Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	Disturbed Land Management Sub-Program - Capital Works Priority List of Projects 2020-2021	13
2	Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - iGO Active Transport Action Plan Implementation Priority List of Locations	18
3	Stormwater Quality Offset Delivery Sub Program - Prioritisation Methodology and Project Shortlist	33
4	Sustainable travel sub-program - cycle safety and mobility improvements priority list of projects	38
5	Strategic Roads Sub-Program - Strategic Roads Priority List of Projects	67
6	Local drainage sub-program - Priority List of Projects	81
7	Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - Pedestrian Safety Improvements Priority List of Projects.	93
8	Sealing Gravel Roads sub-program - Sealing of gravel roads priority list of projects	102
9	Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - Public Transport Improvements Priority List of Projects	128
10	Enviroplan Capital Works Portfolio Sub-Program - Priority List of Projects 2020-2021	139
11	Surrender and Disposal of Easement for the Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track Project	147
12	Surrender and Acquisition of Drainage Easement for the Scott Lane Kerb and Channel Project	207
13	Proposed amendment to the 2019-2020 register of fees and charges	220
14	Court Action Status Report	226
15	Exercise of Delegation	230
16	Heritage and Monuments Advisory Committee Meeting NO. 210	239
17	**New Ipswich Planning Scheme - Statement of Proposals (including Draft Strategic Framework) Consultation Report	249

Growth and Infrastructure Committee NO. 9

10 September 2019

AGENDA

1. Disturbed Land Management Sub-Program - Capital Works Priority List of Projects 2020-2021

This is a report by the Planning Officer (Environmental Management) dated 16 July 2019 concerning the Disturbed Land Management (DLM) project listing that forms the DLM capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of projects as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report be considered when developing the ‘Disturbed Land Management’ sub-program as part of the 2020-2021 budget and future capital works portfolio.

2. Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - iGO Active Transport Action Plan Implementation Priority List of Locations

This is a report concerning the iGO Active Transport Action Plan (ATAP) Implementation project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of iGO Active Transport Action Plan Implementation project locations, as detailed in Attachment 3 of the report by the Senior Transport Planner dated 23 July 2019, be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

3. Stormwater Quality Offset Delivery Sub Program - Prioritisation Methodology and Project Shortlist

This is a report concerning the Stormwater Quality Offset Delivery sub program and prioritisation methodology.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritisation methodology and prioritised list of projects as detailed in Attachment 1 be adopted to guide the delivery of the Stormwater Quality Offset sub-program as part of the 2019–2020 capital works portfolio.

4. Sustainable travel sub-program - cycle safety and mobility improvements priority list of projects

This is a report concerning the cycle safety and mobility improvements project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of cycle safety and mobility improvements as detailed in Attachment 3 to the report by the Technical Officer (Traffic) dated 8 August 2019 be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

5. Strategic Roads Sub-Program - Strategic Roads Priority List of Projects

This is a report concerning the strategic roads project listing that forms part of the ‘Strategic Roads’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised project lists of strategic road projects, as detailed in Attachment 3, 4 and 5 of the report by the Senior Engineer (Transport Planning) dated 8 August 2019, be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

6. Local drainage sub-program - Priority List of Projects

This is a report concerning the local drainage project listing that forms part of the ‘Local Drainage’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of local drainage improvements as detailed in Attachment 3 of the report by the Engineer (Hydraulics) dated 12 August 2019 be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

7. Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - Pedestrian Safety Improvements Priority List of Projects.

This is a report concerning the pedestrian safety improvements project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of pedestrian safety improvement projects as detailed in Attachment 3 to the report by the Senior Technical Officer (Traffic) dated 12 August 2019 be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

8. Sealing Gravel Roads sub-program - Sealing of gravel roads priority list of projects

This is a report concerning the sealing gravel roads project listing that forms the ‘Sealing Gravel Roads’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of sealing gravel roads projects as detailed in Attachment 3 to the report by the Technical Officer (Traffic) dated 15 August 2019 be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

9. Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - Public Transport Improvements Priority List of Projects

This is a report concerning the public transport improvements project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of public transport improvements, as detailed in Attachment 3 of the report by the Technical Officer (Traffic) dated 16 August 2019, be considered when developing Council’s next capital works portfolio.

10. Enviroplan Capital Works Portfolio Sub-Program - Priority List of Projects 2020-2021

This is a report concerning the “Enviroplan” capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the prioritised list of projects and methodology as detailed below and in Attachment 1 of this report, be considered when developing the “Enviroplan” sub-program as part of the 2020-2021 budget for the future capital works portfolio.

11. Surrender and Disposal of Easement for the Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track Project

This is a report concerning the surrender and disposal of an easement for sewerage purposes for the Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track Project (The “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 exemption referred to in section 236 (1)(c)(iv) of the Regulation applies to Council for the disposal of the easement interest of part of Lot 3 on SP243532 located at 36 Huxham Street, Raceview (“the land”), by way of a new easement arrangement between Council and Ipswich Hockey Association Inc.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) agree to surrender the existing easement “Easement A” and grant new Easement for a nil consideration, as detailed in the report of the Senior Property Officer dated 19 August 2019 to Ipswich Hockey Association Inc for sewerage purposes over part of Lot 3 on SP243532 located at 36 Huxham Street, Raceview.

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

12. Surrender and Acquisition of Drainage Easement for the Scott Lane Kerb and Channel Project

This is a report concerning the proposed surrender of existing Easement A in Lot 14 on SP141685 for drainage purposes and acquisition of a new easement for drainage purposes for the Scott Lane Kerb and Channel Project (The Project).

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 20 August 2019, be of the opinion that part of Lot 14 on RP141685 located at 10-16 Goodwin Street, Basin Pocket (shown in Attachment 1 (‘the Land’) requires an easement for drainage purposes.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) declare the existing Easement A in Lot 14 on RP141685 located at 10-16 Goodwin Street, Basin Pocket surplus to Council requirements and grants its consent to the surrender for a consideration of $1.00 if demanded.

C. 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 easement, (as described in Recommendation A of this report dated 20 August 2019) for drainage purposes.

D. 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, to acquire the easement.

13. Proposed amendment to the 2019-2020 register of fees and charges

This is a report concerning the proposed amendments to the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges, specifically fees and charges related to planning and development related activities.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges be amended, as detailed in Attachment 1, and adopted with effect from 17 September 2019.

14. Court Action Status Report

This is a report concerning a status update with respect to current court actions associated with development planning related matters including one other significant matter of dispute that the Planning and Development Department is currently involved with.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

15. Exercise of Delegation

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 2 August 2019 to 29 August 2019.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

16. Heritage and Monuments Advisory Committee Meeting NO. 210

This is a report concerning the minutes of the Heritage and Monuments Advisory Committee (meeting number 210) which was held on Thursday, 22 August 2019. As well as providing updates on standing items, the Committee has also recommended the revised Terms of Reference and the nomination of a replacement representative from the National Trust for approval.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the minutes of the Heritage and Monuments Advisory Committee No. 2010 be received and noted.

B. That the revised Terms of Reference as detailed in Attachment 2, be adopted.

C. That the nomination of Daniel Cameron as a replacement representative from the National Trust Ipswich Branch, be approved.

7. **New Ipswich Planning Scheme - Statement of Proposals (including Draft Strategic Framework) Consultation Report

This is a report concerning the outcomes of the public consultation and early state interests review of the Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework for the New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

The consultation on the Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework provided an opportunity for early engagement by the community and other stakeholders on the strategies and approaches to managing growth and development within the Ipswich Local Government Area into the future. Importantly, this is the first of two opportunities for the community and other stakeholders to provide comment on the New Ipswich Planning Scheme, with the next being the opportunity to comment on the full draft planning scheme and at which time further detailed information will be made available.

The feedback from the community, other stakeholders and the State Government about the draft strategic framework will be used to guide the preparation of the final strategic framework and the rest of the planning scheme, including the detailed zoning and development code components.

Following review of each the submissions received during the public consultation period, a Consultation Report has been prepared that summarises the issues raised in the submissions and sets out a response and recommendation in relation to those issues.

Subject to Council’s approval, the Consultation Report will be made available for public viewing on Council’s web site and a letter sent to each submitter containing advice about how they can access the Consultation Report to obtain feedback on how Council has considered their submission and Council’s response to the issues they have raised.

The consultation also provided the process for the early identification of state interests with State Agencies. The State government’s response in the form of a letter from the Chief Executive of the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) identifies the matters of state interest that need to be further considered and addressed in the drafting of New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) adopt the Consultation Report included in Attachment 2 for the purposes of:

· Providing a response to the issues raised in the submissions and to the submitters; and

· Informing the further preparation of the New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

B. That the Manager, City Design be requested to attend to relevant matters including:

· Publishing the Consultation Report on Council’s website; and

· Notifying all submitters about the publication of the Consultation Report and providing information that allows them to identify Council’s response to the issues they have raised.

C. That the advice on the early identification of state interests received from the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning included in Attachment 3 be used for the purpose of preparing the New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

** Item includes confidential papers

and any other items as considered necessary.

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5664135

ITEM: 1

SUBJECT: Disturbed Land Management Sub-Program - Capital Works Priority List of Projects 2020-2021

AUTHOR: Planning Officer (Environmental Management)

DATE: 16 July 2019

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

The only related parties for this report is Ipswich City Council.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the 2020–2021 capital portfolio build process, this report outlines the prioritisation methodology and subsequent project listings for each sub-program. This report relates specifically to the “Disturbed Land Management” sub program.

Council owns and manages a number of sites within its land portfolio that are considered as “disturbed land”. This relates to land which have inherent environmental issues/risks, resulting from previous activities such as landfilling and mining. As a result, Council has a responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) to ensure that the General Environmental Duty (GED) (as specified under the EP Act) is met. Proper monitoring and management of applicable sites is necessary to ensure risks are mitigated.

The ‘Disturbed Land Management’ sub-program includes, but is not limited to the following project types:

· Planning and design for remediation works on disturbed land;

· Construction of remediation works; and

· Planning, design and implementation of Monitoring Infrastructure.

To create the priority list of projects, as outlined in Attachment 1, an assessment of projects for the ‘Disturbed Land Management’ sub-program has been undertaken using a customized set of three (3) strategic drivers with set percentage weightings. Table 1 of this report outlines each strategic driver, percentage weighting and rationale.

Outlined below is the proposed methodology to determine the prioritised projects. There are three main criteria that are considered when prioritising potential project sites. Each criteria has also been assigned a percentage weighting. These criteria and their assigned percentage weightings are listed and detailed below:

a) Sensitive Receptors – 20% weighting

This factor is based on that the proximity of disturbed land to sensitive receptors (including residential dwellings, waterways and direct site use) increase the potential pathways for the possible contamination and/or risks. Investment is required to monitor or reduce the risk to sensitive receptors.

1. Sensitive Receptors	Weighting
1.1 – Distance to human receptors <500m	10
1.2 – Distance to a watercourse <100m	10

b) Contamination/Risks – 60% weighting

Investment required to reduce the risk to public health and/or the environment. Works required include infrastructure, monitoring equipment or further assessment and investigation works.

2. Contamination/Risks	Weighting
2.1 Gas generation has the potential to cause a hazard to site users; and/or, there is an identified risk for lateral gas migration.	20
2.2 There is potential for ground or surface water contamination.	20
2.3 Soil contamination, and/or site refuse, pose a potential hazards to site users.	20

c) Compliance – 20% weighting

3. Compliance	Weighting
3.1 Investment (rehabilitation, clean up and/or monitoring infrastructure) is required to meet the requirements of statutory environmental legislative compliance.	20

Based on the above methodology, each site currently identified as disturbed land, has been provided an individual score. Prioritisation is then conducted by utilising the below scale:

>65 = HIGH PRIORITY

35-64 = MEDIUM PRIORITY

<34 = LOW PRIORITY

Note that all sites are subjected to the above criteria and prioritisation, however, only sites which currently require capital works investment were included in the evaluation, depending on the sites individual needs at the time.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Council’s investment in the 2019 -2020 ‘Disturbed Land Management’ sub-program is $241,000.00. The 2020-2021 proposed budget of $275,000.00 is based on current site needs.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

As stated in the background section, this sub-program relates to land which have inherent environmental issues/risks, resulting from previous activities such as landfilling and mining. These issues or risks may continue for a significant period of time after the activity in question has ceased, and include (but is not limited to):

· Generation of gas – both landfill gas (from decomposing waste) and coal seam gas (from mining activities) has the potential to cause fire, explosion or asphyxiation in certain concentrations. Gas can also include other toxic compounds, including carcinogens.

· Contamination of surrounding water (including groundwater, stormwater and surface water) – from leachate resulting from decomposing waste mixing with rainwater or release of other site contaminants, such as chemicals used on site.

The implementation of the DLM capital sub-project enables Council to monitor the above risks and identify any potential hazards for the purpose of mitigating and managing. If the attached priority list was not approved, there could be a potential risk to the immediate community and environment, as well as potential legal implications to Council due to failure of meeting the GED under the EP Act.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Environmental Protection Act 1994

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

To date no community consultation has been conducted in regards to the Disturbed Land Management Program. Internal communications are generally limited to within the Infrastructure and Environment Department.

Conclusion

The ‘Disturbed Land Management’ is a sub-program of Council’s capital works portfolio. A list of priority projects have been developed based on the methodology of using the following three criteria:

1. Sensitive receptors

2. Contamination/Risks

3. Compliance

The priority listing of this sub-program is shown in Attachment 1 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Priority List for the Disturbed Land Management Capital Sub-program ⇩

Veronica Aster

Planning Officer (Environmental Management)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5680453

ITEM: 2

SUBJECT: Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - iGO Active Transport Action Plan Implementation Priority List of Locations

AUTHOR: Senior Transport Planner

DATE: 23 July 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the iGO Active Transport Action Plan (ATAP) Implementation project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related party matters associated with this report.

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest regarding this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the capital portfolio build process, it is proposed to submit a report outlining the project listing for each sub-program. This report relates to iGO ATAP Implementation which forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program. Attachment 1 outlines how this project listing relates to the corresponding sub-program and program of works within the capital works portfolio.

At its Ordinary Meeting on 6 December 2016, the iGO ATAP prioritisation methodology was presented and Council endorsed the iGO ATAP pedestrian and cycle prioritisation maps (refer Attachment 2). These maps were also endorsed to be used to inform and guide Council infrastructure planning and investment programming activities.

The previously endorsed iGO ATAP pedestrian and cycle prioritisation maps identify top priority locations for strategic active transport infrastructure investment. These locations are currently separated into four categories. These being:

1. Strategic Pedestrian Network Activity Centre Priorities;

2. Strategic Pedestrian Network Public Transport Priorities;

3. Strategic Pedestrian Network School Priorities; and

4. Cycle Network Priorities.

Each category has associated calculation matrices which were used to create the individual category prioritised lists. Unfortunately, it is difficult to fairly prioritise across these four categories due to their different characteristics, scope and drivers (i.e. a like for like comparison cannot be made across the categories using a quantitative method).

It should be noted that the strategic pedestrian network projects were grouped together around their identified ‘active transport attractor’ (e.g. Activity Centre, Public Transport Hub or School) as much as possible rather than being split up into individual projects to be prioritised. This is so identifying project prioritisation can be simplified, a targeted outcome for active transport in an area can be delivered quickly and Council investment is more visible in the community.

Further, the Secondary Cycle Route and Local Cycle Route single list project prioritisation process gave regard to the location of existing bicycle infrastructure and the location and timing of planned future bicycle infrastructure. This ensures that the bicycle network expands in a connected fashion rather than in an ad hoc manner.

Consequently, a single list of top priority locations for strategic active transport infrastructure investment was developed and has been updated using such information as local knowledge, engineering judgement, inter-departmental co-ordination opportunities and proximity to existing active transport facilities etc. The results of this assessment are provided in Attachment 3.

Finally, it should be noted that the priority locations listing for iGO ATAP Implementation will be considered during development of the next capital works portfolio for years 2022-2023 onwards, given the priority locations and projects in the preceding three financial years are considered to be committed.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In 2017, upon review of historic active transport funding frameworks and when considering the implementation of iGO ATAP, it became apparent that Principal Cycle Routes have a funding source and that some local footpaths and kerb ramps could be funded through existing funding mechanisms.

However, there was a funding gap when it came to developing Secondary and Local Cycle Routes and the strategic pedestrian network. These were projects which were typically too expensive for the previous funding mechanisms, were too small to compete with larger projects for grant funding eligibility or were reliant on ad hoc funding mechanisms [refer to Item 1 tabled at the City Infrastructure and Emergency Management Committee No. 2017(07) of 17 July 2017]. Consequently, since the 2017-2018 Financial Year, Council have previously allocated S1,000,000 each year towards iGO ATAP Implementation within the capital works portfolio.

Council’s recently adopted capital works portfolio has allocated $400,000 for the 2019-2020 financial year, $1,150,000 for the 2020-2021 financial year (inclusive of $750,000 for the Bremer Street footpath project) and $400,000 for the 2021-2022 financial year.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

On average, the funding for the iGO ATAP Implementation program for the next three financial years has been reduced to $650,000 per year. As outlined, iGO ATAP Implementation project lists are developed based on the total allocated funding amount for the program, this has resulted in reduced project scope for each iGO ATAP Implementation priority location or the implementation of only one location a year as opposed to previous years where sometimes multiple locations were able to be implemented. As a result, there is a potential reduction in active transport benefit for the associated locations and the implementation of iGO ATAP will be reduced in future years.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the policy outlined in the endorsed City of Ipswich Transport Plan 2016 and endorsed iGO Active Transport Action Plan 2016.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The community has not been consulted as part of the creation of the iGO ATAP Implementation single list of top priority locations. However, the iGO ATAP pedestrian and cycle prioritisation maps (and associated priority lists) are based on consultation activities and a technical assessment completed as part of the Council endorsed iGO ATAP.

iGO ATAP was informed by the following consultation exercises:

· Online Community Survey - 941 survey responses from the community were received (survey period being 23 February 2016 and 13 March 2016); and

· Stakeholder Workshops - Three project workshops were held with representatives from the Department of Transport and Main Roads and internal Council stakeholders from the former Planning and Development Department, Infrastructure Services Department and Works, Parks and Recreation Department. These workshops consequently held on 25 February 2016, 10 March 2016 and 6 June 2016.

While the community survey provided insight to Ipswich resident’s active transport infrastructure preferences, barriers and enables, throughout the stakeholder workshop and document review process support for the project and agreement on the active transport priorities was obtained.

There is an intent to renew the consultation activities and update the technical assessment as part of the iGO ATAP document five-year review process which will be undertaken in 2021.

Community consultation will also be undertaken for each individual iGO ATAP Implementation project as they are delivered through the capital works potfolio.

Conclusion

iGO ATAP Implementation forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program within Council’s capital works portfolio. Council previously endorsed a methodology for prioritising iGO ATAP, and this report has taken the previously approved four categories of prioritised lists for strategic active transport investment and provided a combined single list of priority locations. This combined and updated priority list of locations for iGO ATAP Implementation which forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program is shown in Attachment 3 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Capital Works List - iGO ATAP Implementation ⇩
2.	Committee Report - iGO ATAP Network Prioritisation Maps ⇩
3.	iGO ATAP Implementation - Priority List of Locations ⇩

Jessica Cartlidge

Senior Transport Planner

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

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

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5694596

ITEM: 3

SUBJECT: Stormwater Quality Offset Delivery Sub Program - Prioritisation Methodology and Project Shortlist

AUTHOR: Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources)

DATE: 31 July 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the Stormwater Quality Offset Delivery sub program and prioritisation methodology.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties to this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the 2019-2020 capital portfolio build process the prioritisation methods and subsequent project listing for each sub-program have been submitted for consideration. This report relates to the “Stormwater Quality Offset Delivery” sub-program and provides a list and details of the method used to prioritise and formulate this list.

The Stormwater Quality offset program is a developer funded program though which Council delivers regional water quality improvement measures and solutions in lieu of them being delivered onsite as part of a development as required by the State Planning Policy. Developers are offered the alternative option of providing a voluntary monetary contribution equivalent to the cost of removing the required proportion of pollutant loads on site. This is used to fund the delivery of regional and local alternatives by council.

Prioritisation Method

Initially potential projects, locations and sites were identified across the city based upon a set of programme rules as outlined and defined in the Water Quality Offset report 2014. This was drawn up into an Offsets ‘long list’.

From here basic feasibility and a process of prioritisation is applied to work out the eligibility of each of the potential projects.

To determine initial eligibility, the following criteria is considered:

· The project must demonstrate that it is achieving Council’s obligations under the stormwater quality offsets scheme, with improved water quality outcomes. Possible treatment options are: Naturalising concrete channels; constructed wetlands; bio retention basins; creek filtration systems; daylighting stormwater pipes to channels.

· The project does not replicate maintenance issues of contributed assets. Specifically:

- Large walls surrounding infrastructure will not be accepted, as will large batters, to the greatest extent practicable.

- Assets must be integrated with existing vegetation, or allow dense vegetation planting surrounding the asset to improve microclimate and drying out. The intent with this approach is to ensure that they are effectively not seen, or the impact is subtle.

- Assets need to be integrated within parkland in an aesthetically pleasing manner that contributes to wider landscaping and park design.

- Access must be a key consideration for maintenance and construction and associated costs.

· Offsets projects are required in addition to ‘business as usual’ and existing regulatory requirements (eg ESC).

· Stormwater quality offsets cannot be credited for the delivery of other types of offset projects

· Project funds are allocated to projects within the Ipswich LGA.

· Cost effectiveness of $/kg of pollutant removed.

· Delivery must be on Council owned land, unless an alternative partnership approach can be achieved at negligible land cost.

· Adequate space must be retained for any park/drainage reserve to serve a dual purpose role as kick about/active rec areas.

· Basins should not be located below 1 in 20 ARI flood level where possible, particularly on large catchments.

· Sufficient space is available to provide separation between dwellings and dense vegetation.

Within the ‘long list’ provided under the above rules, the offsets program delivery has been prioritised or shortlisted using the following considerations, with the categories given weightings as described below in Table 1:

· Cost effectiveness – how efficiently does the approach/project achieve reduction in pollutant liabilities? Measured by cost estimate relative to modelled pollutant reductions.

· Amenity – How will the project improve amenity of the existing site

· Integration – how well will the project be integrated within the existing site setting?

· Access – How accessible is the proposed treatment measure for maintenance purposes

· Maintenance – will this project assist to resolve existing maintenance challenges?

It is important to note that these weightings exist inside a set of program rules for initial project identification. These are elaborated on in the aforementioned offsets report. The above prioritisation process is summarised in table 1.

PRIORITISATION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY:

The prioritised assessment of projects for the “Stormwater Quality Offsets” sub program has been undertaken using a customized set of five (5) strategic drivers with set percentage weightings. Table 1 of this report outlines each strategic driver, percentage weighting and rationale.

Table 1 – Customized Strategic Drivers

Strategic Driver	Percentage Weighting	Rationale
A. Cost Effectiveness	B. 30%	C. The project is required to meet the obligations of the stormwater quality offsets scheme. Different options have different pollutant removal efficiencies, and hence this is critical to ensure successful delivery of the program. Note: Those items that do not achieve minimum standards of pollutant removal will not be considered.
D. Amenity	E. 25%	F. Projects that deliver high levels of amenity to otherwise denuded areas or can be accommodated within existing attractive settings will score highly.
G. Integration	H. 25%	I. Projects that deliver multiple benefits will be valued most highly, for example stormwater harvesting schemes that provide benefit to the amenity and functionality of sports fields, or assets that are designed to fit into a parkland in a pleasing and complementary manner will be scored highly.
J. Access	K. 10%	L. Access for the purposes of constructability and maintenance are critical. Those with easy access will score highly.
M. Maintenance	N. 10%	O. Those items that resolve a maintenance concern and can be built in a manner that improves the burden on maintenance crews will be scored most highly.
	P. 100%

The result of this process is the sub program for 2020-2021 as shown in Table 2, this is the culmination of the initial program phase. Further work within this phase will revisit the long list and feasibility criteria in order to develop the sub programs for the following 3- 5 year project phase.

Table 2 – Proposed Sub-Program Project Lists 2020 - 2021

PRIORITY	PROJECT	SCOPE	PROJECT CATERGORY
1	Small Creek	Channel Naturalisation Stage 3 and 4 (Construct 3 and Design 4 between Whitehill Rd and Briggs Road, Raceview)	WQ Offset
2	Future Offset Program Scope and Planning	Stormwater Quality Future projects site feasibility and concepts Detailed Design	WQ Offset
3	Ironpot Creek Stabilisation (Wairuna Court)	Battering and hardening erosion at Walter Zimmerman Park	WQ Offset
4	Stormwater Street Tree Pilot	City Wide Stormwater Pilot Program	WQ Offset
5	Bremervale Park	Constructed Wetlands Design	WQ Offset

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The projected cost of the sub program for 2020-2021 is $1,938,000.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There is an on ongoing environmental, reputational and legislative risk to council in not meeting/delivering on the liabilities accrued through the collection of developer contributions for an express and specific purpose including Water Quality Offsets.

Reasonable management of this risk comes from projecting and forecasting future collection of offsets funds based on potential growth and pre-programming and planning projects and options accordingly.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Planning Act 2016

In accepting the developer contribution under the local planning provisions Council is taking the responsibility and liability to deliver the offset set out under the State Regulation.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Small Creek’s award winning community lead design through Design your Creek Week will continue into phase 3 and 4 with internally lead program of community and stakeholder engagement.

Consultation is ongoing across and between relevant bodies and organisations in regards to best practise in the field of Stormwater Offsets and the delivery of associated projects.

The city-wide feasibility study will make recommendations in regards to targeted engagement in association with specific recommendations.

Conclusion

The “Stormwater Quality Offsets Delivery” is a sub-program of Council’s capital works portfolio. A proposed list of priority projects has been developed based on the methodology of assessing projects against a customized set of five (5) strategic drivers with set percentage weightings. The priority listing for this sub-program is shown in Table 2 of this report.

Phil Smith

Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

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

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5710216

ITEM: 4

SUBJECT: Sustainable travel sub-program - cycle safety and mobility improvements priority list of projects

AUTHOR: Technical Officer (Traffic)

DATE: 8 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the cycle safety and mobility improvements project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

The only related party for this report is Ipswich City Council.

There is no declaration of conflicts of interest regarding this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the capital works portfolio build process, it is proposed to submit a report outlining the project listing for each sub-program. This report relates to cycle safety and mobility improvements which form part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program. Attachment 1 outlines how this project listing relates to the corresponding sub-program and program of works within the capital works portfolio.

At its Ordinary meeting on 28 July 2015, Council endorsed a methodology for assessing stormwater grates throughout the City for the purpose of prioritising funding through the cycle safety and mobility improvements sub-program [refer to Item 5 tabled at City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 2015(07)].

At its Ordinary meeting on 19 September 2017, Council endorsed a modified scope of the cycle safety and mobility improvements sub-program to include small scale projects. As a result, a new methodology was endorsed to assist with prioritising projects [refer item 6 tabled at City Infrastructure and Emergency Management Committee No. 2017(09)], as per Attachment 2.

The previously developed methodology endorsed by Council has been used to prioritise future projects. The full list of cycle safety and mobility improvement projects for future years can be viewed in Attachment 3, along with the associated priority ranking. It should be noted that the project listing for cycle safety and mobility improvements will be considered during development of the next capital works portfolio for years 2022-2023 onwards, given projects in the preceding three financial years are considered to be committed.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In previous financial years, Council has allocated various funding amounts within the capital portfolio to ensure a level of service continues to be provided with respects to cycle safety and mobility infrastructure. However, Council’s recently adopted capital works portfolio has zero funding allocated for cycle safety and mobility improvements for the 2019-2020 financial year, $148,000 for the 2020-2021 financial year and $71,000 in the 2021-2022 financial year.

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:

Not Applicable

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The community has not been consulted as part of the creation of the cycle safety and mobility improvements project listing. The project listings are based on a technical assessment in accordance with a Council approved methodology. Further, no internal stakeholder consultation has occurred in the development of this list of projects.

Conclusion

Cycle safety and mobility improvements form part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program within Council’s capital works portfolio. Council previously endorsed a methodology for assessing cycle safety and mobility improvements which has been used to develop a list of priority projects. The updated priority list of projects for the cycle safety and mobility improvements which forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program is shown in Attachment 3 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Capital Works List Cycle Safety and Mobility ⇩
2.	Previous Committee Report - Sustainable Transport Sub-program - cycle safety and mobility improvements - scope and methodology 2018-2019 September 2017 ⇩
3.	Cycle Safety and Mobility Improvements Priority Listing ⇩

Jade Smith

Technical Officer (Traffic)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

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

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5710749

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: Strategic Roads Sub-Program - Strategic Roads Priority List of Projects

AUTHOR: Senior Engineer (Transport Planning)

DATE: 8 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the strategic roads project listing that forms part of the ‘Strategic Roads’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

There only related parties for this report is Ipswich City Council.

There is no declaration of conflicts of interest regarding this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the capital portfolio build process, it is proposed to submit a report outlining the project listing for each sub-program. This report relates to strategic road projects which form part of the ‘Strategic Roads’ sub-program. Attachment 1 outlines how this project listing relates to the corresponding sub-program and program of works within the capital works portfolio.

Projects in the ‘Strategic Roads’ sub-program include road upgrade projects, intersection upgrade projects and new road projects which are derived from iGO – the City of Ipswich Transport Plan (iGO). At its Ordinary meeting on 15 September 2015, Council endorsed a methodology for assessing the priority of these strategic road projects (refer Attachment 2).

The endorsed prioritisation methodology has associated calculation matrices which are used to prioritise the road upgrade projects, intersection upgrade projects and new road projects. It is difficult to fairly prioritise projects across these three categories due to their different characteristics, scope and drivers. That is, a like for like comparison cannot be made across the categories. But a comparison of projects within each category can be made and as such, have been prioritised accordingly. The priority list of projects for each category are included in Attachments 3, 4 and 5.

It should be noted that it is proposed to make a minor alteration to the weightings applied to the criteria for new road projects from the previously endorsed methodology. New road projects have previously been prioritised based on the following criteria and weighting:

· iGO population trigger (required by 275,000, 350,000 or 435,000) - 70% weighting;

· Rate of development in the catchment serviced by the new road - 15% weighting;

· Spare capacity within the existing roads that service the catchment - 15% weighting.

Since the adoption of iGO in June 2016, there has been significant development within Ipswich. However, the rate and location of development has differed from that forecast in iGO. As a result, it is proposed to alter the weightings applied to the three criteria for new road projects in order to reflect these differences and place greater emphasis over time on the observed impacts rather than forecast impacts to the existing road network.

It is intended to continue this approach (i.e. sliding scale reduction of the iGO population trigger weighting by 10% each year) until such time as iGO is updated as part of the planned 2021 review, whereby the original weightings will be reinstated. As such, the proposed weightings for the prioritisation are as noted below:

· iGO population trigger (required by 275,000, 350,000 or 435,000) - 40% weighting;

· Rate of development in the catchment serviced by the new road - 30% weighting;

· Spare capacity within the existing roads that service the catchment - 30% weighting.

Council’s recently developed Long Term Financial Forecast (LTFF) includes a high level 10 year capital works portfolio (2019-2028). Projects included within the first three financial years of the 10 year capital works portfolio are considered to be committed and are not included within the project prioritisation assessment. As such, the priority project lists for strategic roads will be considered during the development of the capital works portfolio for years 2022-2023 onwards.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In previous financial years, Council has allocated funding towards strategic road projects within the capital portfolio (where the funding amount varied annually) in order to work towards delivering on the cities growing transport demands. Council’s recently adopted capital works portfolio has allocated approximately $19.3 million for the 2019-2020 financial year, $29.5 million for the 2020-2021 financial year and $37.1 million for the 2021-2022 financial year.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Council’s recently developed LTFF and 10 year capital works portfolio shows an increase in funding towards strategic road projects compared to previous financial years. However, the strategic road priority project list assessment is based on observed traffic volumes and growth rates and has identified that a significant number of road projects are operating at or over capacity if delivered in accordance with the timing included in the 10 year capital works portfolio. Consequently, this will impact upon the future safety and efficiency of the strategic road network.

The current investment timing also falls short of the forecast requirements outlined in iGO whereby iGO is a plan to meet satisfactory transport development standards where projects are delivered in a responsible timeframe. This means that essential strategic transport projects will not be in place to meet the needs of the city’s expected growth.

Finally, it should be noted that the current strategic roads priority project lists do not include projects within the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area (PDA). The Ripley Valley PDA is currently operating under the Queensland Government’s Ripley Valley Development Scheme. The development of the Ripley Valley PDA is predicated on the fact that all trunk infrastructure requirements for the PDA will ultimately be funded by development within the PDA. There is an emerging risk for Council that a significant number of road upgrades will be required within the Ripley Valley PDA that are unlikely to be constructed by developers and will not be covered by the limited municipal contributions that are currently being collected.

Further, there is a potential risk to Council should the Queensland Government revocate the Ripley Valley PDA. Specifically, the strategic transport, open space and community infrastructure requirements of Ripley Valley would significantly impact upon Council’s LTFF and ability to deliver other much needed citywide strategic infrastructure. The potential risks and issues related to the Ripley Valley PDA infrastructure requirements will be the subject of a future report.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the strategic direction outlined in the endorsed City of Ipswich Transport Plan 2016.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The community and internal stakeholders have not been consulted as part of the creation of the strategic roads project lists. The project lists are derived from iGO – the City of Ipswich Transport Plan which included both internal and external stakeholder consultation, with the technical assessment undertaken in accordance with a Council approved methodology. Community consultation will be undertaken for each individual strategic road project as part of the delivery of the capital works program.

Conclusion

Road upgrade projects, intersection upgrade projects and new road projects form part of the ‘Strategic Roads’ sub-program within Council’s capital works portfolio. Council previously endorsed a methodology for assessing strategic road projects which has been used to develop a list of priority projects for each category. The updated strategic road priority lists of projects which form part of the ‘Strategic Roads’ sub-program are shown in Attachment 3, 4 and 5 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Capital Works List - Strategic Roads ⇩
2.	Previous Committee Report - Strategic Roads Prioritisation Methodology ⇩
3.	Strategic Roads - Prioritised Road Upgrade Project Listing ⇩
4.	Strategic Roads - Prioritised Intersection Upgrade Project Listing ⇩
5.	Strategic Roads - Prioritised New Road Project Listing ⇩

Brad Freiberg

Senior Engineer (Transport Planning)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

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

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5717618

ITEM: 7

SUBJECT: Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - Pedestrian Safety Improvements Priority List of Projects.

AUTHOR: Senior Technical Officer (Traffic)

DATE: 12 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the pedestrian safety improvements project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

The only related party for this report is Ipswich City Council.

There is no declaration of conflicts of interest regarding this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the capital works portfolio build process, it is proposed to submit a report outlining the project listing for each sub-program. This report relates to pedestrian safety improvements which forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program. Attachment 1 outlines how this project listing relates to the corresponding sub-program and program of works within the capital works portfolio.

At its Ordinary meeting on 25 August 2015, Council endorsed a methodology for assessing pedestrian safety improvements [refer to Item 5 tabled at the City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 2015(08)], as per Attachment 2.

The previously developed methodology endorsed by Council has been used to prioritise future projects. The full list of pedestrian safety improvement projects for future years can be viewed in Attachment 3, along with the associated priority ranking. It should be noted that the project listing for pedestrian safety improvements will be considered during development of the next capital works portfolio for years 2022-2023 onwards, given projects in the preceding three financial years are considered to be committed.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In previous financial years Council has allocated approximately $140,000 annually towards pedestrian safety improvements within the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program. Council’s recently adopted capital works portfolio has $135,000 for 2019-2020, $124,000 for 2020-2021 and $141,000 for the 2021-2022 financial year.

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:

Not Applicable

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

External stakeholders such as members of the community have not been consulted directly as part of the creation of the pedestrian safety improvements project listing. The project listings are based on technical assessment in accordance with a Council approved methodology. However, members of the community do raise requests for pedestrian improvement infrastructure directly with Council which is considered when developing potential projects.

Internal stakeholders from various Council departments also raise requests for pedestrian improvement infrastructure when no alternate funding sources are available. While no formal consultation has been carried out with these stakeholders, their requests are considered against other projects based on priorities and funding availability.

Conclusion

Pedestrian safety improvement projects form part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program within Council’s capital works portfolio. Council previously endorsed a methodology for assessing pedestrian safety improvements which has been used to develop a list of priority projects. The updated priority list of projects for the pedestrian safety improvements which forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program is shown in Attachment 3 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Capital Works List - Pedestrian Safety Improvements ⇩
2.	Previous Committee Report - Pedestrian Safety Improvements sub-program - priority list of projects ⇩
3.	Pedestrian Safety Improvements Priority Listing ⇩

Tim Salomon

Senior Technical Officer (Traffic)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

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

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5728155

ITEM: 9

SUBJECT: Sustainable Travel Sub-Program - Public Transport Improvements Priority List of Projects

AUTHOR: Technical Officer (Traffic)

DATE: 16 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the public transport improvements project listing that forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

The related parties for this report are Ipswich City Council and the State Government’s Translink Division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).

There is no declaration of conflict of interest regarding this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the capital works portfolio build process, it is proposed to submit a report outlining the project listing for each sub-program. This report relates to the public transport improvements which forms part of the “Sustainable Travel” sub-program. Attachment 1 outlines how this project listing relates to the corresponding sub-program and program of works within the capital works portfolio.

At its Ordinary meeting on 15 September 2015, Council endorsed a methodology for assessing public transport improvements [refer to Item 3 tabled at the City Infrastructure Committee Meeting 2015(09)], refer to Attachment 2.

The previously developed prioritisation methodology endorsed by Council has an associated calculation matrix which is used to prioritise future projects. The matrix and the full list of public transport improvement projects for future years can be viewed in Attachment 3, along with the associated criteria scoring and priority ranking. In recent years Translink have indicated to Council that if bus stops to be upgraded are aligned on opposite sides of the road, then upgrades should be paired together (that is both the inbound and outbound stops constructed consecutively). Therefore this has been taken into account during the prioritisation of remaining bus stops.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In previous financial years, Council has allocated funding (where the funding amount varied annually) within the capital portfolio to ensure that Council meets our obligations under the State Government’s Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to have all public transport stops compliant by December 2022. Council’s recently adopted capital works portfolio has $598,000 allocated towards public transport improvements within the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 financial years. It should be noted that 50% of this allocation is provided by a grant from the State Government through their Passenger Transport Accessible Infrastructure Program (PTAIP). In addition, in order to meet our DDA obligation the State have now provided an additional $247,000 of funds for the shelters under the Bus Stop Shelter Program in 2019-2020.

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:

Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002

Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The community has not been consulted as part of the creation of the public transport improvements project listing. The project listings are based on a technical assessment in accordance with a Council approved methodology.

The Translink Division of TMR are consulted throughout the year to provide valuable input regarding bus stop patronage data and overall bus stop infrastructure requirements. This ensures a collaborative approach to these program of works.

Consultation was not required with internal stakeholders while developing the public transport improvements project listing.

Conclusion

Public transport improvements form part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program within Council’s capital works portfolio. Council previously endorsed a methodology for assessing public transport improvements which has been used to develop a list of priority projects. The updated priority list of projects for the public transport improvements which forms part of the ‘Sustainable Travel’ sub-program is shown in Attachment 3 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Capital Works List - Public Transport Improvements ⇩
2.	Previous Committee Report - Public Transport Improvements Sub-Program - Priority List of Projects Report ⇩
3.	Public Transport Improvements Priority Listing ⇩

Sally Peters

Technical Officer (Traffic)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

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

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5735263

ITEM: 10

SUBJECT: Enviroplan Capital Works Portfolio Sub-Program - Priority List of Projects 2020-2021

AUTHOR: Planning Officer (Natural Environment)

DATE: 21 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the “Enviroplan” capital works portfolio sub-program.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties for this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

As part of the 2020–2021 capital portfolio build process, it is proposed to submit a report outlining the prioritisation methodology and subsequent project listing for each sub-program. This report relates to the “Enviroplan” sub-program. The prioritisation and delivery of Enviroplan projects will remain the responsibility of the Environment and Sustainability Branch of the Infrastructure and Environment Department.

Through the strategic direction given by the Ipswich Enviroplan policy and its aims around securing significant conservation and bushland areas for the purpose of retaining and managing Ipswich’s valuable natural resources, a project prioritisation decision matrix has been developed to reflect the key elements outlined in that policy.

Due to the dynamic nature of the natural environment, it is expected that a significant number of additional reactive projects may need to be considered throughout the course of this capital investment period, and subsequent years, which are outside this current list. These additional projects will be assessed under an adaptive management framework using the proposed methodology and added to the Enviroplan capital portfolio list as required.

Table 1 outlines the methodology to determine the prioritisation of projects.

Sub- Programs	Strategic Driver Criteria	% weighting	Rationale
Enviroplan	Public Health and Safety	25%	Projects which demonstrate a significant level of benefit based to Public Health & Safety value of project sites will be weighted the highest, while projects with the least benefits will be weighted the lowest.
	Fire management	20%	Projects which demonstrate a significant level of benefit based on the required fire management at project sites will be weighted the highest, while projects with the least benefits will be weighted the lowest. Fire management value is based primarily on reducing risk to life and property and then ecological outcomes.
	Conservation value	15%	Projects which demonstrate a significant level of benefit based on the conservation value present at project sites will be weighted the highest, while projects with the least benefits will be weighted the lowest. Conservation value is based on factors such as: Land management zones, the presence of iconic native species, proximity to critical habitat and waterways.
	Pest animal management	10%	Projects which demonstrate a significant level of benefit based on the pest animal management of project sites will be weighted the highest, while projects with the least benefits will be weighted the lowest.
	Unauthorised motor vehicle access	10%	Projects which demonstrate a significant level of benefit based on unauthorised motor vehicle access management of project sites will be weighted the highest, while projects with the least benefits will be weighted the lowest.
	Nature based recreation & environmental education	10%	Projects which demonstrate a significant level of benefit based on sustainable nature-based recreation and environmental education with increased visitor experience at project sites will be weighted the highest, while projects with the least benefits will be weighted the lowest.
	Compliance	10%	Investment is required to meet legislative and land management compliance purposes.
		100%

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Biosecurity Act 2014

Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990

Land Act 1994

Local Government Act 2009

Nature Conservation Act 1992

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There is an on ongoing environmental, reputational and legislative risk to council in not meeting/delivering on land management responsibilities including those relating to public use and health and safety, ecological health, native biodiversity impacts and fire management.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The projected cost of the sub program for 2020-2021 is estimated at $255,000. In not completing and investing fully in this subprogram the burden of works and subsequent costs are likely to increase into future years.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

No community consultation was required for this report.

Relevant internal stakeholders were consulted in the development of the prioritised project list.

Conclusion

The “Enviroplan” capital works are a sub-program of Council’s capital works portfolio. A proposed list of priority projects have been developed based on the methodology of assessing projects against a customized set of seven (7) strategic drivers with set percentage weightings. The priority listing for this sub-program is shown in Attachment 1.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1	Enviroplan Sub-program CapEx 20-21 ⇩

John Young

Planning Officer (Natural Environment)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5728799

ITEM: 11

SUBJECT: Surrender and Disposal of Easement for the Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track Project

AUTHOR: Senior Property Officer

DATE: 19 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the surrender and disposal of an easement for sewerage purposes for the Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track Project (The “Project”).

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) agree to surrender the existing easement “Easement A” and grant new Easement for a nil consideration, as detailed in the report of the Senior Property Officer dated 19 August 2019 to Ipswich Hockey Association Inc for sewerage purposes over part of Lot 3 on SP243532 located at 36 Huxham Street, Raceview.

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

RELATED PARTIES

Ipswich Hockey Association Inc.

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

The project was the subject of a City Works, Parks Sport and Environment Committee Report adopted 5 September 2016 (19) regarding the Functional Brief to inform the design and construction of the new Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track, which has since completed construction.

This report seeks to ratify and formalise actions over Council owned land required to complete the Project.

The project identified an appropriate location for the development of an off-road cycling criterium track where there was a need to service the Ipswich cycling community. Council was successful in obtaining $1,500,000 in State Government funding to deliver construction of the project. A concept master plan and scope was prepared and the following elements of the project were constructed:

· Criterium Track 1685m long, 10m wide asphalt (with configurations of 400m, 1055m and 1353m tracks)

· Main staging area which doubles as “learn to ride” bike facility with removable signs

· Small staging area for 400m track

· Pathway connections to car park

· Officials shelter with services (power and timing devices) for hosting competitions

· Lighting and security cameras for improved safety and utilisation

· Toilets/amenities

· Clubhouse

As a result of the construction completion of the project, the following actions were identified:

1. Road Closure

Council will be required to apply to the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy to have the road closed at Balaclava Street, Flinders View, and amalgamated into Council’s adjoining freehold land. The power to close roads is pursuant to s69 of the Local Government Act 2009 and is not a disposal of land and therefore does not require a council resolution.

2. Surrender of Existing Easement and Disposal of New Easement

There is an existing easement identified as “Easement A” benefitting lot 2 on SP243532 located at 30 Huxham Street, Raceview, owned by the Ipswich Hockey Association Inc. over the Council freehold land described as Lot 3 on SP243532 located at 36 Huxham Street, Raceview which connects the sewer line from the Ipswich Hockey Association Inc to the sewer main. The sewer line infrastructure was realigned to accommodate the project, to avoid conflicts with stormwater drains, and therefore requires the surrender of the existing easement (927m2) and creation of a new easement (995m2) over the realigned sewerage infrastructure. The proposed easement will be disposed of for a consideration of nil as it is a relocation of an existing easement required by Council to facilitate the Project.

3. Amalgamation of lots

The following three Council freehold lots are to be amalgamated into one lot:

a. Lot 3 on SP243532 located at 36 Huxham Street, Raceview;

b. Lot 282 on I163 located at Lot 282 Balaclava Street, Flinders View; and

c. Lot 3 on RP85713 located at 137 Briggs Road, Flinders View

Amalgamating lots is not a disposal of land, and therefore a council resolution is not required.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Regulation 2012

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The relocation of the easement to the realigned sewerage infrastructure through the process of surrendering the existing easement and creating a new easement secures formal access to the sewerage infrastructure. The easement will also create legal access for the Ipswich Hockey Association Inc to maintain the private sewer connection. This could also create risks to Council in the future in developing infrastructure over its freehold land if the easement is not correctly aligned with the new sewerage infrastructure.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Expenses relating to the surrender of the existing easement, creation of the new easement and any other related project actions will form part of the project budget. The surrender of the existing easement and creation of the new easement will be at nil consideration.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

In the initial concept stage, consultation was held with the Ipswich Hockey Association Inc and Council’s Infrastructure and Environment Department, Sport, Recreation and Natural Resources Branch and Construction Branch to discuss the project and the need to relocate their existing sewer connection and associated easement at Council’s expense. It was agreed to re-align their private sewer connection from their facility on 30 Huxham Street, Raceview to the sewer main located at 74 Huxham Street, Raceview, as part of the project to avoid conflict with the stormwater drains.

Ipswich Hockey Association Inc were provided updates from Council’s Infrastructure and Environment Department during the course of the project and the realignment of the easements was one component of the larger project. No objections or concerns were raised.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council proceed to surrender the existing easement “Easement A” and create a new easement over Lot 3 on SP243532 located at 36 Huxham Street, Raceview for sewerage purposes for nil consideration.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Briggs Road Sports Complex Criterium Track Functional Brief ⇩
2.	Existing Easement Document ⇩
3.	Plan of Existing Easement and New Easement ⇩
4.	Ipswich Cycle Park - Concept Report ⇩

Kerry Perrett

Senior Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett McGrath

Principal Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Andrew Knight

General Manager - Corporate Services

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5731968

ITEM: 12

SUBJECT: Surrender and Acquisition of Drainage Easement for the Scott Lane Kerb and Channel Project

AUTHOR: Senior Property Officer

DATE: 20 August 2019

Executive Summary

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

RELATED PARTIES

The owners of property located at 10-16 Goodwin Street, Basin Pocket.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

The existing easement identified as Easement A (415m²) for drainage purposes was created by Council on 24October 2001. Council have recently completed works for the installation of new drainage infrastructure within the existing easement as part of the Accelerated Kerb and Channel sub-program.

The design required an upgrade to the cross road drainage that existed on Goodwin Street (adjacent to Scott Lane) to cater for the increase in stormwater flows as a result of the new kerb and channel on Scott lane. An existing section of stormwater infrastructure running from Goodwin Street through the east of the property at 10-16 Goodwin Street, Basin Pocket was made redundant. A new gully inlet point and associated stormwater main running along Goodwin Street was installed, joining into the above mentioned work. The existing stormwater network was not contained within the existing Easement A boundary, and was abandoned during construction work, both ends were broken and sealed.

The new stormwater infrastructure was designed to minimise impacts over private residences. Therefore, the area in which the drainage infrastructure has been made redundant can be surrendered and a new easement created over the new infrastructure, as agreed with the property owner.

The surrender of the existing easement (415m²) will be for nil consideration and acquisition of the new easement (222m²) will also be for nil consideration. Effectively, the reduction of the size of the drainage infrastructure means there is no requirement for Council to hold the existing easement (415m²) and the new easement (222m²) is all that is required for access to the new drainage infrastructure.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Acquisition of Land Act 1967+ Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

It is highly unlikely that the abandoned infrastructure or the existing easement area to be surrendered will be required by Council in the future. Council’s preference would be to augment or increase the capacity of the infrastructure contained within the road reserve and the proposed new easement boundary. The risk of not resolving to surrender the existing easement and create a new easement over the new drainage infrastructure will not allow the property owner to utilise their property to its full potential as the easement restricts their use over that portion of land.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Expenses relating to the surrender of the existing easement and acquisition of new easement will form part of the project budget from the Local Amenity Sub-program for Kerb and Channel. The expenses include the registration of a new survey plan as well as surrender and registration of the easements with the titles office.

As a result of the recent drainage works, Council and the property owner have agreed to the surrender of the existing easement and acquisition of a new easement over the reduced portion of land now required for the infrastructure. If the new easement proposal is not agreed to, the existing easement will remain over the property and still provide the required access for maintenance of the drainage infrastructure when required by Council.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The property owner approached Council during the construction of the project to enquire whether the easement area would be reduced to reflect the smaller size of the new drainage infrastructure. Council and the land owner agreed that the additional area was not required and agreed to surrender the existing easement and acquire a new easement with a smaller area.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council proceed with the surrender of the existing easement and acquisition of the new easement over Lot 14 on SP141685 located at 10-16 Goodwin Street, Basin Pocket.

Council will seek to acquire the new easement by agreement with the property owner, however if this is unsuccessful, Council will not surrender the existing easement and the existing easement will remain over the property to ensure access to Council’s infrastructure.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	New Easement Plan ⇩
2.	Survey Plan SP141685 - Existing Easement A ⇩
3.	Easement Document Dealing ⇩

Kerry Perrett

Senior Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett McGrath

Principal Property Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Andrew Knight

General Manager - Corporate Services

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5746196

ITEM: 13

SUBJECT: Proposed amendment to the 2019-2020 register of fees and charges

AUTHOR: Acting Development Planning Manager

DATE: 27 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the proposed amendments to the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges, specifically fees and charges related to planning and development related activities.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges be amended, as detailed in Attachment 1, and adopted with effect from 17 September 2019.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties associated with this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

Proposed changes in response to fee variations

The Register of Fees and Charges must be amended from time-to-time to appropriately reflect the costs of undertaking Council’s development assessment responsibilities. Section 1.3 of the Register of Fees and Charges ‘Reducing Development Application Fees’ permits Council to consider a request to wholly or partially reduce a Development Application fee where a strict application of the scheduled fee is considered unfair or unreasonable.

On occasions where a variation to a development application is granted on the basis of the fee being unreasonable, it is considered prudent to review the fee being varied to determine if an amendment to the fee is required. In this instance, it is considered that an amendment to the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges is required as follows:

Section 4.1 Material Change of Use of Premises

Schedule of Uses – Material Change of Use

Currently, dual occupancies are charged on an individual basis even when a proposal may include multiple dual occupancies. The proposed change will allow for development applications with multiple dual occupancies to be charged the same fee as a development application for multiple dwellings, which is charged per dwelling with a single base fee. The proposed fee results in a reduction in fees for this type of development, which is reflective of the similarities to assessing a multiple residential development.

Other proposed changes

There are other proposed amendments to the fees and charges to ensure consistency with other fees, correct errors and remove redundant fees as follows:

4.3.3 Changes After Appeal Period

Minor Change and PDA Amendment Application – Request to Change a Development Approval – Change of Conditions, Approved Plans or Infrastructure Charges Notice

The proposed change is to reintroduce a provision which allows for Council to levy a fee for change applications which introduce new lots or GFA or otherwise assessable development, and thereby increase the applicable application fee.

4.6 Area Development Plans/Local Area Plans

(b) Amendment Fee

4.3.1 Changing Application before a decision is made

(b) Changing a “Reconfiguring a Lot” application

The proposed change to the fee is to allow for a previously varied application fee to be accounted for when changing a reconfiguring a lot application. This change reflects the amendments for the fee for changing a material change of use application, which were adopted by Council on 20 August 2019. The purpose of this change is to ensure consistency with other similar fees, but has not come about in response to a fee variation request.

Section 4.1.5 Superseded Planning Scheme Requests

The proposed change is to correct a typographical error in the fees and charges review approved by Council on 21 May 2019.

4.7 Other Fees

(f) Copies of Approved Plans and Documents

The proposed change is to remove this fee. This fee is not used, as Council is required to allow for inspection of building records by an owner or authorised person without charge.

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

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 s98, Local Governments are required to maintain a register of fees and charges available for inspection by the public. This ad-hoc review of the fees complements the annual review, which is undertaken along with adjustments and rolling reviews of fees. As part of the annual review, a risk register is reviewed and updated by Departments.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no resourcing or budget implications associated with this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The proposed change to the fees and charges have come about from feedback from customers, who have sought variations as described above. The feedback provided from Council’s customers has been accepted and the changes are a reflection of this feedback.

Conclusion

With the amendments to the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges, the attached document has been submitted for Council approval and adoption.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges Track Changes - Section 4 Development Planning Application Fees ⇩

Anthony Bowles

Acting Development Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5757310

ITEM: 17

SUBJECT: New Ipswich Planning Scheme - Statement of Proposals (including Draft Strategic Framework) Consultation Report

AUTHOR: Strategic Planning Manager

DATE: 30 August 2019

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) adopt the Consultation Report included in Attachment 2 for the purposes of:

· Providing a response to the issues raised in the submissions and to the submitters; and

· Informing the further preparation of the New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

B. That the Manager, City Design be requested to attend to relevant matters including:

· Publishing the Consultation Report on Council’s website; and

· Notifying all submitters about the publication of the Consultation Report and providing information that allows them to identify Council’s response to the issues they have raised.

RELATED PARTIES

The Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework set out the draft strategies and approaches to future land use planning across the Ipswich Local Government Area including Precinct designations for all parcels of land (which provide an indication of the potential future zoning of land).

No specific related parties have been identified. However, following the public consultation on the Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework, 510 submissions were received from individual members of the community, groups, organisations and other stakeholders. The review, consideration and response to the submissions has been undertaken in accordance with the legislative requirements and statutory guidance.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Strengthening Our Local Economy and Building Prosperity (Jobs)

Managing Growth and Delivering Key Infrastructure

Caring for Our Community

Caring for Our Environment

Listening, Leading and Financial Management

The Statement of Proposals and specifically the draft Strategic Framework relates to all the land use and development components of the Advance Ipswich themes and adopts the Advance Ipswich Vision to maintain continuity of policy direction based on community aspirations.

Purpose of Report/Background

Council resolved on 13 November 2018 to prepare a New Ipswich Planning Scheme pursuant to section 18 of the Planning Act 2016, with notice given to the Chief Executive of the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) on 14 November 2018. Council received the Chief Executive Notice setting out the approved process (the ‘Tailored Process’) for making the New Ipswich Planning Scheme dated 31 January 2019.

Council resolved on 18 June 2019 to adopt a Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework for the purpose of public consultation (including early state interest identification with the State Government) in accordance with Steps 2 to 4 of the Chief Executive Notice.

This report relates to the outcomes of the public consultation on the Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework for the New Ipswich Planning Scheme and the early state interest identification by the State Government, the details of which are included in the Community and Other Consultation section of this report.

The feedback from the community, State Government and other stakeholders about the draft Strategic Framework will be used to guide the preparation of the final Strategic Framework and the rest of the planning scheme, including the detailed zoning and development code components.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions: Planning Act 2016

Planning Regulation 2017

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Risks relating to the preparation of the New Ipswich Planning Scheme including those relating to compensation will be managed in accordance with the relevant provisions of State Government’s legislation, policies, plans and statutory guidance.

The Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework was prepared in accordance with the ‘tailored’ process that has been approved pursuant to the Planning Act 2016 and aligns with the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules. The consultation on the Statement of Proposals was carried out in accordance with the approved Communications Strategy and the review and reporting on the outcomes of that consultation has also been carried out in accordance with the approved Communications Strategy.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no specific financial or resource implications stemming from this report other than those associated with publication of the Consultation Report on Council’s website and the sending of individual letters to each submitter.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Public Consultation

Consultation on the Statement of Proposals was undertaken from Monday 27 May to Friday 28 June, with a two week ‘informal extension’ to Friday 12 July provided for submissions to be made. Notwithstanding, where possible all submissions received after this period and up until the close of the agenda for the Council meeting have also been considered in this report.

Consultation was undertaken utilising a number of media channels and supporting platforms/tools, with key elements being:

· a letter from the Interim Administrator being sent to all property owners and residents and published in locally circulating newspapers;

· placement of advertisements/information in shopping centres, on the East Street Digital Billboard and the Council Administration Building;

· a dedicated website being established for the New Ipswich Planning Scheme Project on which information, documents, mapping and an interactive mapping tool were made available, with the webpage being visited over 6,000 times and the web-based interactive mapping tool used over 9000 times;

· a dedicated phone line and team of professional strategic planners that managed and responded to approximately 390 phone and counter enquiries and meeting requests; and

· a series of articles published through Ipswich First that received in the order of 8,000 total page views and had a Facebook reach of 46,000, received 4000 Facebook clicks and 400 Facebook reactions (e.g. comments, likes and shares).

Despite the approach taken to the consultation on the Statement of Proposals a number of submissions suggested that there should have been more one to one meetings to enable people to discuss their individual concerns or that they did not receive letters or adequate notification about the consultation. Additionally, it is evident from some submissions that there was uncertainty or a lack of clarity about the purpose of the planning scheme relative to other Council functions (for example the maintenance of roads and parks) and also the respective roles of Council and the State Government. Further consideration could be given to further addressing these matters where possible in the next round of public consultation on the draft planning scheme.

At the close of the consultation period 510 submissions have been received and acknowledged. A copy of each submission is included for reference in the confidential attachments (Attachments 4 to 9) to maintain the privacy of the individual submitters.

The map in Attachment 1 shows the number of submissions received in regard to each of the Local Area Framework areas where the submissions are able to be attributed to raising matters in relation to a specific Local Area Framework area or by a person residing in a specific area. The five Local Area Framework areas in which issues have been raised with the most submissions or by residents of the area are:

· LAF 10 - Karalee, Barallen Point and Chuwar

· LAF 5 - Bellbird Park, Redbank Plains and Augustine Heights

· LAF 14 - Booval, East Ipswich and North Booval

· LAF 4 - Springfield Estate

· LAF 23 - Pine Mountain, Muirlea and part of Blacksoil

Each of the submissions received has been reviewed and the issues raised in those submissions summarised and assessed. In assessing the submissions regard has been had to the matters raised and any supporting information and evidence provided in the submission, in addition to relevant statutory planning considerations including those set out in the Planning Act 2016 and Planning Regulation 2017, the state interests as included in the State Planning Policy and the outcomes sought by ShapingSEQ (the South East Queensland Regional Plan).

Following assessment, a response to the issues raised in the submissions and recommendations regarding how the issues are to be proposed to be addressed has been prepared, the details of which are included in the Consultation Report (refer to Attachment 2).

Key issues that have been raised in the submissions include:

Flood mapping, levels and provisions (refer to Development Constraints – Flooding and Major Urban Stormwater Flowpaths in the Consultation Report)

Concerns were raised about the flood levels that have been used in the mapping and the flood management provisions, particularly in Karalee, and in relation to the identification and use of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) to define the outer extent of the floodplains and risk area for the Brisbane and Bremer Rivers, that the flood mapping does not reflect previous flood events and the perceived impact the information may have on insurance premiums and property values.

In response it is noted that the proposed approach to flood risk management has been informed by and has to align with the outcomes of the Brisbane River Flood Catchment Studies (BRCFS) which has produced the modelled flood levels including the identification of the Probable Maximum Flood extent, and has been prepared within a framework that complies with the requirements of the State Planning Policy (SPP). In further progressing the drafting of detailed flood provisions and finalising the flood mapping further investigation and refinement will be undertaken having regard to the need to align with the BRCFS outcomes and the requirements of the SPP (as identified in the State Government’s response to the early state interests review – refer below). Relevantly, in addressing the requirements of the SPP Council must prepare a fit-for-purpose flood hazard risk assessment which will be prepared having regard to the local floodplain management plan currently underway as part of the Ipswich Integrated Catchment Management Plan (IICMP) project.

Vegetation mapping and protection (refer to Valuable Features – Natural Environment, Strategic Greenspace and Links Mapping and Biodiversity in the Consultation Report)

Landowners, particularly in the Pine Mountain area, as well the ‘development industry’ raised concerns with the extent of the vegetation mapped and implications for land development, but there is wider general community support for vegetation and habitat retention / protection of trees.

In response it is noted that the identification and protection of significant vegetation in accordance the State Planning Policy (SPP) must be integrated within the planning scheme (as identified in the State Government’s response to the early state interests review). In preparing the detailed provisions and finalising the vegetation maps in the planning scheme, further investigation relating to the mapped and protected vegetation extents will be undertaken having regard to the requirements in the SPP and local matters to ensure an appropriate balance is achieved between protecting high value vegetation and habitat (including allowing for appropriate sensitive development within those areas) and accommodating the forecast growth of the city.

Springfield Structure Plan (refer to Local Area Framework 4 – Springfield Estate and Augustine Heights (part) in the Consultation Report)

Submissions were received requesting that the Springfield Structure Plan is retained it in its entirety and in an unchanged form to maintain the current development framework and links to infrastructure delivery (as provided for under the infrastructure agreements) to ensure certainty in investment, maintenance of existing planning approvals and continuity in the delivery of development (with one submissions particularly focussing on the Precinct Plan for Spring Mountain where significant amounts of development are currently approved and being constructed). One submission requested that the Springfield Town Centre should be removed from the SPP citing the need for contemporary planning measures needing to be applied to development in the area whilst noting the need to retain the link to infrastructure delivery that is provided by the current SSP provisions and infrastructure agreements.

In response, it is noted that whilst the provisions in the SSP operate in conjunction with a number of infrastructure agreements, clause 229 in the Springfield Infrastructure Agreement (SIA) provides that once a residential lot is created the successors in title are no longer bound to perform the obligations of the SIA. Whilst recognising the need to ensure the appropriate continued operation of the provisions of the Springfield Structure Plan in the effective, efficient and cost effective delivery of development and supporting infrastructure, there is also a need to consider the most effective and efficient way of regulating further development into the future. This includes where possible and appropriate, bringing developed land within the wider development assessment framework that applies to the rest of the Ipswich Local Government Area and Queensland more generally. Currently the making of a planning application would require a knowledge of a different development assessment framework, being the Springfield Structure Plan which uses different definitions.

In consideration of the above, it is proposed to remove the developed residential lots from the Springfield Structure Plan (where also located within the area covered by the SIA) and which would allow for the appropriate application of the Queensland planning legislation and development assessment framework. It is not proposed to change the SSP in other regards where development is still to be delivered, including in relation to Springfield Town Centre or Spring Mountain.

Development (housing) density (refer to Growth Management – Sustainable Land Use and Housing (including Housing Areas Mapping) in the Consultation Report)

A mix of views have been expressed both in support of the approach to the distribution of density including increasing minimum lots sizes (i.e. generally maintaining current lower densities) in some established suburban areas (notably in Bellbird Park and in areas with heritage and character values) and focussing higher density residential development in the new suburban areas and around railway stations and centres. Objections were also received to the increasing of minimum lots sizes (i.e. generally maintaining current lower densities) in certain established suburban areas by other submitters. The views expressed generally reflect a difference between existing residents who wish to see the current character and amenity of the area (with removal of vegetation being a key matter) within which they live maintained and those who wish to develop their land.

In response it is noted that to provide for the sustainable development of the city to meet the forecast growth in population, jobs and supporting services, it is necessary to integrate land use and infrastructure planning and delivery, particularly in order to support public transport provision. A key principle to achieving this is to provide for higher densities and mix of uses in more accessible locations such as those close to railways stations, other public transport, and in and near to higher order centres. An analysis of the overall capacity to accommodate the forecast growth of the city indicates that it is not necessary to densify those established suburban areas that are not highly accessible. Accordingly, it is proposed that in preparing the final zonings of land in the planning scheme that the prevailing lot sizes / density of development is maintained in those less accessible established suburban areas and which would still allow for some minor and appropriate (in terms of lots sizes and housing forms) infill to occur whilst maintaining the character and amenity of those areas. Conversely, the appropriate development at higher densities will be provided for in more accessible locations including the new suburban areas, established suburban areas in proximity to public transport and where not having significant heritage character values, and in higher order centres.

Waste (refer to Growth Management – Waste (including Waste Activity and Buffer Areas Mapping) in the Consultation Report)

A number of submissions raised objections and concerns in regards to both existing and potential future waste industries and uses, including in established areas (often generally based on current issues being experienced and concerns about non-compliance). Objections were also raised to incinerators and waste to energy industries, with a call for tighter provisions to protect the community and environment. Conversely, a level of support was received from the waste industry along with a request to protect areas for continued waste purposes but also raising concerns over the Temporary Local Planning Instruments (TLPI) on the basis that they are too restrictive.

In response it is noted that the proposed planning scheme provisions (which reflect the provisions of the TLPIs) are intended to operate with the established hierarchy of waste and circular economy approaches that support activities that treat waste as a resource and seek to divert waste away from / minimise waste going to land fill. As the TLPIs were established recently and reflect contemporary land use planning in relation to waste activities, it is proposed to use the provisions in the TLPIs to prepare the detailed provisions in the New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

Ripley Valley Priority Development Area (refer to Local Area Framework 18 – Ripley Valley in the Consultation Report)

A number of submissions raised issues about how the Ripley Valley Priority Development Area (PDA) would be integrated and operate relative to development in the rest of the city. An example was concerns about the approach to the management of flooding.

In response it is noted that the Ripley Valley is a declared Priority Development Area pursuant to the Economic Development Act with the preparation of the land use planning framework and regulation of development undertaken by Economic Development Queensland. The purpose of including the Ripley Valley in the draft Strategic Framework was to provide a holistic assessment of relevant issues across the city and particularly to ensure that consideration was given as far as possible to ‘cross boundary issues’ between the PDA and surrounding lands and to assist in planning for areas adjacent to the PDA. In accordance with the statutory guidance, the Ripley Valley PDA will be identified separately within the Ipswich Planning Scheme and will not be subject the provisions of the New Ipswich Planning Scheme. Notwithstanding, should circumstances allow it may be possible to excise developed lots and areas from the Priority Development Area and include them in the Ipswich Planning Scheme over time.

Alternative Options

A number of submissions raised issues and expressed preferences in respect to the alternative options for sites and areas identified in the Local Area Frameworks. In general there were mixed views expressed.

In response it is noted that further investigation of the preferred and alternative options will be undertaken as the draft planning scheme is prepared and having regard to the submissions made, with there being a further opportunity for the community and other stakeholders to comment on a draft full planning scheme (the summary of issues, response and recommendation in relation to the alternative options are included in the relevant Local Area Framework section in the Consultation Report).

Mapping (General)

A number of submissions raised various matters in relation to the mapping in the draft Strategic Framework including accuracy (and specifically in regard to the ability to apply the Strategic Framework Maps, for example the roads network, at the property level) and its purpose (for example there was some uncertainty regarding how the overlay mapping is applied and a perception that it is an imposition on land owners).

In response, it is noted that the overlay maps reflect the characteristics and matters affecting land that need to be considered in assessing development applications. Consideration will be given to ensuring that the accuracy of the mapping is commensurate with the level that it is to be applied at. The other issues that have been raised will also be considered and incorporated where relevant and appropriate in preparing the maps to be included in the full draft planning scheme and which will be further consulted on (the summary of issues, responses and recommendations in relation to the maps are included under the related ‘themes’ Consultation Report).

Site / land specific issues

A significant number of submissions included requests for consideration of changes to the land use designation (indicative of future zoning) of lots / land parcels or the amendment of other maps such as constraints maps.

In response, each request has been reviewed and a recommendation made on whether the requested change is to be made / further investigated or whether no change is to be made in response to the request (the summary of issues, responses and recommendations in relation to the site / land specific request are included under the related ‘themes’ or Local Area Framework in the Consultation Report).

Outside the scope or purpose of the planning scheme (refer to Other in the Consultation Report)

A number of requests in relation to matters that are outside the scope of a planning scheme or do not have relevance to the planning scheme (for example requests for maintenance and repair to existing roads) were received. These have been recommended for referral to other corporate areas within Council or to the State Government where appropriate for further consideration, and may as a result of the investigation generate additional matters for further review during the drafting of the planning scheme.

Early State Interests Identification

The State Government’s response to the early state interests identification in the form of a letter with an enclosure from the Chief Executive of the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) dated 30 July 2019 is included as Attachment 3.

The letter identifies the matters of state interest that need to be considered and addressed in further progressing the preparation of the new planning scheme (and to be provided along with the submission of the full draft of the New Ipswich Planning Scheme for State Interest Review), and includes:

· further evidence in the form of a local planning assessment to support inclusion additional land in the Urban Footprint to the south of Thagoona and to the north-east of Rosewood;

· that the use of a Special Opportunity Area Zone (which is not a zone provided for in the Planning Regulations 2017) is not supported and that an alternative approach to zoning will need to be taken;

· focussing the design and location of intensive animal industries so as not to cause environmental harm or nuisance at sensitive land use and not at the boundary of the property that the development is located on in accordance with the example code contained in the State interest guidance material;

· ensuring that the methodological approach to defining and mapping Matters of State Environmental Significance complies with the State Planning Policy Environmental Offset Regulation 2014; and

· fit-for-purpose risk assessments for natural hazards (e.g. flooding and Bushfire) need to be prepared and submitted at the State Interest Review stage.

In providing the response, the State Government indicates that it would also welcome updates about Council’s progress on consultation with the Traditional Owners and encourages engagement with the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning as drafting of the planning scheme is progressed.

Further advice is also being provided by the State Government that relates to matters that are not specially a state interest but that may need to be further considered and addressed as the drafting of New Ipswich Planning Scheme continues.

Conclusion

The early public consultation on the New Ipswich Planning Scheme Statement of Proposals including the draft Strategic Framework has concluded with 510 submissions having been received and the State government providing advice in relation to the early identification of state interests.

A review of the submissions has considered the issues raised with a response and recommendation in relation to those issues included in the Consultation Report. It is proposed that the Consultation Report be published to provide feedback to submitters about how the issues they have raised have been considered and addressed and also provides important information that will be used inform the further drafting of the New Ipswich Planning Scheme.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Submissions Map ⇩
2.	Consultation Report ⇩
3.	State Government Response - Early State Interest Review ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
4.	Submissions 1 to 126 (under separate cover)
5.	Submission 127 (under separate cover)
6.	Submissions 128 to 275 (under separate cover)
7.	Submissions 276 to 355 (under separate cover)
8.	Submissions 356 to 423 (under separate cover)
9.	Submissions 424 to 510 (under separate cover)

Nick Vass-Bowen

Strategic Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services

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

1	Capital Works List - Local Drainage ⇩
2.	Previous Committee Report - Local Drainage Improvement sub-program - prioritisation methodology and list of projects ⇩
3	Local Drainage Priority Listing ⇩

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

1.	Capital Works List - Sealing Gravel Roads ⇩
2.	Previous Committee Report - Sealing of Gravel Roads Sub-Program - Priority List of Projects ⇩
3.	Sealing Gravel Roads Priority Listing ⇩

1.	Heritage and Monuments Advisory Committee Minutes of 22 August 2019 ⇩
2.	Revised Terms of Reference ⇩

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In previous financial years Council has allocated approximately $800,000 annually towards the ‘Sealing Gravel Roads’ sub-program. However, Council’s recently adopted capital works portfolio has zero funding allocated for sealing gravel roads for years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The community has not been consulted as part of the creation of the sealing gravel roads project listing. The project listings are based on a technical assessment in accordance with a Council approved methodology.

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Purpose of Report/Background

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Legal/Policy Basis

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers