Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	Response to Notice of Motion - Spray Seal Road Maintenance Treatments	7
	Confirmation of Minutes
2	Confirmation of Minutes of the Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee No. 2022(05) of 16 June 2022	17
	Officers’ Reports
3	**Disposal of Council Freehold Land in Trust located at 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains	30
4	Council Response to the State Government - Independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consultation	50
5	FOGO Waste Bin Fee for Tenanted Properties	62
6	Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report May 2022	65
7	Exercise Of Delegation Report	88
8	Planning and Environment Court Action Status Report	105
	Notices of Motion
	Matters Arising

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee NO. 6

14 July 2022

AGENDA

Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

BUSINESS OUTSTANDING

1. Response to Notice of Motion - Spray Seal Road Maintenance Treatments

This report is in response to a Notice of Motion which was raised at the Council meeting held on 19 May 2022, item number 17.4.

Recommendation

That this report be provided as information only to Councillors from a Notice of Motion and that it be noted that no recommendations at this time are being submitted.

Confirmation of Minutes

2. Confirmation of Minutes of the Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee No. 2022(05) of 16 June 2022

Recommendation

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 June 2022 be confirmed.

Officers’ Reports

3. **Disposal of Council Freehold Land in Trust located at 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains

This is a report concerning development application 6436/2019/CA and the requirement for part of land owned by Ipswich City Council (‘Council’) on trust for road purposes to be disposed to MG Land Pty Ltd (the “Developer”) in freehold (to facilitate new housing lots) located at 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains, described as Lot 902 on SP292400.

Recommendation

A. That Council declare part of 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains, more particularly described as the part of Lot 902 on SP292400 that is highlighted in yellow in Plan 4 in this report, surplus to Council requirements and available for disposal (‘Surplus Land’).

B. That pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Regulation), Council resolve that the exception at section 236(1)(c)(iv) of the Regulation applies to the disposal of the Surplus Land at 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains more particularly described as part of Lot 902 on SP292400 (Council Land) (Council file reference 5609), because the Surplus Land is being disposed of to a person who owns adjoining land.

C. That pursuant to Section 257(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2009, Council resolve to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to take “contractual action” pursuant to section 238 of the Regulation, in order to implement Council’s decision.

4. Council response to the State Government - Independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consultation

This is a report concerning a proposed response to the Queensland State Government’s request for targeted consultation on the proposal for an independent Environmental Protection Agency.

Only one response is submitted per organisation. This report details Council’s response to the consultation survey and associated submission.

Recommendation

That this report be received, noted and made available to the Queensland State Government as Ipswich City Council’s submission, together with the Survey response as detailed in Attachment 1.

5. FOGO waste bin fee for tenanted properties

This is a report concerning the Food Organics Green Organics (FOGO) waste bin charge for tenants of Ipswich rental properties.

Recommendation

That the FOGO waste bin charge for tenants of Ipswich rental properties be set at $80.00 per annum, effective from 1 July 2022.

6. Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report May 2022

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Infrastructure and Environment Department for the month of May 2022.

In the first half of the financial year the department was on track to deliver 100% of the capital program. This was unfortunately disrupted by the two significant rain events in 2022. As a result of these events our construction crews were re-tasked to complete flood clean up and recover works for an extended period. In addition to this, the wet weather meant that both Council and its contractor were unable to conduct construction work for a period of approximately 2 months. This has negatively impacted the overall delivery of the capital program in terms of timing. The department expects to complete all uncompleted 2021-2022 Project in the first quarter of the 2022-2023 FY as well as completing the approved projects in the 2022-2023 Capital Program.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

7. Exercise Of Delegation Report

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 31 May 2022 to 4 July 2022.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

8. Planning and Environment Court Action Status Report

This is a report concerning a status update with respect to current court actions associated with development planning applications.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

NOTICES OF MOTION

MATTERS ARISING

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

14 July

2022

Doc ID No: A8086412

ITEM: 1

SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Motion - Spray Seal Road Maintenance Treatments

AUTHOR: Manager, Capital Program Delivery

DATE: 30 May 2022

Executive Summary

This report is in response to a Notice of Motion which was raised at the Council meeting held on 19 May 2022, item number 17.4.

Recommendation/s

That this report be provided as information only to Councillors from a Notice of Motion and that it be noted that no recommendations at this time are being submitted.

RELATED PARTIES

N/A

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

That a report be prepared which includes information on:

1. The various road surface treatment options, including spray seals, available to local governments, and the relative cost and benefits of these treatments.

2. How Council prioritises road maintenance projects.

3. How Council determines when a spray seal is identified as the preferred treatment for a particular road.

4. The number of spray seals undertaken on council roads in the last three financial years, the number of complaints received about these treatments, and the number of complaints that required remediation.

5. Whether Council’s use of spray seals is consistent with their use by comparable local governments.

There are a range of options available for the surface treatments of roads across the City, however ICC predominantly uses either asphalt re-surfacing or a sprayed seal application.

ASPHALT is produced in a dedicated plant that heats, dries and mixes aggregate, bitumen and sand into a composite mix. It is then delivered to site and applied through a paving machine while hot as a solid material at a nominated or required thickness.

A SPRAY SEAL treatment consists of a thin layer of bitumen that is sprayed on to the existing surface as a hot liquid, that is immediately followed by the application of a single layer of crushed aggregate.

Spray seals cost approximately 40% of the cost of an asphalt surface on a direct comparison based on m2. However, this figure will change with site location, design, scale of the work and market pricing.

Due to the significant cost differential, spray seals are the predominant surfacing type in rural areas where access to batching plants are more costly. Sprayed seals account for around 70% of the total length of all surfaced roads across Australia.

In urban areas, asphalt surfaces are preferred due to their structural strength, durability, improved resistance to surface stresses, lower noise and lower maintenance.

In comparison to asphalt surfaces, the performance of spray seals deteriorates more rapidly than asphalt due to oxidation and hardening of the bitumen layer.

Over time the seal will require earlier maintenance intervention due to the loss of aggregate or minor surface cracking which may result in a weakening of the underlying pavement.

As broad indicator, spray seal surfaces are expected to require re-application after approximately 7-10 years where asphalt surfaces are expected to last approximately 15-20 years before requiring re-surfacing.

Asphalt provides a smoother and more durable asphalt road surface than a bitumen-sealed road.

Unlike sprayed seals, asphalt provides the added benefit of being a structural layer within a pavement, although thin asphalt layers, say 25–40 mm, are not considered to offer a significant structural contribution to a pavement.

The features of a spray seal surface:

· High surface texture and skid resistance

· High traffic noise

· Does not resist damage due to turning heavy vehicle traffic

· Does not contribute to structural strength of pavement

· Mainly used for rural roads

Features of an asphalt surface:

· Low traffic noise

· Resists damage due to turning traffic

· Contributes to overall pavement structural strength (particularly for depths greater than 35mm)

· Mostly used for urban roads

How Council prioritises road maintenance projects.

The road rehabilitation programs are primarily driven by inspections of existing roads, safety considerations, asset age, traffic counts, environmental conditions and

forecasts of future performance.

The current level of service provided by a road can be quantitatively measured through a range of indicators based on road characteristics and surface defects such as:

· roughness

· edge breaks

· shoving

· rutting of the seal surface

· loss of seal texture

· percentage of cracking

· percentage of potholes.

Future road performance modelling then uses a range of predictive data including:

· current and historical road condition and maintenance costs

· the age of overall pavement and the surfacing materials

· traffic volumes

· other road details to project road conditions

The modelling system used in Council to carry out this evaluation and generate future works programs is the SMEC Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS has been in use in Council for more than twenty years and the parameters used in its operation are regularly reviewed and outputs validated through design.

The most recent review was undertaken for the 2021-2022 capital budget inputs.

ROAD CONDITION ASSESSMENTS:

Every three to four years Council has a full condition assessment undertaken of the entire sealed road network, capturing data on all road segments. Council’s asset register of all sealed road pavements contains approximately of 1,550 km of Council owned roads – which is growing each year.

The condition assessment is performed utilising a vehicle fitted with technology to measure and record the surface defects and/or roughness. Other more specific road testing is also performed from time to time to provide additional information on the pavement characteristics and underlying subgrade to address particular problems.

The most recent condition assessment was carried out during the period October 2019 to April 2020.

ROAD REHABILITATION MODELLING:

In developing the future works program, the PMS uses the historic, current and predicted pavement conditions and maintenance costs for each road section. The current sealed road rehabilitation program has been based on minimising Council costs for the network over the full life cycle of the pavement.

How Council determines when a spray seal is identified as the preferred treatment for a particular road.

The initial determination of whether a spray seal is identified as the preferred resurfacing option is based on the following initial assessment:

1. What is the current surface type?

2. Has current surface type performed as expected/planned?

If yes to Q2, then re-apply a like-for-like surface treatment

If no to Q2, then identify cause of under-performance and determine appropriate pavement solution.

The consequence of this initial like-for-like assessment is that older, urban areas of Ipswich will continue to have a spray seal applied to the road network by default while newer areas will automatically have asphalt overlays applied.

The recommendation to move from an existing spray seal treatment to an asphalt surface is usually only identified if there has been a significant increase in traffic load or if turning and/or braking traffic is damaging the spray seal.

At this stage there is no program in place to improve the service level standard to that which an asphalt overlay provides in urban areas.

The number of spray seals undertaken on council roads in the last three financial years, the number of complaints received about these treatments, and the number of complaints that required remediation.

The number of spray seals undertaken over past 3 financial years is as follows:

The number of complaints received for spray seal road rehabilitation works have been collated below.

It should be noted that there are a number of different reporting mechanisms that residents can utilise to lodge complaints, and as such the information provided may not be complete.

Complaints can be received via the CES system, as direct calls or emails to the Project Manager listed on the works notifications or through complaints lodged with Divisional offices.

From the information available we have been able to provide the following analysis:

CES Data

· Road resurfacing complaint register – there are 9 streets that have complaints recorded against them from the 2021-2022 resurfacing program

· Sealed road maintenance requests – there are 45 requests generated in the last 3 FYs related to recently constructed sealed roads

On Site Data – Sealed Road Defects Spreadsheet

· 2019-2020 FY

o Approx. 88 seals completed

o Approx. 44 roads identified with defects requiring repairs

o 50% intervention rate – this ranges from small defect (i.e. sweeping) to significant bleeding

· 2020-2021 FY

o Approx. 167 seals completed

o Approx. 155 roads identified with defects requiring repairs

o 93% intervention rate - this ranges from small defect (i.e. sweeping) to significant bleeding

· 2021-2022 FY

o Approx. 71 roads completed (not all asphalt projects have been removed from this list)

o Approx. 18 roads identified with defects requiring repairs

o 25% intervention rate - this ranges from small defect (i.e. sweeping) to significant bleeding

o Failures are all identified in streets completed prior to summer. This indicates that an increase is expected when roads recently completed go through their first summer cycle.

· Summary

o Approx. 326 seals completed

o Approx. 217 roads identified with defects

o 67% intervention rate

· Qualifications

o Most defects are isolated failures, typically bleeding

o Not all defects will require rectification

· Defect rectifications

o Costs have not been clearly captured as some of the issues are under normal Defects Liability Periods and the contractor is responsible

o One standalone project to address defect precinct (Thomas/Mary/Eileen St, Flinders View) at cost of $177,177.34 excl. GST. Rectification was asphalt overlay on the seal.

o Maintenance team did undertake some intervention during last summer, the extent and cost of this is unknown.

o Additional costs incurred due to additional sweeper requests to address customer complaints

Other Data/discussion points

· Most complaints are not captured in CES and are directly responded to via the stakeholder or project management team

· Most seal complaints occur during summer months due to high temperature ranges

· Limited cost effective and timely options to respond to these complaints

· Many complaints received immediately following work to remove loose stone, which is essential to creating a good seal

· Loose stone has also had an impact in claims to contractor’s insurance department (broken windscreens)

· Many complaints received about perceived poor quality work due to comparisons with asphalt or previous surface (likely a well bedded seal)

· Many complaints regarding tracking of seal onto driveways or footpaths

· Limited season to complete works, restricting ability to deliver

· Expertise in the industry relating to seals is significantly harder to find than asphalt experience

· One significant cost is the man hours from the construction team/stakeholder team put in to dealing with complaints

· In addition, there is a knock of effect on normal capital delivery program when contractor has to stop program to return/revisit site to deal with defects

Whether Council’s use of spray seals is consistent with their use by comparable local governments.

It is the opinion of the Capital Delivery Branch that the use of spray seal surface treatments within the City of Ipswich is higher than that of comparable local governments.

When compared to the local government areas of Moreton Bay, Redland and Logan it can be determined that those other local Councils separate the surface treatments into the categories of spray seal for rural or semi-rural areas and asphalt is used for urban areas.

This can be evidenced by their respective ‘Annual Contracts’ for bitumen re-surfacing that have separable portions for asphalt and spray seal surfacing. The listing of roads for each separable portion can then be located as urban or rural/semi-rural.

It is uncommon for established urban communities to have on-going spray seal rehabilitation programs.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT

The Recommendation states that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Not applicable

Conclusion

This information provided is a response to the Notice on Motion.

Graeme Martin

Manager, Capital Program Delivery

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sean Madigan

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

14 July

2022

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee NO. 2022(05)

16 June 2022

Minutes

COUNCILLORS’ ATTENDANCE: Mayor Teresa Harding (Chairperson); Councillors Paul Tully (Deputy Chairperson), Nicole Jonic, Sheila Ireland, Jacob Madsen, Marnie Doyle, Andrew Fechner, Kate Kunzelmann and Russell Milligan

COUNCILLOR’S APOLOGIES: Nil

OFFICERS’ ATTENDANCE: Chief Executive Officer (Sonia Cooper), General Manager Community, Cultural and Economic Development (Ben Pole), General Manager Infrastructure and Environment (Sean Madigan), General Manager Planning and Regulatory Services (Peter Tabulo), Acting General Manger Corporate Services (Jeff Keech), Coordinator – Major Projects and Advocacy (Dan Heenan), Manager, Economic and Community Development (Cat Matson), Community Development Manager (Melissa Dower), Development Assessment Central Manager (Mitchell Grant), Manager, Procurement (Richard White), Acting Chief Financial Officer (Paul Mollenhauer), Manager, Capital Program Delivery (Graeme Martin), Chief of Staff – Office of the Mayor (Melissa Fitzgerald), Manager, Infrastructure Strategy (Tony Dileo), Manager Development Planning (Anthony Bowles), Senior Planner (Development)(Sandeep Nanjappa), Manager Community and Cultural Services (Don Stewart), Acting Property Services Manager (Kerry Perrett), Senior Property Officer (Acquisitions and Disposals) (Alicia Rieck), Property Officer (Judy Howard), Property Officer (Tara Wall), Senior Policy and Communications Officer (David Shaw), Senior Media Officer (Darrell Giles) and Theatre Technician (Trent Gray)

WELCOME TO COUNTRY/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

Mayor Teresa Harding (Chairperson) delivered the Acknowledgement of Country

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

In accordance with section 150EQ of the Local Government Act 2009, at Item 6, Councillor Sheila Ireland informed the meeting that she has a declarable conflict of interest in Development Application – 19897/2021/MCU – Recommendation – Griffith Group One Pty Ltd ATF Griffith Group One Trust Child Care Centre at Brassall.

The nature of the interest is that Councillor Ireland’s grandson attends the childcare centre at Clem Street, Brassall.

Councillor Sheila Ireland invited the other councillors to determine if she can continue to participate in the decision process.

It was moved by Councillor Paul Tully and seconded by Mayor Teresa Harding that Councillor Sheila Ireland does not have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter because there is no personal or financial benefit to the councillor and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

The eligible councillors present at the meeting decided that Councillor Sheila Ireland may participate in the meeting in relation to the matter, including by voting on the matter.

BUSINESS OUTSTANDING

1. Ipswich 2032 Summit

This is a report concerning the Mayoral Minute of 24 March 2022 and responding to Recommendation A with a draft Ipswich 2032 Summit event plan, agenda and format.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Andrew Fechner:

That the Ipswich 2032 Summit report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

The motion was put and carried.

Councillor Nicole Jonic arrived at the meeting at 9.02am.

2. Response to Petition - Reinstatement of Pedestrian Crossing at Blackstone Road, Silktone

This is a report concerning a petition received from the local community requesting the reinstatement of the pedestrian crossing on Blackstone Road near the intersection with Coolibah Street, Silkstone

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

A. That the pedestrian crossing on Blackstone Road near the intersection with Coolibah Street, Silkstone not be reinstated.

B. That the chief petitioner be advised of the outcome of this report.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

Confirmation of Minutes

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee No. 2022(04) of 5 May 2022

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Russell Milligan:

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 May 2022 be confirmed.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

Officers’ Reports

4. Adoption of the Updated Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy

This is a report concerning the repealing of the current policy and adoption of the updated Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy that has been reviewed, updated and placed onto the new corporate template which is part of the regular policy and procedure review process.

The objective of this policy remains the same as the original version, to provide guidance to property owners and occupiers wishing to establish landscape areas and gardens on the nature strip in front of their property(s). In general, this policy refers to residential areas where the speed limit is 80km per hour or less.

**Recommendation

A. That the policy titled ‘Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 1, as per resolution No. 4 of the Policy and Administration Board No. 2014(11) of 18 November 2014 – City Management and Finance Committee No. 2014(12) of 25 November 2014 and adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting of 2 December 2014, be repealed.

B. That the policy titled ‘Updated Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 3, be adopted.

Councillor Paul Tully proposed the following amendment to the Updated Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy:

B. That the policy titled ‘Updated Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 3, be adopted with an amendment to section 12 Post Approvals and Historic installation as follows:

· In the second paragraph replacement of the word ‘relative’ with ‘relevant’

· In the third paragraph: insertion of the words ‘rectified or’ after the words ‘will be’.

Deputy Mayor Jacob Madsen proposed the following further amendment to the Updated Landscape Areas on Nature Strips Policy:

· In the third and fourth paragraph replacement of the words ‘resident’s expense’ with the words ‘property owner’s expense’.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

· In the second paragraph replacement of the word ‘relative’ with ‘relevant’

· In the third paragraph: insert the words ‘rectified or’ after the words ‘will be’.

· In the third and fourth paragraph replacement of the words ‘resident’s expense’ with the words ‘property owner’s expense’.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

Attachments

1. Amended Attachment 3 showing tracked changes made by Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee

5. Proposed Ipswich Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 1) 2022

This is a report concerning the adoption of the proposed Ipswich Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 1) 2022 to replace Council’s current charges resolution, the Ipswich Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 1) 2021. This is an annual exercise to ensure that Council’s charges for trunk infrastructure keep pace with increases in infrastructure costs, by applying the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Construction.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Andrew Fechner:

That Council adopt the proposed Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution as detailed in Attachment 1 pursuant to s113 of the Planning Act 2016 as the Ipswich Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 1) 2022.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

6. Development Application - 19897/2021/MCU - Recommendation - Griffith Group One Pty Ltd ATF Griffith Group One Trust Child Care Centre at Brassall

This is a report concerning an application seeking approval for a child care centre at 102 and 104 Pine Mountain Road, Brassall.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicable assessment benchmarks. The proposed development generally complies with the assessment benchmarks or can be conditioned to comply as outlined below.

**RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve Development Application No. 19897/2021/MCU being a Material Change of Use- Community use (Child Care Centre) subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

During discussion of this matter, Councillor Sheila Ireland stated a possible conflict of interest in the matter in that Councillor Ireland’s grandson attends the childcare centre at Clem Street, Brassall.

In accordance with section 150EQ of the Local Government Act 2009, Councillor Sheila Ireland informed the meeting that she has a declarable conflict of interest in Item 6 titled Development Application – 19897/2021/MCU – Recommendation – Griffith Group One Pty Ltd ATF Griffith Group One Trust Child Care Centre at Brassall.

The nature of the interest is that Councillor Ireland’s grandson attends the childcare centre at Clem Street, Brassall.

Councillor Sheila Ireland invited the other councillors to determine if she can continue to participate in the decision process.

The eligible councillors present at the meeting decided that Councillor Sheila Ireland may participate in the meeting in relation to the matter, including by voting on the matter.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Kate Kunzelmann:

That Council approve Development Application No. 19897/2021/MCU being a Material Change of Use- Community use (Child Care Centre) subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

7. Development Application - 3827/2019/CA - Change Representations Recommendation - Wood Mulching Industries (WMI) enclosed compost manufacturing and bio-gas facility at Swanbank

This is a report concerning an applicant’s change representations request to amend some of the conditions of approval for the development of a Waste Activity located within the Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI) No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) - Swanbank / New Chum Waste Activity Area at 7006 Unnamed Road, Swanbank.

The original application was determined by Council at the Ordinary Meeting in March 2022.

The applicant’s change representations request to amend some of the conditions of development approval is recommended to be approved in part.

**RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council agree in part to the change representations to Development Approval 3827/2019/CA, being the Reconfiguring a Lot {One (1) lot into Two (2) lots with associated Easement (for access, servicing and shared facilities) and One (1) balance lot} subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

B. That Council agree in part to the change representations to Development Approval 3827/2019/CA being the Material Change of Use for Waste Activity (Compost Manufacturing Enclosed) over proposed Lot 1 of Development Approval 3827/2019/CA - Stage 1 of development; and Waste Activity (Biogas Facility) and associated Major Utility (Electricity/Gas Generation) over proposed Lot 2 of Development Approval 3827/2019/CA - Stage 2 of development, subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

Mayor Teresa Harding proposed a further recommendation in relation to the inclusion of an additional condition:

C. That an additional condition be included - Condition 21c – That storage of and stockpiling for raw and finished green material must not exceed the height of the compost mixing shed building.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

C. That an additional condition be included as follows:

Condition 21c – That storage of and stockpiling for raw and finished green material must not exceed the height of the compost mixing shed building.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

8. Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Directive - Update 7

This is a report concerning an update on the implementation of the Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Directive.

This report includes the proposed 10-year Directive Implementation Plan and associated Implementation Report for Council endorsement.

Deputy Mayor Jacob Madsen left the meeting at 9.44 am.
Deputy Mayor Jacob Madsen returned to the meeting at 9.47 am.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

A. That the report be received and the contents noted.

B. That Council endorse the proposed Implementation Plan and Implementation Report under the Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Directive.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

9. Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report April 2022

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Infrastructure and Environment Department for the month of April 2022.

Officers across the whole Infrastructure and Environment Department are contributing to the positive results seen in the early stages of the 2021-2022 financial year. The capital program has been and continues to be significantly impacted by the high levels of rainfall experienced in the Ipswich LGA this year.
At this stage it is expected that the capital program will be significantly underspent at the end of financial year due to the impact of the wet weather.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Sheila Ireland:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

10. Planning and Environment Court Action Status Report

This is a report concerning a status update with respect to current court actions associated with development planning applications

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Russell Milligan:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

11. Exercise Of Delegation Report

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 20 April 2022 to 31 May 2022

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Andrew Fechner:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil

MATTERS ARISING

Nil

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 9.00 am.

The meeting closed at 10.03 am.

** Refer Council Ordinary Meeting of 30 June 2022 for amendment

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

14 July

2022

Doc ID No: A8120791

ITEM: 3

SUBJECT: Disposal of Council Freehold Land in Trust located at 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains

AUTHOR: Acting Property Services Manager

DATE: 15 June 2022

Executive Summary

RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council declare part of 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains, more particularly described as the part of Lot 902 on SP292400 that is highlighted in yellow in Plan 4 in this report, surplus to Council requirements and available for disposal (‘Surplus Land’).

RELATED PARTIES

· Urban Strategies Pty Ltd (the “Applicant”)

· MG Land Pty Ltd (the “Developer”)

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

In 2016 Council considered and approved Development Application 6436/2015/CA which was for, in part, a reconfiguration of a lot. The Development Application resulted in the creation of a layout plan as shown below, and the approval from Council contained a condition that required the dedication only of a future road corridor to be held in trust by Council.

A Plan of Survey was subsequently prepared and approved that gave title to lots as follows:

When comparing Plans 1 & 2 the layouts are consistent.

In 2019 Development Application 6274/2019/CA was approved over land at 7000 and 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains for:

· Multiple Residential (180 townhouses in eight (8) stages);

· Material Change of Use (fourteen (14) single residential dwellings); and

· Reconfiguring a Lot (two (2) into 16 lots in two (2) stages).

For the avoidance of doubt, the land at 7000 and 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains is the same land that was subject to Development Application 6436/2015/CA.

The initial stage of reconfiguring a lot established the project lots, with the parent parcel being subdivided into three (3) parcels as follows;

· Proposed Lot 1 - Multiple residential (180 townhouses)

· Proposed Lot 2 - Fourteen (14) residential lots

· Proposed Lot 900 - Drainage reserve dedicated to Council

When a comparison is made between Plans 1 & 2 and Plan 3 it can be determined that there are some inconsistencies. This is illustrated in Plan 4, which shows the actual development and the constructed roads and where they don’t align with the current property boundaries.

The area indicated in the yellow outline above needs to be transferred from Council’s ownership (noting that Council presently owns the land subject to a trust that the land is to be used for future road purpose) to MG Homes (who will take the land in freehold not subject to any trust) for the development of houses. The land indicated in green needs to be dedicated as road reserve. This is then reflected on the survey plan SP327370 as shown below:

DISCUSSION

As part of the conditions of the approval of Development Application 6274/2019/CA, the developer is required to transfer Lot 900 to Ipswich City Council on trust for a drainage reserve. The developer will be retaining proposed lots 1 and 2.

By signing the Form 18A Consent Form for the Survey Plan, Council will be requesting that, aside from the transfer of the yellow area identified on Plan 4 (which will be further explained below), the balance of Lot 902 on SP292400 be dedicated and opened as road (as shown by the references to New Road adjacent to the street names on Survey Plan 327300). At present, Council owns a strip of land between the new road that will connect Coldham Street to Bronzewing Street on paper and the existing Coldham Street. This strip of land has been functioning as an access restriction strip, restricting access to Coldham Street over the land that is being developed, and from Coldham Street to the land that is being developed. The registration of Survey Plan 327370 will extinguish that access restriction strip and open it as road. Although the opening of the access restriction strip will result in land owned by Council being disposed of, it is not caught by the requirements of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld). This is for the following reasons:

1. Under section 95 of the Land Act 1994 (Qld), land in all roads dedicated and opened for public use vests in the State. Therefore, ownership of land that is dedicated and opened as a road statutorily vests in the State;

2. Under section 51 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), any land that is to be dedicated for road purposes is automatically opened as road upon registration of the survey plan;

3. If an access restriction strip is no longer required, the outcome is that the strip of land is opened as road; and

4. Part 3, Division 2 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) relates to actions that a local government must do before it enters a valuable non-current asset contract (emphasis added). A contract is formed where there is an offer, that offer is accepted, and consideration is exchanged. Under the terms of the Land Act 1994 (Qld), ownership of the land must vest in the State, so there is no offer to transfer the land to the State, for the State to accept. Further, the statutory requirements prevent Council from seeking any consideration for the land vesting in the State (as it is automatic under the provisions of the Land Act 1994 (Qld)). Therefore, a contract is not formed where Council dedicates land for road purposes through the execution of a Form 18A Consent to a Survey Plan, and Part 3, Division 2 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) is therefore not triggered.

While Coldham St will be connected to Bronzewing St on paper (again with the trusteeship extinguished) the connection between the two shall not be constructed.

For the transfer of the area in yellow on Plan 4 Council needs to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) relating to the disposal of a valuable non-current asset. Lot 902 on SP292400 is owned by Council subject to the terms of a trust, which requires that the land is used for the purpose of road. However, in the event that Council identifies that part of Lot 902 is not required, and will never be required, for the purpose of road, Council can resolve to declare the land to be Surplus Land. Council can be satisfied that the part of Lot 902 identified in yellow on Plan 4 is not required, and will never be required, for future road purposes as a road has been provided by the developer adjacent to the area in yellow.

Upon part of Lot 902 being declared Surplus Land, the terms of the trust require Council to transfer the Surplus Land to an Adjoining Owner provided that the requirements of the trust terms are satisfied. Because of this requirement in the terms of the trust, the land is not suitable to be offered for disposal by tender or auction and it is in the public interest for the disposal to occur without a tender or auction, as it would contravene the terms of the trust under which Council hold the land for Council to dispose of the land to anyone other than the Adjoining Owner, which could reduce public confidence in Council and its adherence to its obligations and duties as the trustee of land within the Ipswich Local Government Area. This is also relevant regarding the sound contracting principles, as Council is required by the terms of the trust to dispose of the land to an Adjoining Owner, so is acting in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the trust. Due to the location of where the area in yellow is located, the only possible adjoining owners are Council and the developer.

A valuation report is being prepared by an independent registered valuer to determine the market value of the land to ensure the disposal is in accordance with section 236 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 and sound contracting principles. This is a confidential valuation and will be circulated when received prior to the meeting.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

Local Government Regulation 2012

Land Title Act 1994

Land Act 1994

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There is a risk that Council could be held liable for damages that may arise through any delays in resolving the discrepancy.

The assessment and subsequent recommendations have been prepared to ensure consistency with legislation and sustainable development in the best interests of the community.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION

(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?	Recommendations A, B and C state that Council declare part of Lot 902, located at 7001 Redbank Plains, Redbank Plains surplus to Council requirements and dispose to MG Land Pty Ltd.
(b) What human rights are affected?	Not applicable
(c) How are the human rights limited?	Not applicable
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?	Not applicable
(e) Conclusion	The decision is consistent with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no resource implications associated with this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

This is a matter between Council and the Developer and as such no external consultation was required or needed.

Conclusion

To ensure that the right property and titling arrangements are administered as a consequence of conditions relating to Development Application 6274/2019/CA for a residential subdivision, it is recommended that Council:

1. Declare land surplus and dispose of a portion of Lot 902 on SP292400 to MG Land Pty Ltd (as the adjoining landowner) as freehold land.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Property Plan - 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains ⇩
2.	Trust Document - Lot 902 SP292400 ⇩
3.	Title Search - Lot 902 SP292400 - 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
4.	Title Search - Lot 900 SP292400 - 7000 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains
5.	Valuation Report - 7001 Redbank Plains Road, Redbank Plains (to be circulated prior to the meeting)

Kerry Perrett

Acting Property Services Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Anthony Dunleavy

Manager, Legal and Governance (General Counsel)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Jeffrey Keech

Acting General Manager (Corporate Services)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Peter Tabulo

General Manager Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

14 July

2022

Doc ID No: A8129132

ITEM: 4

SUBJECT: Council response to the State Government - Independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consultation

AUTHOR: Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Officer

DATE: 20 June 2022

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning a proposed response to the Queensland State Government’s request for targeted consultation on the proposal for an independent Environmental Protection Agency.

Only one response is submitted per organisation. This report details Council’s response to the consultation survey and associated submission.

Recommendation/s

That this report be received, noted and made available to the Queensland State Government as Ipswich City Council’s submission, together with the Survey response as detailed in Attachment 1.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties to note.

ifuture Theme

A Trusted and Leading Organisation

Purpose of Report/Background

The Queensland State Government is currently undertaking targeted consultation regarding the proposal for an independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Queensland. Currently, Queensland’s regulator is the Queensland Government Department of Environment and Science (DES).

Currently, DES is responsible for managing and monitoring of environmental risk through a range of avenues including assessment, compliance, investigation and enforcement. Both policy setting and enforcement are within the same Department.

To facilitate this targeted consultation, DES has compiled a survey style questionnaire relating to the proposal for the EPA based on a discussion paper. The discussion paper brings together the learnings from all previous engagement on the matter to provide background and inform the survey results.

The themes discussed in the paper are as follows:

Independence: What is the actual and perceived independence of the governance model?

Accountability: How clear and transparent are the roles, responsibilities and decisions under the governance model?

Financial: Is financial sustainability/independence possible within the governance model? What are the financial impacts of implementation?

Efficiency: How efficiently can services be delivered or transformed/optimised under the governance model?

Effectiveness: How effective is the governance model in achieving the objectives of government and environmental legislation?

Economic: To what degree can the governance model increase investor confidence for proposals that promote ecologically sustainable development?

The survey also requires a response on the respondent’s preferred model of operation for the EPA, based on the discussion paper.

It is a requirement of the response, that only one submission is provided on behalf of each organisation. Below is the response to be submitted on behalf of Council.

Invitation to respond - Independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consultation | Environment | Department of Environment and Science, Queensland (des.qld.gov.au)

Discussion Paper - Independent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consultation Discussion paper May 2022 (des.qld.gov.au)

Expert stakeholders have been invited to provide a submission in response to this discussion paper. The discussion paper questions and responses are included as an attachment to this paper for informational purposes

Summary of Position

As a general summary of the position taken in response to this targeted consultation, it is the position of officers that the establishment of an independent EPA in Queensland needs serious consideration when there is currently an existing regulator in place, and more investment could be made to improve the effectiveness of this regulator rather than creating a new one.

The establishment of an EPA will be a substantial cost. Are the public funds (to the sum of millions of dollars) not be better spent on training, upskilling and employing more staff under the current arrangement? Would this not be more likely to address the potential challenges as opposed to investing significantly into the creation, marketing and resourcing of a new authority. In addition, the establishment of another layer of bureaucracy only increases the potential time lag in decisions and compliance action.

The question of what the issue is, what the objectives for improvement are or what is trying to be fixed by making this change is not adequately answered within the discussion paper provided. There is no clear position presented on why the change is required and what quantifiable improvements would come from such a change.

The separation of water management from Queensland councils has only demonstrated that a different entity can perform the same role, there is little that has changed to improve the functionality or performance of the outcome.

It is further recommended that the following outcomes proposed by the LGAQ be considered for a change in the regulator structure:

• a strategic environmental regulator that provides clarity, certainty and support for local government and industry;

• a clearer delineation of power between environmental strategy development and enforcement action;

• greater responsiveness through an agile regulator that proactively focuses on preventing harm to human health and the environment;

• greater alignment and consistency with other jurisdictions with modern, fit for purpose legislation;

• regulatory approaches that will be targeted, proportionate, risk based and cost-effective;

• governance arrangements based on clear and transparent roles and responsibilities, that work within a financially sustainable and transparent model;

• regulation that is monitored and evaluated to ensure systems remain appropriate and fit for purpose as circumstances change;

• simplified and streamlined compliance processes that are both understood and achievable for industry and local government;

• a well-resourced compliance program that ensures the original intent of the legislation is upheld and deters non-compliance;

• enforcement action that champions open, transparent sharing of relevant, easy to comprehend data proactively, and

• a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risks to note in response to the consultation piece.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT

The Recommendation states that the report be received, and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial or resource implications in response to this consultation piece.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There is no community consultation required for the contents of the report. This report is Council’s response to consultation facilitated by the Queensland State Government.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this report contains Council’s response to the targeted consultation undertaken by the Queensland State Government on whether Queensland should have an independent Environmental Protection Agency.

The consultation required only one consolidated response from Council regarding the survey issued. Council also opted to submit a report presenting its views on the proposal.

This report should be received and noted by Council, as the response is submitted on Council’s behalf in conjunction with Survey Reponses as per Attachment 1, unless modified by Council.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	QLD EPA Draft Stakeholder Engagement Survey Responses ⇩

Erin Goetz

Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Peter Tabulo

General Manager Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

14 July

2022

Doc ID No: A8149971

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: FOGO waste bin fee for tenanted properties

AUTHOR: Strategy and Business Planning Coordinator

DATE: 29 June 2022

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the Food Organics Green Organics (FOGO) waste bin charge for tenants of Ipswich rental properties.

Recommendation/s

That the FOGO waste bin charge for tenants of Ipswich rental properties be set at $80.00 per annum, effective from 1 July 2022.

RELATED PARTIES

Related parties include Ipswich Waste Services. There have been no conflicts of interest declared as at the date of this report.

ifuture Theme

Natural and Sustainable

Purpose of Report/Background

The FOGO bin service (formerly the Green Waste bin service) is an opt-in service available to both property owners/ratepayers and tenants of Ipswich rental properties. The FOGO services are priced below the cost of delivery by Ipswich Waste Services in order to promote sustainable waste management behaviours in the community.

The only difference between the service offered to owner-occupiers and tenants is that owner-occupiers are invoiced quarterly for the service through their rates notice, whereas tenants are charged directly via an invoice. There are currently 1038 tenanted properties that have elected to use this service.

On 21 April 2022, Council approved the register of fees and charges to commence 1 July 2022, including an increase in the FOGO bin service for tenants from $80.00 to $82.00. This increase was intended to recover in part some of the rising waste disposal costs faced by Council.

At Councils budget meeting of 30 June 2022, it was resolved that the FOGO bin charge for owner-occupied properties be retained at $80.00 per annum to further encourage uptake.

In order to provide alignment between the charge applied to tenanted and owner-occupied properties, it is proposed that the FOGO charge for tenants be reduced back to $80.00.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009, s262(3)(c)

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no notable risks associated with this proposal.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION

(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?	The Recommendation seeks to have the IWS FOGO waste bin charge for tenants of Ipswich rental properties be set at $80.00 per annum, effective from 1 July 2022.
(b) What human rights are affected?	No human rights are affected by this decision. This is a minor amendment to a charge for an optional service. The recommendation seeks to maintain pricing equity between customers who are owner-occupied and tenants.
(c) How are the human rights limited?	Not applicable
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?	Not applicable
(e) Conclusion	The decision is consistent with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The decision to reduce the FOGO bin service charge for tenants by $2.00 per annum will result in a small reduction in the IWS revenue forecast of approximately $2,038 for the 2022-2023 financial year.

Whilst the proposal represents only a small saving to the individual customer, it ensures that tenants are not paying more than owner-occupiers for the service.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Formal external consultation has not been undertaken due to the low value/impact of the proposal, and short timeframes involved. It is anticipated that maintaining alignment between owner-occupied and tenanted properties will be consistent with customer expectations.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the Tenant FOGO charge be reduced from $82.00 to $80.00, consistent with the fee applied to ratepaying properties.

Damien Guard

Strategy and Business Planning Coordinator

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Manager, Environment and Sustainability

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sean Madigan

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

14 July

2022

Doc ID No: A8058216

ITEM: 6

SUBJECT: Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report May 2022

AUTHOR: Acting General Manager, Infrastructure and Environment

DATE: 16 May 2022

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Infrastructure and Environment Department for the month of May 2022.

Recommendation/s

That the report be received and the contents noted.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no known conflicts of interest in relation to this report.

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

Summary

A satisfactory result for the month of May given the heavy rainfall during the first half of the month.

During May Ipswich recorded 284mm of rainfall against a long-term average of 54.4mm. The year to date rainfall (From January to end May 2022) now sits at 1,268.6mm versus the long-term average of 392.7mm for this period.

The May financial outcome was $6.05mil of actual expenditure, that yields a YTD result of $70.0mil expenditure versus a YTD budget of $85.3mil, a negative variance of 18% which has decreased from 21% last month.

The full-year projection now shows a further reduction in the final forecast spend from $83.7mil in April, down to $79.8mil which is well below the revised budget of $92.7mil adopted after the Budget Amendment in April. The reduced forecast is a continuing result of further wet weather events as described above.

The remaining forecast expenditure has been readjusted for June as per the table below:

Works during May were delayed due to further rain and flooding early in the month, which had impacts on projects such as the Road Resurfacing Program, Springfield Parkway Upgrade, Waters Road Upgrade, Redbank Plains Youth, Sutton Park Amenities and Rubber Softfall placement. The Drainage Rehab Program also loss momentum on key projects at Pettigrew St and Hayne St which are placed in the Bremer River catchment and impacted by river flooding.

The Gravel Re-sheeting Program was down in May due to continued wet weather and saturation of the pavements and road verges. Crews have been diverted to flood repair works.

Fleet deliveries had remained slow again for passenger vehicles in May, with actual expenditure of $69k vs original budget of $322k.

The rephased Whitwood Rd rehabilitation works remained on track despite wet weather again and met the forecast spend for May of $520k, final works are now scheduled for completion in July due to Extension Of Time claims approved for wet weather.

Monthly Program Variances Greater than $100k (Budget vs Actual)

Asset Rehabilitation was $544K under budget for the month of May.

The under expenditure experienced is attributed across a number of projects, however this was partially offset by over expenditure which reduced the final negative variance.

A major contributor to the under expenditure was the Sealed Road Rehab Program with an underspend of $848K due to further weather delays and a $480k reversal of expenditure, due to a negative accrual required.

The Bundamba Creek Bridge and Vehicular Bridge Joint Repair projects had a combined overspend of $215k due to rephasing following delays with previous flooding.

The Kerb & Channel rehabilitation projects of Kirton Street and Doyle Street were delayed for commencement due to wet weather impacts. Rosewood Showgrounds Amenities however exceeded both the baseline budget and forecast by $132K, due to previous rephasing of project.

The Road Resurfacing sub-program was also well under budget by $570k, due to rephased works previously impacted with wet weather in February – March period and continuing in May. The works were however $280k over the forecast as asphalt overlay works aren’t impacted by wet weather compared to chip seals. It remains identified that a $500k portion of the reseal program will be carried over into next FY.

Other projects significantly impacted again by further wet weather was the Gravel Resheeting Program being $171k under budget for the month and $690k of budget forecast not to be completed this financial year, which has increased from $518k last month. This is partially offset by crews being re-directed to flood recovery works on gravel roads across the city.

The Whitwood Rd landfill rehabilitation project, which was rephased to the back half of the financial year, also contributed well with a further $520k of expenditure meeting the monthly forecast. The project is now scheduled to be completed in July 2022, following EOT’s approved for wet weather delays. Final Forecast Cost has currently increase slightly to $5.21mil vs budget of $6.95mil until final variations are received.

Parks, Sport & Environment was $267k over budget for the month of May.

The overspend for the month continues to be a result of rephasing of the Denmark Hill Upgrade and Hardings Paddock projects which were $230k over budget. There were also a group of projects in the design phase including the Windle Rd Sports Field Upgrade that incurred an overspend of $145k, which offset the $138k underspend against the Redbank Plains Youth project.

Suttons Park Amenities Block and pathways were a combined $34k overspent due to progress made by the Contractor following previous supply issues, with the project forecast for completion in early June.

The Redbank Plains Recreation Reserve Youth Area project was again under budget, due to continued restricted assess issues as a result of further wet weather in early May.

Design progress and spend was now slightly ahead on Willey St BMX Canteen Upgrade, Jim Donald’s Parklands Clubhouse and Kholo Gardens Retaining Wall following previous delays and rephasing.

Transport & Traffic was $27k over budget for the month of May.

This was largely due to $200k of unbudgeted spends on Bus Stop projects requiring service relocations prior to construction and forward design for next FY. There was also $120k of unbudgeted minor traffic signal works, line marking and $160k overspend on the Pine Mountain Rd road safety project. These works in total offset the $477k underspend against the Springfield Upgrade and Greenbank Arterial construction and design projects.

The Springfield Greenbank Arterial Rd Upgrade again progressed well in design and was over budget by $414k due to previous rephasing of this design work. The Springfield Parkway Stage 2 design was under forecast, due to further delays experienced with the consultant.

Redbank Plains Road Stage 3 was under on expenditure as preliminary works with service relocations were delayed following further wet weather.

The Pine Mountain Road Safety project was well over budget and forecast for the month, due to previous rephasing of works brought forward. The project is now forecast for completion in June.

The PTAIP Bus Stop Program was $123k overspent from the baseline budget for the month, due to rephased delivery of sites previously delayed by wet weather. There was also an amount of forward design effort undertaken that was previously unbudgeted.

There were also minor over expenditure recorded against budget for forward design effort against Mt Juillerat Dr Upgrade, Ripley Rd Upgrade and Blackstone, Thomas & Creek Intersection Upgrade.

Fleet was $8k over the budget baseline for the month of May.

Two vehicles that were scheduled for delivery in May have now been forecast for delivery in June, per further advice received from Suppliers, which incurred an underspend of $128k against budget.

There was also the recent purchase of a Remote Control mower that was purchased for $117k, which offset the total underspend for the month.

Summary

The current actuals to budget variance at end of May 2022 is 18% (-$15.3 mil) behind the baseline, which is down from 19% last month. The deficit which was anticipated to be largely recovered in the remainder of the year to meet the revised amended budget of $92.7 mil, has now been reforecast to a reduced forecast 2021-2022 FY total value of $79.8 mil.

Capital Expenditure for the full year is now forecast to be approximately 13% under the revised amended budget of $92.7 mil, this has increased from 8% at end of April.

Major Projects

Springfield Parkway & Springfield-Greenbank Arterial Road Upgrade

Expenditure for the combined projects in May was $474k under budget expectations ($2.07mil budget vs $1.59 mil actual), this was due to further wet weather delays experienced by contractors.

Ongoing wet weather limited works on site in early May, but a number of activities still progressed well on both the Early Works and Civil Works Packages.

Stage 1 - Partial PC was reached for Early Works on the 18 May and the UU Live Connection to be completed in early June, both important Milestones. The Side-track for the Civil Works is almost complete and the switch is programmed for late June to coincide with completion of APA pipe works and Communication Cutovers.

The Opossum Creek Bridge is complete apart from the AC overlay that will be undertaken with the Civil Works Package.

APA progress has been affected by the wet weather and will impact the Civil Works Package, however other services relocations conduits are complete, with Energex commissioned and Telstra/Optus/NBN/TPG programmed for cutover by the end of June.

Stage 3 – The Springfield GBA Upgrade Contractor is well advanced in preliminary planning for the necessary Early Works, with commencement of construction rescheduled for the third quarter of 2022. Centenary Highway Abutment Modification, Earthworks, Stormwater/Drainage and Landscaping early works are required for services relocations.

Design Coordination with Utilities, Lions/TMR /QR is nearing completion and a number of Services Relocation Offers have been received. The 100% Design Milestone has been reviewed, with the Consultant updating the documents and finalising Services Relocation designs. When the design is complete the revised plans will be provided to the Contractor for IFC Pricing verification.

Planning is being finalised to relocate the Bottle Trees at the Centenary High Off Ramp Roundabout.

Redbank Plains Rd Stage 3

Expenditure for the project in May was $36k below budget for the month.

Telstra have now completed their service relocation works which were rephased at the end of April, due to dispute over variations.

The NBN civil works have commenced and are expected to be completed in June 2022. NBN cable hauling and cut over will continue into July however these works have no effect on the main portion of the road upgrade construction works.

The Principal Contractor was scheduled to commence works in May, however due to emergency works and resourcing issues with the Principal Contractor they had requested a delay to commencement until later in 2022. Council deliberated with the Contractor and works are now confirmed to commence in mid-August 2022.

Resurfacing Program

Expenditure on the resurfacing program was $576k below the budget baseline ($1.58 mil budget vs $1.01 mil actual), but $281k above the forecast for the month of May.

Works were further delayed again with wet weather in early and mid-May, with the asphalt overlays and failure repairs required to be completed. A further $1.5 mil has now been forecast in June to complete further asphalt overlays in Area 8 this FY.

Discussions are continuing with the resurfacing contractors around mitigating the quantum of the delayed works for asphalt overlays. Currently $1.5 mil of asphalt surfacing works has been identified for carry over to next FY for Area’s 8 and 9, however further overlays maybe completed prior to end of June pending weather. For the remaining reseals there has been $500k identified to be carried over to next FY, to complete streets in Area 8.

The current Estimate at Completion value is sitting at $9.34 mil vs the Total Budget of $13.50 mil, this is a variance of $4.15 mil, which includes proposed carry over funding for Area’s 8 and 9 and a portion of savings.

Grant Funding

A further two Bus Stop projects (Old Toowoomba Rd and Redbank Plains Rd) were the only projects completed in May with external grant funding commitments.

There are currently 21 x projects that have now been completed to date this FY.

The next scheduled project to be completed is the Sutton Park Amenities in early June, which has pushed out further due to wet weather delays.

PTAIP Bus Stop Program –

Currently this FY there are eight Bus Stops that have now been completed. These were at Riverview Rd, Old Ipswich Rd, 2 x Gorry St, Jeffery St, Old Logan Rd, Old Toowoomba Rd and Redbank Plains Rd.

Of the five sites awarded to a Contractor, four of these are currently delayed with watermain relocations and waiting for Urban Utilities to approve shutdown plans. The budget for these four sites has been allowed for on the Carry Over listing, however there is a chance of delivering two sites if approvals are received from Urban Utilities.

Two of the four sites scheduled with the Internal Construction Crews for delivery before the end of FY have been completed in line with the agreed funding completion date of June 2022.

Of the six projects in the design phase, two have been completed by the consultant and the other four designs will be completed but remain on hold for delivery, as discussions with Translink are ongoing around Bus Stop locations. There are sixteen projects currently issued for forward design, that will be scheduled for delivery next FY.

Expenditure on the Bus Stop program is currently $137k actuals vs $160k forecast for the month of May. YTD Expenditure is $497k vs Total FY Forecast of $780k.

Grant Projects Scheduled for delivery this FY (includes Multi-year Funding)

NOTE: Below table includes reporting on capital construction projects only – it does not include Design Only or OPEX projects

Multi-year Funded Grant Projects

· Rosewood RRC Major Upgrade

· Riverview RRC Upgrade Stage 1

Master Schedule Delivery Milestones for April

As at end of May, the current project completion status shows 90 projects have reached practical completion from a revised total of 127 projects now scheduled for delivery this FY.

Projects to be completed in May were up as expected, following further wet weather in early and mid-May.

Master Schedule Baseline Deliverables for 21-22 FY

The progress of projects to have design completed and issued for delivery this FY has been met, with remaining projects to be carried forward to next FY. Overall this FY, there was 97% of projects issued to the construction teams for delivery.

Projects that didn’t achieve IFC:

- 122 Arthur Summervilles Road

- Citywide Signage

- Closed Landfill Comp Works 22

- Jane St DLM RE 22

The data shown above for Concept Design and Detailed Design includes forward design efforts for project delivery in the 2022-2023 FY which has progressed well to date.

Over the remaining June period, further assessment will be undertaken for current FY projects that won’t reach Practical Completion and require a portion or total project to be carried forward to next FY and funded from within the 2022-2023 FY Budget.

The intent will be to schedule and complete these projects in the first quarter of the new FY.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The Infrastructure and Environment Department has a departmental risk register that includes delivery of the capital program. The leadership team of the department continues to monitor our risk in relation to this and takes mitigation action where necessary.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT

The recommendation states that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The Infrastructure and Environment Department remains on target to meet the 2021-2022 capital budget.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

No community consultation was required in relation to this report.

The Stakeholder Management Branch of the Infrastructure and Environment Department engages extensively with the community impacted by our works to ensure that they are informed in advance of works, communicated with during works and ensure that any issues that arise are managed effectively.