groups.

It should also be noted that the new Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. is a breakaway group from the Rosewood Community Centre, Rosewood Men’s Working Shed. The new Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. have suggested that they will provide opportunities, facilities and services that the existing Rosewood Community Centre cannot provide.

The request was originally declined on this basis, unless both groups could agree to work together or alternatively opportunity could also be provided for the existing Rosewood Community Centre to establish space at the Rosewood Showgrounds in the future. See Attachment 2 for letter sent to Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc.

Despite this, the new Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. sought funding from the State Government, Department of Justice and Attorney General, Gambling Community Benefit Fund for the construction of a shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre. In November 2018, the Member for Ipswich West, Jim Madden MP advised the Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. that they were successful in securing $35,000. The Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. then approached Council to secure a specific site for the establishment of a shed.

Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre

The Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre is home to numerous community, recreation and equestrian user groups for equestrian activities, functions within the Rosewood Cultural Hall, hosts the annual Rosewood Show, is hired for regular use by a variety of sporting and recreational community groups and provides opportunity for short term camping. Facilities available on site include a show ring, sand arena, community hall, an exhibition pavilion for show displays and some recreational and community activities, a number of sheds and structures used by the different equestrian and community groups for their activities as well as basic camping facilities, toilet and shower amenities and car parking. The Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre Master Plan (see Attachment 3) does not specify the use of any of these structures for any particular group.

State Land

The Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre is owned by the State of Queensland with Council as the Trustee through a deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT). The purpose of the DOGIT is Showground, Sport and Recreation Purposes and for no other purposes whatsoever. The land owner, the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) have advised the proposed Men’s Shed is considered a secondary use of trust land.

Land Management Plan

To be approved by DNRME, Council is required to apply for a secondary use through the preparation of a full Land Management Plan (LMP). An LMP must demonstrate how a trustee proposes to manage state land for the intended purpose and use along with any secondary or inconsistent uses.

Council has been in the process of preparing an LMP for the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre to seek approval for both a Men’s Shed as well as to extend the length of stay for camping from 3 days (up to 7 days upon Council approval) to 14 days (up to 21 days upon Council approval) on State Land in accordance with DNRME’s Caravan Park Policy.

The State, through DNRME requires trustees of State land in the preparation of a full LMP, to undertake a minimum of one month public consultation and engagement on the Draft LMP.

Findings and Outcomes of Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Community and stakeholder engagement for the Draft Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre LMP have now concluded.

See Minutes in Attachment 4 for a summary of the public meeting.

The public meeting agenda was dominated by the desire of all those in attendance to want to know where Council proposed the shed to be constructed. Four options were discussed with resistance to all proposed sites, but a preference for one site over the remaining three.

At the conclusion of the community engagement period Council had received 43 written responses (see Attachment 5) to the proposed development of a Men’s Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre. Of the 43 responses, 35 were in favour of the Men’s Shed with eight against.

There was strong support from those closely aligned with the Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. particularly around the benefits that a Men’s Shed can bring to the community and the health and well-being of men. This was evident not only during the public meeting, but also within the number of written responses received. There was strong support for the social and community outcomes for the need for and provision of a Men’s Shed in the Rosewood Community.

However there was strong resistance from other members of the community including existing user groups of the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre along with other community groups and residents within the Rosewood community. Some of the concerns raised against the provision of a Men’s Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre included:

· Taking away limited valuable space at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre that is already at capacity from the existing number of user groups on-site;

· Potential noise and impact from such noise from a men’s shed on the surrounding community, but more so with existing horse and cattle using the site;

· Of particular concern is the duplication of resources, or as many respondents described “there is already the existing Rosewood’s Work Shed at the Rosewood Community Centre, so why does Rosewood need another Men’s Shed”.

There is a lack of information regarding the demonstrated community need for two Men’s Shed in the Rosewood community. The original request received from the Rosewood Men’s Shed gave details of the benefits of Men’s Sheds however was lacking in suitable feasibility and well researched and demonstrated community need, support and demand for a second Men’s Shed.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The construction of a Men’s Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre is to be funded by way of the $35,000 in funding that the Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. has received from the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Gambling Community Benefit Fund. No Council funds have been proposed for development of the facility if it is to proceed.

It is expected that the grant funds would not be adequate to cover the full cost of construction, associated car parking and provisions of services including plumbing and electrical.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There is a risk of taking usable space away from existing user groups if a shed is to be constructed. Existing user groups are already resistant and strongly opposed to this proposal.

There is a risk that this proposed new Men’s Shed will duplicate an existing service already provided at the Rosewood Community Centre, Rosewood’s Work Shed and potentially divide participation in current programs.

There is a risk that the State through DNRME and Minister will not approve the construction of a Men’s Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre as it is considered to be an inconsistent use. In addition, DNRME have advised that they would prefer to see Men’s Sheds placed on Freehold land.

The Rosewood Men’s Shed Inc. will need to return the $35,000 that they received from the Department of Justice and Attorney General Gaming Machine Community Benefit Fund if this project does not proceed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Land Act 1994

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Community and stakeholder consultation and engagement for the proposed project has been undertaken within both the initial investigations for the proposed project, as well as through DNRME’s requirements for community and stakeholder engagement requirements for the preparation of an LMP.

Conclusion

It is recommended that a Men’s Shed is not approved at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre at this time. Further, it is proposed that a policy be prepared and presented to a future Council meeting detailing the level of support that Council will provide and minimum requirements for any requests from community groups for the provision of land for community purposes.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Request to Council from Rosewood Men's Shed Inc. for space at Rosewood Showgrounds and Equstrian Centre for a Men's Shed ⇩
2.	Letter to Rosewood Mens's Shed declining request for space for a Men's Shed at the Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre ⇩
3.	Rosewood Showgrounds and Equestrian Centre Master Plan ⇩
4.	Public Meeting Minutes 270219 ⇩
5.	Written responses ⇩

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

C. That Council develop a policy on future Council support and assistance for the provision and operation of Community groups and facilities in Ipswich.

John Bolton

Principal Officer (Sport and Recreation programs)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Acting Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Bryce Hines

Chief Operating Officer (Works, Parks and Recreation)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5424827

21 March 2019

TO: Chief Operating Officer (Finance and Corporate Services)

FROM: Senior Property Officer

RE: Acquisition of Land for the Spring Creek Bridge Rehabilitation Project

Introduction

This is a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 21 March 2019 concerning the acquisition of land for road purposes for the Spring Creek Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties arising as a direct result of this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure.

Purpose of Report/Background

The proposed works for the Spring Creek Bridge Project will facilitate the replacement of the existing timber bridge with a new concrete box culvert. Construction is programmed for the 2019-2020 financial year.

The works involve pavement widening and bitumen surface sealing, removal and replacement of the existing timber bridge with a box culvert, scour repair and protection works to both the inlet and outlet and inclusion of roughing elements along the culvert walls to assist with fish passage, refer to Attachment 1.

To facilitate the upgrade and future maintenance of the proposed drainage infrastructure, an acquisition is required over the following property:

Part of Lot 49 on RP46754, 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort (2,456m²). Refer to Attachment 2.

OPTIONS

Council has two options to progress the acquisition:

1. Resumption Agreement (if agreement with the Owner(s) can be reached)
Compulsory acquire the property by agreement under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (ALA). Council and the Owner(s) collectively agree to the compulsory acquisition by way of a resumption agreement.

2. Resumption (if agreement with the Owner(s) cannot be reached)
Resume the land from the Owner(s) under the Acquisition of Land Act. Compensation will be payable to the Owner(s) through the Land Court when agreement on compensation cannot be reached.

The acquisition of land will facilitate the installation of the new concrete box culvert and associated roadworks being constructed within a dedicated road reserve with improved road safety and flood immunity. The new structure will minimise the ongoing need for regular maintenance to the existing ageing timber bridge, minimise the risk of structural failure and maintain road connectivity.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Expenses relating to resumption by agreement of the easement will form part of the project budget from the Asset Rehabilitation Program. If an agreement cannot be reached and the property is resumed by Gazettal Notice, expenses relating to Land Court proceedings will also form part of the project budget.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

If the recommendations for the acquisition are not resolved, there will be delays to construction works for the bridge rehabilitation. Part of Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort is currently located within a private property which is an existing risk to the property owner and Council.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Acquisition of Land Act 1967

Local Government Act 2009

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The property owner was consulted on the acquisition of part of the property for road purposes. An onsite meeting was held discussing the preferred road alignment and bridge rehabilitation. Consultation with the property owner has shown support for Council to acquire the land.

Conclusion

On this basis, it is recommended that Council proceed with the compulsory acquisition of the following property as a “constructing authority” under the Acquisition of Land Act:

Part of Lot 49 on RP46754, 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort (2,456m²).

In the first instance, Council will make all reasonable attempts to negotiate by agreement with the property owner(s) when issuing the notice of intention to resume (NIR). Therefore, Council will seek to compulsory acquire by way of resumption agreement with the property owner(s), however if this is unsuccessful, Council will exercise its power under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and make application to the relevant Minister for the land to be taken.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Fact Sheet - Timber Bridge Replacement - Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort ⇩
2.	Proposed Acquisition Plan - 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort ⇩
3.	Proposed Acquisition Area Plan - 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort ⇩
4.	Property Plan - 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort ⇩

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

a. Part of Lot 49 on RP46754, 144 Greys Plains Road, Mount Mort

Brett McGrath

Senior Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Andrew Knight

Chief Operating Officer (Finance and Corporate Services)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5426256

21 March 2019

TO: Chief Operating Officer (Finance and Corporate Services)

FROM: Senior Property Officer

RE: Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Loder Road, Thagoona Drainage Project Amendment

Introduction

This is a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 21 March 2019 concerning amendments to the committee report titled “Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Loder Road, Thagoona Drainage Project Amendment, as detailed in the report by the Senior Property Officer dated 11 January 2019, adopted at the Growth and Infrastructure Committee No. 2019 (2) of 19 February 2019.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties arising as a direct result of this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure.

Purpose of Report/Background

On 19 February 2019, a council resolution was passed concerning the acquisition of an easement for drainage purposes for the Loder Road Drainage Project. The easement is to facilitate the upgrade and future maintenance of the proposed drainage infrastructure over the following properties:

· Part of Lot 10 on RP85362, 33 Rosewood-Thagoona Road, Thagoona (2810m²)

· Part of Lot 7 on RP85362, 6-8 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona (850m²)

· Part of Lot 245 on CH3147, 18-36 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona (1683m²)

As a result of all drainage infrastructure including rock protection needing to be contained within a drainage easement, a number of amendments have been made to the proposed easement areas, including an addition of another property to be included in the easement area.

To facilitate the upgrade and future maintenance of the proposed drainage infrastructure, the following properties require additional easement areas:

· Part of Lot 7 on RP85362, 6-8 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona (100m²)

· Part of Lot 6 on RP85362, 10 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona (101m²)

· Easement ‘A’ of Lot 10 on RP85362, 33 Rosewood-Thagoona Road, Thagoona be increased by an additional 140m²

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Expenses relating to resumption by agreement of the easement will form part of the project budget from the Flood Mitigation and Drainage Program. If an agreement cannot be reached and the property is resumed by Gazettal Notice, expenses relating to Land Court proceedings will also form part of the project budget.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The risk of not resolving to acquire the additional easements will result in Council not meeting requirements stipulated by Council’s external drainage consultant and/or infrastructure being constructed on private property without the legal protection for the infrastructure and authority to maintain and keep clear debris and obstructions to facilitate the natural flow of water.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Acquisition of Land Act 1967

Local Government Act 2009

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The property owners have been consulted with regards to the proposed easements and the scope of works proposed have been explained in detail. A further on-site meeting was held to discuss the amendment to the easement areas for the preferred easement alignment. On-going consultation for the easements will be managed with the property owners for a reasonable outcome for all parties.

Conclusion

On that basis, it is recommended that Council proceed with the compulsory acquisition of the additional new easements and increase of area on Lot 10 on RP86352 over the following properties as a “constructing authority” under the Acquisition of Land Act:

· Part of Lot 7 on RP85362, 6-8 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona (100m²)

· Part of Lot 6 on RP85362, 10 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona (101m²)

· Easement ‘A’ of Lot 10 on RP85362, 33 Rosewood-Thagoona Road, Thagoona be increased an additional 140m²

In the first instance, Council will make all reasonable attempts to negotiate by agreement with the property owner(s) when issuing the notice of intention to resume (NIR). Therefore, Council will seek to compulsory acquire by way of resumption agreement with the property owner(s), however if this is unsuccessful, Council will exercise its power under the ALA and make application to the relevant Minister for the land to be taken.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Amended Easement Plan - 6-8 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona ⇩
2.	Easement Plan - 10 Thagoona-Haigslea Road, Thagoona ⇩
3.	Amended Easement Plan - 33 Rosewood-Thagoona Road, Thagoona ⇩

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

a. Part of Lot 7 on RP85362, 6-8 Thagoona Haigslea Road, Thagoona (100m²)

b. Part of Lot 6 on RP85362, 10 Thagoona Haigslea Road, Thagoona (101m²)

c. Easement ‘A’ of Lot 10 on RP85362, 33 Rosewood-Thagoona Road, Thagoona be increased an additional 140m².

Brett McGrath

Senior Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Andrew Knight

Chief Operating Officer (Finance and Corporate Services)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5435081

27 March 2019

TO: Commercial Finance Manager

FROM: Principal Officer (Contracts & Procurement)

RE: Council Service Relocations - S235 Other Exceptions Local Government Regulation 2012

Introduction

This is a report concerning evoking Section 235 ‘Other Exceptions’ under the Local Government Regulation 2012. By resolution this will enable Council to enter into medium and large contractual arrangements when works are required to be undertaken by asset owners at the request of Council. These works will generally pertain the physical relocation of the asset, but may extend to other general asset works.

RELATED PARTIES

Asset owners will generally be telecommunication carriers and utility providers which may include but not limited to;

· Telstra

· Allgas (APA)

· Energex

· NBN & Co Limited

· Optus

· AGL

· TPG

· ARRNET

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

Historically, Council has engaged asset owners via a purchase order for the value of the works determined under a works agreement executed between Council and the asset owner. This works agreement is formed by the asset owner, and executed by an appropriate delegated authority within Council.

The Local Government Regulation 2012 require Council to enter into a medium sized contractual arrangement with a supplier when the contract is expected to be worth more than $15,000 but less than $200,000 (ex gst) and large sized contractual arrangements with a supplier when the contract is expected to be worth more than $200,000 (ex gst). Entering of these contracts is to occur by first inviting quotes or tenders.

When Council is required to enter into a contractual arrangement with an asset owner we are not entering into a contractor relationship, but facilitating the payment of recoverable works undertaken at Council request. Generally, these engagements would be considered under the Local Government Regulation 2012 as medium sized contractual arrangements, though, on occasion these can extend into large sized contractual arrangements. Given the nature of the contractual relationship between Council and the asset owners it is not plausible for Council to tender or quote works on non-Council assets, nor dictate the use of a specific contractor.

Under Section 235, by resolution, Council may resolve that (a) there is only one supplier capable or (b) because of the specialised nature of the service it would be impractical for Council to invite quotes or tenders.

Through the application of S235 (b) Council will be able to transparently engage with the asset owners without additional administrative burden contributing to extended procurement and project timeframes.

The application of this exception shall extend only to works and relocations specifically related to the company’s assets, it shall not extend to other goods or services provided by the asset owner.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

No additional cost impacts. All asset relocation works are managed within the Capital works portfolio.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

In the event the recommendation within this report is not approved there will be an increased administrative burden of seeking individual Council resolutions. These resolutions will result in extended procurement processes and the potential to delay the delivery of the capital works portfolio.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Local Government Act 2009

Local Government Regulation 2012

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Infrastructure Services have consulted Council’s Legal Services Branch.

Conclusion

Council is routinely required to request telecommunication and utility asset owners to conduct works on or relocate their assets to facilitate the construction process for numerous Council projects any given financial year. The assets subject to this report are non-Council assets, meaning Council cannot tender or quote the required works. To ensure compliance with the Local Government Act 2009 and maintain procurement transparency approval is sought to apply section 235(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

1. The assets are owned by the telecommunication and utility providers and as such, they are solely responsible for works associated with these assets.

Tamara White

Principal Officer (Contracts & Procurement)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Cathy Murray

Commercial Finance Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

Chief Operating Officer (Infrastructure Services)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5433957

27 March 2019

TO: Infrastructure Planning Manager

FROM: Principal Engineer (Infrastructure Planning)

RE: Heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, Goodna

Introduction

This is a report by the Principal Engineer (Infrastructure Planning) concerning heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, Goodna to access the Redbank Industrial Peninsula.

RELATED PARTIES

Parties related to this matter include the following:

· Residents

· Business/industry

· Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR)

· Ipswich City Council

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

In particular, it aligns with Strategy 3 of this theme: ‘Provide a transport system that supports the safe, reliable and sustainable movement of people and goods for all travel modes’.

Purpose of Report/Background

The Redbank Industrial Peninsula (The Peninsula) is zoned as a ‘Regionally Significant Business and Industry’ area under the Ipswich Planning Scheme. The industrial area is bounded by Brisbane Terrace to the south, which is identified as a sub-arterial road under Council’s road hierarchy. A locality plan and an outline of the surrounding road network can be found in Attachment 1.

Apart from the Council zoning, The Peninsula is located within the South West Industrial Corridor which is recognised as a Regional Economic Cluster in Shaping SEQ, the South-East Queensland Regional Plan 2017. The Monash Road bridge, which provides access to The Peninsula from the Ipswich Motorway via Francis Street, was constructed as a joint venture between Council and the State Government as part of the Ipswich Motorway – Darra to Dinmore Upgrade Project. Prior to construction of the Monash Road bridge, the only access into The Peninsula was via Brisbane Terrace. The Monash Road bridge was considered a gateway project to support this regionally significant area.

Since provision of this access, there has been significant growth within the precinct with economic benefits to the City, Region and State. However, it has also introduced a high number of heavy vehicles travelling to and from the area and resulted in more commercial traffic travelling on the local road network to access the industrial precinct. Local communities have expressed concerns to both State Members and Council suggesting it is affecting the amenity of their area. There has been a suggestion that Council should undertake compliance activities and/or impose restrictions on the type of vehicles that travel along Brisbane Terrace.

In an attempt by Council to minimise heavy vehicle utilisation on the local road network, particularly along Brisbane Terrace through Goodna and Redbank, conditions have been placed on development in The Peninsula. These development conditions prohibit heavy vehicles from using Brisbane Terrace. This development condition is not relevant to historic industrial uses within the area. Council has also undertaken education activities within some industries to encourage and provide information on the most appropriate access to the Redbank Industrial Peninsula via more suitable road networks.

Traffic count data collected over the past few years has indicated that the percentage of heavy vehicles utilising Brisbane Terrace has seen a slight increase in recent years. Table 1 below outlines the percentage of heavy vehicles over the past five years.

Table 1 – Heavy Vehicle Traffic Count Data for Brisbane Terrace (approximately 340m east of Monash Road)

Traffic Count Date (MM/YY)¹	Direction	Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)	Heavy Vehicles (% of Total vehicles)	Heavy Vehicles Requiring a Permit (as % of Total Vehicles)
10/14	Eastbound	1083	10.3	0.2
10/14	Westbound	1456	12.4	0.1
10/15	Eastbound	1167	12	0.6
10/15	Westbound	1683	14.6	0.4
10/16	Eastbound	1193	12.17	0.8
10/16	Westbound	1726	15.15	0.5
10/17	Eastbound	1218	13.02	0.8
10/17	Westbound	1778	16.08	0.6
10/18	Eastbound	1358	10.45	0.6
10/18	Westbound	2045	17.33	0.5

^{1-Surveys were undertaken for an average period of 1
week}

It should be noted that although there has been a slight increase in the percentage of heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, this may be attributed to the current construction activities within The Peninsula (e.g. the Australia Post distribution centre). The data above does not necessarily reflect the baseline of normal business activities once industries are established and operational. Council will continue to undertake traffic counts to monitor heavy vehicle trends.

In addition, the data has outlined that there are some vehicle types travelling along Brisbane Terrace that require a heavy vehicle permit to travel along this route. This is represented in the ‘Heavy Vehicles Requiring a Permit’ column in Table 1 above. This information will be shared Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) compliance officers to enable them to target their enforcement activities.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Capital Finance

This report is not anticipated to have any impact on Capital Finance.

Operational Finance

This report is not anticipated to have any impact on Operational Finance.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Planning and Development Approvals

As previously mentioned, a number of developments within The Peninsula have received development approval with the condition that heavy vehicles are to avoid Brisbane Terrace. Table 2 below outlines these development conditions:

Table 2 – Development Conditions regarding access into the Redbank Industrial Peninsula

Condition	The time by which the condition must be met, implemented or complied with
Access, Parking and Manoeuvring Areas
Site access for heavy vehicles must not be along the following routes: i) Brisbane Terrace (east of Monash Road); or ii) Brisbane Road (west of the roundabout with Bridge Street).	From the commencement of the use and at all times thereafter
Condition above does not prohibit heavy vehicles using the above routes in the event that: i) Access via Francis Street / Monash Road overpass is temporarily closed or redirected as a result of an emergency or works; or ii) There is a delivery in the suburb of Goodna or Redbank (area north of the Ipswich Motorway only) which necessitates the use of these routes	From the commencement of the use and at all times thereafter

The above conditions also outline that ‘Heavy Vehicles’ are to be read in conjunction with the Heavy Vehicle definition outlined in Council’s Local Law No. 5 – Parking being the following:

i) A vehicle or combination of vehicles (including an adjunct vehicle) that has a gross vehicle mass (GVM) of more than 4.5 tonnes, or has a total length of in excess of 7.5 metres;

ii) A trailer or semi-trailer standing alone which has a GVM of 3 or more tonnes or has a length exceeding 5 metres;

iii) Any vehicle of whatever size equipped to carry, by whatever means, a motor vehicle;

iv) A tractor;

v) Any vessel whose length exceed nine (9) metres;

vi) Any other vehicle or equipment which is consistent with those vehicles listed above.

As previously mentioned, there are a number of industries within The Peninsula to which these restrictions do not apply. Furthermore, the conditions outlined above pose challenges regarding Council’s ability to effectively undertake enforcement measures. Council’s compliance officers have undertaken some enforcement against these conditions, however it should be noted that these are resource intensive whereby officers have been required to monitor and follow vehicles to their destinations to determine if they are indeed operating against their development approvals.

Council compliance officers have spoken to industries who are subjected to these development approvals to encourage travel via the preferred access routes and not along Brisbane Terrace. Apart from the above development conditions, Brisbane Terrace is a general access road and therefore, under existing Queensland heavy vehicle legislation, heavy vehicles up to a semi-trailer type are permitted to travel on it. Any vehicles travelling on Brisbane Terrace above a semi-trailer require a special heavy vehicle permit and compliance activities on these vehicles are undertaken by the TMR compliance officers.

Manual of Uniform traffic Control Devices

The Queensland Manual of Uniform traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains the design of, the methods, standards and procedures in relation to every traffic control device (i.e sign, signal, marking, light or other device) installed on a road. This is legislated through the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (TORUM), whereby TORUM states that “An official sign must be installed in a way specified by the Queensland Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)”.

Installing a load limit along a carriageway needs to adhere to the MUTCD. Generally, load limits are imposed on carriageways whereby a structure or an asset requires protection. These can often be seen in proximity to bridges or culverts where vehicles of a certain weight are restricted to protect this asset and from heavy vehicles imposing further degradation to the structure.

The MUTCD does also make provision for a load limits to be imposed along road sections, however, these are generally to protect further degradation of an asset such as pavement integrity. In the case of Brisbane Terrace, given the road hierarchy and the heavy vehicle volumes / percentage, the current pavement is fit for purpose to take heavy vehicle loads and the implementation of a load limit would be arbitrary and difficult to justify.

It should also be noted that the MUTCD also states that it is mandatory that if a load limit is applied, there must be a suitable detour for those restricted vehicles to travel past the restricted area back onto the original route. Should a load limit restriction be placed along Brisbane Terrace, the most likely detour for heavy vehicles would be along Layard Street to the east and Monash Road to the west and then onto the Ipswich Motorway. However, it should be noted that any load limits imposed along Brisbane Terrace would prevent many classes of vehicles from accessing this area, and would have effect on delivery vehicles, removalist trucks, buses etc. It would also prohibit vehicles such as Council refuse trucks from undertaking collection services.

Given the above, it is considered inappropriate to impose a load limit on Brisbane Terrace.

National Heavy Vehicle Regulator

The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) is a national administrator of heavy vehicle operators and routes across the nation for all heavy vehicles over 4.5 Tonnes. The aim of the NHVR is to improve safety and productivity in the heavy vehicle transport industry, minimise the compliance burden and reduce duplication and inconsistencies across states and territory borders.

On review of the route planning for access to The Peninsula, no heavy vehicle routes are shown along Brisbane Terrace. The journey planner under the NHVR directs vehicles via Francis Street and Monash Road, which is the preferred routes for motorists to be entering and leaving The Peninsula.

Translink

It is important to note that Brisbane Terrace has a bus route, being Route 500 (Riverlink Shopping Centre to Goodna Station and vica versa). Any load limit imposed along Brisbane Terrace would affect this service which is not desirable.

Compliance

Due to the inability of Council to assess vehicle weights, Council would remain powerless to enforce any load limit signage installed on Brisbane Terrace. The enforcement of load limits would remain subject to the availability of TMR resources.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Council has currently sought assistance from TMR regarding the placement of additional directional signage on the Ipswich Motorway to advise motorists of the most appropriate exits to access The Peninsula. The letter to TMR can be viewed in Attachment 2.

Business/Industry

As previously mentioned, Council has undertaken compliance checks with a number of industries within The Peninsula which are required under their development approval conditions to avoid the use of Brisbane Terrace by any heavy vehicles.

Google

Council has made a request to Google to make alterations to any predetermined routes listed on google maps, to redirect vehicle routes to avoid Brisbane Terrace. Council has outlined to Google that the preferred route to The Peninsula is along the Ipswich Motorway, exiting at Mine Street, then travelling via Francis Street up to Monash Road and vica versa when leaving The Peninsula. Council have not yet received a response.

Conclusion

Council has received concerns from the local residential community regarding the volume of heavy vehicles travelling along Brisbane Terrace, Goodna to access the Redbank Industrial Peninsula. Council has undertaken a comprehensive review of the existing situation and has noted the following:

· Brisbane Terrace is a sub-arterial road which currently facilitates a Translink bus routes and has been designed for higher volumes of traffic (including heavy vehicles up to a semi-trailer). This is supported by law as it is considered ‘a general access road’;

· Traffic counts undertaken by Council have revealed that the percentage of heavy vehicles has slightly increased in recent years however this could be attributed to the intensity of current construction activities within the industrial estate;

· There are currently no issues identified in relation to the structural integrity of road infrastructure at this location and therefore the implementation of a load limit would be arbitrary and difficult to justify. In addition, Council are unable to undertake enforcement action regarding any load limits and therefore this activity would remain the responsibility of TMR;

· Council are unable to undertake enforcement action regarding any load limits; and

· Council have taken many steps within its legal jurisdiction to promote the preferred routes for heavy vehicle, however ultimately it cannot control the routes chosen by heavy vehicle operators.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Locality plan of the Redbank Industrial Peninsula and the surrounding road network ⇩
2.	Letter to TMR concerning the proposed direction signs on the Ipswich Motorway to the Redbank Industrial Peninsula ⇩

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council continue to monitor traffic data on Brisbane Terrace, Goodna, particularly the percentage of heavy vehicles, as part of its annual citywide strategic traffic count program.

Mary Torres

Principal Engineer (Infrastructure Planning)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dileo

Infrastructure Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

Chief Operating Officer (Infrastructure Services)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5395648

8 March 2019

TO: Principal Transport Planner

FROM: Senior Transport Planner

RE: Deebing Creek Bikeway Corridor Plan - Stages 2 to 5

Introduction

This is a report by the Senior Transport Planner dated 8 March 2019 concerning the outcomes of a corridor planning study for stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway.

RELATED PARTIES

Due to the confidential nature of this information, the related parties to the project are contained in Confidential Attachment 1.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure.

Purpose of Report/Background

Strategic Context

The City of Ipswich Transport Plan (iGO) is Council’s masterplan for Ipswich’s transport future. To meet the vision and objectives of iGO, aspirational mode share targets have been set and a list of actions for each element of the transport system provided. One such action for active transport has been identified as “AT 9: Undertake route and corridor studies (and if feasible, deliver) on strategic commuter bikeway corridors as outlined on Map 5”.

iGO (Map 5), the Queensland Government South-East Queensland Principal Cycle Network Plan (SEQ PCNP) and the iGO Active Transport Action Plan (ATAP) identify a north-south Principal Cycle Route connecting the Ipswich City Centre to Ripley Valley via Raceview, Flinders View/ Yamanto and in proximity to Deebing Creek (refer to Figure 1 over). For planning purposes, this route is referred to as the Deebing Creek Bikeway and it will form the active transport spine to access the Ipswich CBD from the southern suburbs of Ipswich. The Deebing Creek Bikeway has been identified in the SEQ PCNP and iGO ATAP as one of the highest priority Principal Cycle Routes in Ipswich to deliver.

Figure 1 – Excerpt from iGO Map 5 – Active Transport Map

* All route alignments and configurations shown are subject to future investigation and corridor planning.

The northern portion of the Deebing Creek Bikeway from the Ipswich CBD to the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) Ipswich Campus (Deebing Creek Bikeway Stage 1) is primarily located within the road network on Thorn Street and Barker St and is currently within the detailed design phase. However, the remainder of the bikeway corridor is located within the Deebing Creek catchment.

Consequently, the Deebing Creek Corridor Plan was developed by the Works, Parks and Recreation Department as a reference document to inform catchment management, waterway health activities, open space and active transport investment priorities within the Deebing Creek catchment. This plan was produced in consultation with a multi-department team from across Council and included an indicative strategic alignment and alternative alignment options along the creek corridor for the Deebing Creek Bikeway. This plan was adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 September 2017 [refer Item 5 tabled at the City Works, Parks, Sport and Environment Committee Meeting No. 2017(09)].

The portion of the bikeway south of the Cunningham Highway is contained within the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area and is expected to be delivered as part of a development outcome. Consequently, the purpose of this project was to focus on Stages 2 – 5 of the bikeway (refer Figure 2 over), between the USQ Ipswich Campus and the Cunningham Highway, in order to:

· Assess the previously identified alignment options in more detail from an engineering perspective and identify a preferred alignment; and

· Develop a concept design and cost estimates for the preferred alignment so as to inform Council’s 10 Year Transport Infrastructure Investment Plan and future Council applications to the Queensland Government Cycle Network Local Government Grants Program.

Figure 2 – Deebing Creek Bikeway Stages 2 – 5 Study Area

Options Analysis

Broadly, there were two options for the overall bikeway alignment. These being, to run adjacent to the eastern bank of Deebing Creek or to run along the road network comprising of Cemetery Road and Briggs Road, re-joining the creek corridor at the southern extents. Within these two options, for each stage of the bikeway there were multiple sub-options relating to specific creek alignments or whether the active transport facilities were located in the western verge of the road corridor, eastern verge or on-road.

To determine the preferred alignment, the options and sub-options were assessed against the following criteria and criteria weighting:

· Safety – 15%

· Connectivity – 15%

· Cyclists journey times and directness – 15%

· Cyclist amenity and personal security – 15%

· Operational motorised traffic impacts – 5%

· Cost – 10%

· Technical and construction feasibility – 5%

· Property and community impacts – 10%

· Environmental and heritage impacts – 10%

Overall, the chosen criteria weightings were based on 60% allocated to the user of the facility and 40% allocated to the impacts of the facility. However, a range of sensitivity tests in terms of criteria weighting was also completed to determine if the option assessment outcomes were robust.

The alignment options/ sub-options and associated assessment scores are provided in Confidential Attachment 2.

Preferred Option

The identified preferred option for the alignment of Stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway, based on the options analysis method identified above, is summarised in Table 1 below and illustrated on the concept plans provided in Confidential Attachment 3.

Table 1 – Preferred Route Option Summary

The general features of the bikeway concept design layout comprise of:

· A 4.2km long, 3.0m wide principal bikeway between Warwick Road and the Cunningham Highway, and along the Edwards Street Extension to Briggs Road;

· A 2.5m wide local bikeway connection along Huxham Street to the Ipswich Cycle Park and between Deebing Creek and Piccadilly Court;

· An additional local bikeway investigation area between Huxham Street and Harvey Street, Churchill;

· Maintenance of the newly constructed Small Creek shared path connection to Warwick Road/ Briggs Rd with the Deebing Creek Bikeway connecting to it;

· Access to the bikeway from Barker Street, Warwick Road, Huxham Street, Briggs Road, Edwards Street, Jacana Crescent, Ash Street, Kensington Drive, Piccadilly Court and provision for a future connection to the proposed TMR Amberley Bikeway along the Cunningham Highway; and

· Proposed locations for mid-trip facilities and furniture.

Property Impacts

The preferred alignment for Stages 2 – 5 of the Deebing Creek Bikeway will have impacts primarily on Council owned properties, with six partial impacts identified on privately owned freehold properties (refer Confidential Attachment 4). Consultation and agreements with the affected landowners will be required when progressing the delivery of the project for the respective bikeway stages.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Order of Cost

Table 2 outlines the risk adjusted cost estimate excluding GST and in 2018 dollars for delivery of each stage of the bikeway. This cost estimate has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the TMR Project Cost Estimation Manual for a Category 2 project. The costs have also been assessed on delivering each stage independently so as to allow for greater flexibility in delivery timing for the bikeway.

The project cost estimates will be used to inform Council’s 10 Year Transport Infrastructure Investment Plan, applications for 50% detailed design and construction grant funding under the Queensland Government Cycle Network Local Government Grants Program and planning for the Sustainable Transport Sub-program within the Capital Works Portfolio. However, the estimates will need to be reassessed during the next project phase for each respective bikeway stage to account for any escalation.

Table 2 – Cost Estimate Summary

Deebing Creek Bikeway Stage 2

In November 2018, Council gave approval to apply for 50% detailed design only grant funding for Deebing Creek Bikeway Stage 2 via the 2019-2020 Queensland Government Cycle Network Local Government Grants Program and that funds be considered for inclusion as part of the development of the 2019-2020 Capital Portfolio [refer to Item 2 tabled at the Growth and Infrastructure Committee No. 2018(01)]. The 2019-2020 grant applications closed on 21 December 2018 with projects successful in achieving grant funding soon to be announced in June 2019 as part of the Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

A project of this size and nature will attract risks. Preliminary engineering design, hydraulic modelling, geotechnical analysis, utility service identification, stakeholder consultation and property impact identification appropriate to this level of transport planning activity has been completed as part of the Deebing Creek Bikeway Corridor Plan Summary Report and several risk areas identified. However, the project risks can be mitigated through further investigations and design in the next project phase. A summary of the key required actions are as follows:

· Continue stakeholder consultation with the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) Translink and Metropolitan Region in relation to project impacts on State interests;

· Continue stakeholder consultation with internal Council stakeholders in relation to the creek corridor and nearby open space facilities;

· Commence stakeholder consultation with affected landowners;

· Undertake detailed survey to inform future design works for the study corridor;

· Undertake refinement of the horizontal and vertical geometry, including sight distance checks;

· Undertake an environmental assessment and tree survey to identify preferences for vegetation clearance to minimise impacts to mature or sensitive trees, and to minimise environmental impacts and identify required approvals;

· Undertake a detailed flood assessment to confirm the proposed bikeway avoids additional afflux to properties, particularly to determine the optimal solution for crossing Reedy Creek;

· Undertake detailed geotechnical investigations, particularly to identify the extent and nature of the subgrade conditions, the presence and treatment options for uncontrolled filling, reactive soils, creek bank stability, structure foundations, soil erosion and sodicity;

· Undertake utility service investigations to locate services;

· Further develop the engineering design including detailed pavement design, bridge design, retaining wall design and drainage design; and

· Address the safety in design risks identified in the Deebing Creek Bikeway Corridor Plan Summary Report and undertake a risk review process to identify any additional risks and document them in a safety in design risk register.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the policy outlined in the endorsed City of Ipswich Transport Plan 2016, endorsed Queensland Government South East Queensland Principal Cycle Network Plan 2016 and the endorsed iGO Active Transport Action Plan 2016.

There is a risk that Council will not achieve the intent outlined in these documents should sustainable transport projects, such as the Deebing Creek Bikeway, not be progressed and a ‘roads only’ approach is facilitated.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

A strategic alignment for the Deebing Creek Bikeway was outlined in the draft City of Ipswich Transport Plan which underwent public consultation activities in 2015 and was endorsed by Council in 2016. Since this time, the strategic alignment of the bikeway has been reflected in public documents such as the Queensland Government South East Queensland Principal Cycle Network Plan 2016 and the iGO Active Transport Action Plan 2016. Ad hoc community feedback regarding the need for a bikeway in this location has also been received over the past few years, gaining more momentum with the recent opening of the Ipswich Cycle Park.

This project was undertaken with technical input provided by officers from the Infrastructure Services Department and the Works, Parks & Recreation Department including transport, civil engineering, open space, flooding and environment elements. Early consultation was also undertaken with TMR (Metropolitan Region and Translink) in relation to the bikeway’s touch points with State interests such as Warwick Road and the Cunningham Highway as State-controlled roads, the proposed future Amberley Bikeway and bus stop impacts.

More detailed community consultation will be required as part of the next project phase when funding for the respective bikeway stage has been secured and the design further refined.

Conclusion

The Deebing Creek Bikeway is identified in iGO – The City of Ipswich Transport Plan 2016. The Queensland Government Principal Cycle Network Plan 2016 and iGO Active Transport Action Plan 2016 also identify the Deebing Creek Bikeway as a one of the highest priority principal cycle routes in Ipswich to deliver. Deebing Creek Bikeway Stage 1 is currently within the detailed design phase and the bikeway south of the Cunningham Highway is expected to be delivered via development outcomes as part of the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area.

The purpose of this project was to focus on Stages 2 – 5 of the bikeway, between the USQ Ipswich Campus and the Cunningham Highway, to:

· Assess the previously identified alignment options in more detail from an engineering perspective and confirm a preferred alignment; and

Via an options analysis method, a preferred alignment for the approximately 4.2km, 3.0m wide bikeway was identified generally running along the western verge of Warwick Road and along the eastern bank of Deebing Creek at a total combined order of cost of approximately $17.5 million (excluding GST), including a 52 – 55% risk contingency ($6.2 million). Outcomes of the Deebing Creek Bikeway Corridor Plan will form the basis for future detailed design and construction and be used to inform Council’s development assessment and investment programming activities.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	Related Parties
2.	Options Assessment
3.	Concept Plans
4.	Property Impacts

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

E. That an appropriate communication strategy be developed and implemented on the intent of the Deebing Creek Bikeway and the details of each respective stage as they progress to detailed design.

Jessica Cartlidge

Senior Transport Planner

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Berto Santana

Principal Transport Planner

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dileo

Infrastructure Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

Chief Operating Officer (Infrastructure Services)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

9 April

2019

Doc ID No: A5420468

19 March 2019

TO: Chief Operating Officer (Finance and Corporate Services)

FROM: Senior Property Officer

RE: Road Dedication to facilitate the construction of Binnies Road and associated infrastructure between Grampian Drive and Daleys Road

Introduction

This is a report by the Senior Property Officer dated 19 March 2019 concerning the disposal of Council freehold land located at Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights (Lot 902) to facilitate the construction of Binnies Road and associated infrastructure between Grampian Drive and Daleys Road. This road project, which is located within the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area, is being pursued by Orchard Property Group (OPG) to provide access to their Daleys Road Development Project.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties arising as a direct result of this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure.

Purpose of Report/Background

Orchard Property Group (OPG) has entered into a contract to purchase land on Daleys Road, Ripley, which is the subject of a development approval for the development of 426 residential lots. Whilst there are multiple development approvals in the general locality, development has not occurred most likely owing to the high cost of providing infrastructure to the area. In order to assist in that regard, Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) have been in ongoing discussions with OPG about providing catalyst funding towards the construction of Binnies Road and associated bridges and culverts from Grampian Drive to Daleys Road. It is understood that EDQ officers are currently negotiating the terms of a catalyst infrastructure agreement with OPG.

To facilitate the construction of Binnies Road, Ripley, OPG require a road dedication of approximately 541m² of the following Council freehold land:

· Lot 902 SP187287, Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights (refer to Attachment 1)

The preferred road alignment in Attachment 1 is SK112, which provides a ‘straight’ alignment for the Binnies Road construction with a road dedication of an area of approximately 541m². This alignment is contingent on OPG obtaining agreement from an adjoining landowner for a road dedication of 5.25m. The alternative road alignment in Attachment 1 is SK110, this provides for a horizontal curvature in the Binnies Road alignment with no impact to the adjoining land owner and requires a road dedication from Council of approximately 334m².

The Daley Road Development Project will provide a catalyst for over 3,300 residential lots within the catchment.

OPG and EDQ sought feedback from Council in relation to the road design as it will ultimately become a Council asset in the future. Feedback on the initial plans required the construction of a footpath along the full extent of the northern verge to ensure relevant road standards are complied with. To comply with this requirement, OPG require a road dedication over part of the Council freehold land.

In exchange for the design and development expenses in constructing Binnies Road, Ripley OPG are seeking a road dedication of part of Lot 902 from Council for a nil monetary value.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

OPG has advised that they will cover all expenses associated with the preparation and registration of the survey plan and road dedication.

Council is not providing funding on any design or construction expenses associated with this project.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

If the recommendations to dispose of Lot 902 are not resolved, the following risks have been identified:

· The road is constructed without a footpath along the northern side of Binnies Road. This would result in a safety issue as pedestrians will be required to cross a high traffic area to access the footpath on the opposite side of Binnies Road.

· The construction of the road without a footpath is not supported by EDQ and does not meet the requirements for the catalyst funding, and therefore will not be provided.

o Should this occur the development would not progress resulting in the follows risks

§ Delivery of 3,300 residential lots within Ripley Valley delayed;

§ Housing affordability impacted due to housing shortage;

§ Traffic management issues within the area as a result of a delay of a key connection of the road network in Ripley Valley;

§ Ability in the delivery of the planned high school; and

§ Council requirement in the future to construct the road and footpath at the expense of the community.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Land Act 1994

Local Government Regulation 2012

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

OPG have sought feedback from Council and EDQ in relation to the road design as Binnies Road is likely to be partly funded by EDQ through catalyst funding and will become a Council asset in the future.

Council’s Planning and Development Department has undertaken internal consultation with the Infrastructure Services Department and the Works, Parks and Recreation Department, in providing advice back to OPG and EDQ.

As a result of this internal consultation, Infrastructure Services advised that a footpath is required along the full length of the northern verge of Binnies Road, Ripley. OPG has amended the plans to comply with this requirement, however additional land is required to be dedicated as road, within Council freehold land Lot 902, to accommodate the addition of the footpath.

Conclusion

On that basis, it is recommended that Council proceed to dedicate part of Lot 902 as road to facilitate the development of Binnies Road, Ripley.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Concept Design - Binnies Road, Ripley ⇩
2.	Property Plan - Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights ⇩
3.	Title Search - Lot 902 SP187287 - Lot 902 Piccadilly Court, Deebing Heights ⇩
4.	Vegetation Management Notice Lot 902 Piccadilly Court Deebing Heights ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
5.	Catalyst Infrastructure Funding Submission

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

Brett McGrath

Senior Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Andrew Knight

Chief Operating Officer (Finance and Corporate Services)

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

1.	Report - Acquisition of Drainage Easement for Spring Creek Bridge, Mt Mort Rehabilitation Project ⇩
1.1	Fact Sheet Greys Plain Road Mount Mort Timber Bridge Replacement ⇩
1.2	Proposed Easement Plan - 144 Greys Plains Road Mount Mort ⇩
1.3	Proposed Easement Area Plan - 144 Greys Plains Road Mount Mort ⇩
1.4	Property Plan - 144 Greys Plains Road Mount Mort ⇩

MEMBERS OF THE Growth and Infrastructure Committee
Interim Administrator Greg Chemello (Chairperson)

1.	Proposal Plan - Place Naming at 134A Parkland Drive, Springfield Central ⇩
2.	Site Plan ⇩

1.	Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan (TEPP) ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Evaluation Report

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Recommendation

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Recommendation

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal / Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Recommendation

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage