Agenda of Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	Response to Notice of Motion - Inclusion of Plaques for Dogs at Dog Parks	8
2	Response to Notice of Motion: Intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road, Redbank Plains	15
	Confirmation of Minutes
3	Confirmation of Minutes of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee No. 2024(02) of 16 July 2024	31
	Officers’ Reports
4	Provisional Projects Approval	42
5	Cable Theft Across the LGA	47
6	Asset and Infrastructure Services Department Capital Delivery Report June 2024	59
7	Development Application Recommendation 2129/2023/MCU - Material Change of Use - Intensive Animal Husbandry (Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility)	84
8	Planning and Environment Court Action Status Report	381
9	Exercise of Delegation Report	389
	Notices of Motion
	Matters Arising

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Meeting Agenda

13 August

2024

Doc ID No: A9824856

ITEM: 1

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION - Inclusion of Plaques for Dogs at Dog Parks

AUTHOR: Team Lead (Open Space and Facilities)

DATE: 20 June 2024

This is a report concerning a response to a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Jacob Madsen at the Council Ordinary Meeting held on 26 October 2023, requesting that Council widen the scope of the Public Monuments and Memorials Policy to include plaques for dogs at dog parks.

Recommendations

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

B. That Council does not permit the memorialising/commemorating of domestic pets and animals on Council-owned or managed land.

C. That the Public Monuments and Memorials Policy and Personal Tributes in Council Open Space and Road Network Policy remain unchanged and continue to solely recognise people, groups, places, and events of significance to the Ipswich region.

RELATED PARTIES

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

At Councils Ordinary Meeting on 26 October 2023, Councillor Jacob Madsen submitted a Notice of Motion (Refer to Item 17.1 of the Council Ordinary Meeting) concerning the inclusion of plaques for dogs at dog parks. The motion submitted was That Council widen the scope of the Public Monuments and Memorials Policy to include plaques for dogs at dog parks.

In response to the Notice of Motion, a review and analysis has been undertaken of Council’s Personal Tributes within Council’s Open Space and Road Network Policy and Public Monuments and Memorials Policy. A benchmarking review and analysis against other Local Government Areas (LGA) with regard to plaques for domestic animals was also undertaken.

The key findings of this review are:

Personal Tributes within Council’s Open Space and Road Network Policy:

The policy statement for Councils Personal Tributes within Open Space and Road Network (PTOSRN) Policy states;

It is Council’s general policy that no memorial naming (excluding war memorials or plaques) will be allowed on any park infrastructure within its open space and road network.

Council does not encourage the installation of personal tribute plaques within its public open space and road network. Council will consider requests for the installation of personal tribute plaques on public infrastructure, subject to adherence with specific guidelines.

The premise of this statement is to discourage and /or limit the duplication of the commemorative functions of cemeteries within Council's open space and road network.

The PTOSRN policy primarily focuses on personal tribute plaques for individuals, with clear references to “Persons”. Section 1.5 Assessment of applications of the PTOSRN policy states;

Council will give due consideration to every proposal to install a personal tribute within Council’s open space or road network. However, approval of a proposal to install a personal tribute is only likely to be given in instances where Council is satisfied that the proposal meets the following criteria: ·

· Is in accordance with the Guidelines for the Consideration of Suitable Persons (appendix 1); ·

· Is accepted by the nominee or related persons (where applicable);

· Stands assessment and diligence searches conducted by Council; ·

· Is accepted by, or within, the community (where applicable)

On the basis that aforementioned assessment criteria relates to “Persons”, a personal tribute to a domestic pet or animal cannot be assessed or approved via the PTOSRN policy.

Public Monuments and Memorial Policy:

The guidelines and criteria for this policy are centred only on recognising people, groups, places, and events of significance to the Ipswich region. Requests for plaques for animals or pets cannot be approved under the current requirements.

Council assesses applications based on the significance of local people, groups, places, events or war/mining heritage in Ipswich. Priority is given to those of citywide, State, or National significance. Location options for public monuments and memorials must be suitable for reflection or community gathering, and strong community support, along with a commitment to ongoing community engagement.

Benchmarking with other Local Government Areas (LGA)

A benchmark assessment has been undertaken at a national level of Memorial Policies and procedures from the following thirteen LGA’s:

• Noosa Shire Council (Queensland)

• Cairns Regional Council (Queensland)

• Gladstone Regional Council (Queensland)

• Fraser Coast Regional Council (Queensland)

• Redlands City Council (Queensland)

• Moreton Bay Regional Council (Queensland)

• Monash City Council (Victoria)

• Kingston City Council (Victoria)

• Melbourne City Council (Victoria)

• Byron Shire City Council (New South Wales)

• Tweed Shire Council (New South Wales)

• Longreach Regional Council (Queensland)

• Canning City Council (Western Australia)

The assessment covered the following key areas:

• type of memorials allowed: plaques, interpretative signs, memorials, commemorative trees, gardens, bench seating, table settings

• the intended recipients: individuals, organisations, places, events

• and the associated responsibilities.

Funding Responsibility

Funding responsibilities for each LGA reviewed varied. The majority of LGA’s require applicants to supply any proposed plaque to cover all costs related to design, construction, installation, and maintenance. Notably, some Councils require charges to be paid before installation, such as Redland City Council for a park seat ($3,138) and the Canning City Council for a bench memorial with plaque ($5,540) for example.

Maintenance by Council

Most Councils assume responsibility for the maintenance of approved memorials.

Provision for Dogs/Pets

None of the investigated Councils provide options for memorialising pets or animals. Furthermore, six of the thirteen Councils explicitly state within their policy documents that memorials for domestic pets and animals are not permitted on public land.

Through the review and analysis, it was identified there are several commercial businesses (i.e. Pets RIP, Pets in Peace, Hage Family Pet Funerals) operating in Ipswich offering services for pet cremation and/or burials, along with the supply of customised pet memorabilia such as urns, signs, and plaques.

It is well acknowledged that domestic pets are considered an important part of an individual and/or family’s life. However, through the review and analysis of other LGA policies on memorials, Council’s current policies are considered consistent by not including the memorialising of domestic pets. Should Council consider memorialising of domestic pets, it could not be limited to dogs as per the current Notice of Motion, rather would need to be broadened to include all other domestic pets (for example cats, birds, chickens, cattle, horses, goats etc).

Legal IMPLICATIONS

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

Not Applicable

policy implications

The report is consistent with Council’s Personal Tributes within Council’s Open Space and Road Network Policy and the Monuments and Memorial Policy.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Risks associated with the recommendations

Exclusion of Emotional Bonds: Pets hold significant emotional value for many individuals, and it may lead to dissatisfaction among pet owners who desire to commemorate their beloved animals in a public place.

Changing Cultural Attitudes: As societal attitudes toward pets evolve, excluding pet memorials may be perceived as out-of-touch or insensitive, potentially resulting in negative public sentiment.

Risks of not approving the recommendations

Resource Management: Council would need to allocate additional resources for the management of requests, the supply and installation, and the maintenance of plaques specifically dedicated to pets. This would include the need for a structured process to handle a potentially increased volume of requests, as well as the financial commitment to sustain the ongoing care and maintenance of diverse pet memorials.

Inconsistency with Council Open Space and Road Network Policy: This policy prohibits memorial naming within any park infrastructure within Council's open space and road network. Furthermore, the overarching design of Council's open space and road networks is specifically crafted to avoid duplicating the commemorative function typically associated with cemeteries.

Community Respect: Some individuals may consider dedicating public spaces solely to human-related commemorations as a way of maintaining a level of respect for the unique and distinctive nature of human achievements and contributions.

Public Space Management: Exclusion of pet memorials reduces the potential clutter and management challenges associated with diverse types of commemorations, ensuring a more organised public space.

Consideration for Other Pet Animals:

It's crucial to note that while the initial request was for commemorating dogs, for inclusivity, other pet animals such as cats, horses, and birds etc may also need opportunities for commemoration. This consideration further broadens the scope and potential challenges associated with managing diverse commemorative requests.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Should the current policies remain, there will be no additional financial implications to Council.

Should Council consider the provision of commemorative plaques for dogs or other animals there will be a financial burden to Council in the review and consideration of applications and ongoing maintenance of any installation. However, the cost is unknown.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There has not been any engagement with the community regarding this matter due to the nature of being a policy issue. Internal consultation has taken place with:

- Transport Planning Team within the Infrastructure Strategy Branch of Asset and Infrastructure Services Department;

- Open Space Planning Team within the Infrastructure Strategy Branch of Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

Despite the absence of community consultation, it is noteworthy that both teams responsible for policy aspects related to the issue were involved and shared the same stance, expressing no intention to alter existing policies in favour of allowing commemorative pet plaques.

Although no direct consultation occurred with the community or external stakeholders, it should be noted that the recommendations will allow private businesses to retain the ability to continue offering such services for commemorative purposes on private properties. It may also create opportunities for private enterprises to meet the demand for commemorative plaques, potentially fostering growth in this niche market.

Councillors have been consulted on this report.

Conclusion

A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Jacob Madsen at the Council Ordinary Meeting on 26 October 2023 to consider the provision of plaques for dogs at dog parks.

Following the review of Council's existing policies and benchmarking against the policies of other Local Government Authorities (LGAs), not permitting the memorialising of domestic pets or animals within Ipswich is considered consistent with policy positions of other LGA’s.

The overarching design of Council's open space and road networks are specifically crafted to avoid duplicating the commemorative function typically associated with cemeteries.

In Ipswich, several commercial businesses offer services for pet cremation and/or burials. These businesses also provide customised pet memorabilia such as urns, signs, and plaques.

It is not proposed to make any alteration to Council’s Personal Tributes within Council’s Open Space and Road Network Policy and the Monuments and Memorial Policy to include plaques for dogs at dog parks.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION

(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?	Recommendation B states that Council does not permit the memorialising/commemorating of domestic pets and animals on Council-owned or managed land. Recommendation C states that the Public Monuments and Memorials Policy and Personal Tributes in Council Open Space and Road Network Policy remain unchanged and continue to solely recognise people, groups, places, and events of significance to the Ipswich region.
(b) What human rights are affected?	The decision not to allow commemorative dog plaques is not deemed as impacting human rights. This decision is based on policy considerations related to public spaces and commemorations. Human rights typically pertain to fundamental freedoms and protections inherent to individuals, and while emotional connections to pets are valid, the restriction on commemorative plaques for dogs is a policy choice guided by the Council's objectives in maintaining the integrity of public spaces and adhering to existing policies. It's essential to recognise that this decision is specific to the context of public memorials and does not infringe upon broader human rights principles.
(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.

Mark Bastin

Team Lead (Open Space and Facilities)

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

Manager, Infrastructure Strategy

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Matt Anderson

General Manager (Asset and Infrastructure Services)

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

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Meeting Agenda

13 August

2024

Doc ID No: A10465132

ITEM: 2

SUBJECT: Response to notice of motion: Intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road, Redbank Plains

AUTHOR: Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

DATE: 31 July 2024

This is a report concerning a response to a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Jacob Madsen at the Council Ordinary Meeting held on 25 July 2024. Councillor Madsen requested a report be provided to the next Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee regarding a proposal to deliver the Greenwood Village Road / Redbank Plains Road intersection upgrade as its own project, ahead of Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 (which currently is to include the works).

Recommendation/s

A. That Council note the contents of this report.

B. That Council proceed with the planning, design and construction of the ultimate works for Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 in accordance with current timelines.

C. That Council note that movement restriction works will likely be undertaken by development activity in the area.

RELATED PARTIES

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

At the Council Ordinary Meeting held on 25 July 2024, Councillor Jacob Madsen submitted a Notice of Motion (NOM) regarding the intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road, Redbank Plains.

This report addresses concerns regarding the proposed restriction of the right turn movement for traffic from Greenwood Village Road into Redbank Plains Road with consideration of potential interim and ultimate solutions to maintain all turn movements at this intersection. The report also provides background on:

· Development Application history;

· Development infrastructure charges;

· Council’s transport planning for Redbank Plains Road;

· Potential options and indicative costs, and

· Project delivery timeframes.

Development Application History

2016 Development Application – 32 Greenwood Village Road (1614/2016/CA)

A development application was received for a residential subdivision consisting of 174 lots at 32 Greenwood Village Road. At this time, Greenwood Village Road was a stop sign priority controlled intersection for all traffic movements entering Redbank Plains Road. Also at the time of this application, the upgrade of Redbank Plains Road in the vicinity of Greenwood Village Road was included within Council’s 10 year Long Term Financial Forecast (LTFF) program, however a number of other major projects were prioritised ahead of this project.

Conditions of this approval required the developer to upgrade the intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road to facilitate the safe continuation of all movements for traffic, including traffic signals and associated works, which was considered trunk infrastructure and offsetable against infrastructure charges if completed in the ultimate format. The traffic impact assessment submitted with this development application indicated that this development would trigger the upgrade of this intersection. The report also concluded that background traffic growth (along Redbank Plains Road) without this development would likely require the intersection to be upgraded within the next 5 years, which was generally consistent with Council’s infrastructure planning timeframes at that time.

The detailed design completed by the developer determined that the conditioned works to signalise the intersection were not feasible owing to the extended scope of works required to meet design standards and potentially integrate with an ultimate configuration, and the inability to secure additional land to accommodate this footprint. Subsequently, through the submission of a change application (1614/2016/MAMC/B) the applicant submitted a revised design consisting of a left in/left out/right in priority controlled intersection, which restricted right out movements onto Redbank Plains Road (similar to what is now required as part of the current development works). This solution also included improvements for the left turn movement from Greenwood Village Road and right turn movements from Redbank Plains Road and was supported by a revised traffic impact assessment (TIA). The revised TIA determined that this proposed configuration met safety requirements and had capacity until such time that Council completed the full upgrade of this section of Redbank Plains Road. The report also provided traffic volumes for this right-out movement as 18-24 vehicle trips per hour during peak periods and identified alternative routes, which resulted in relatively minor inconvenience to east bound traffic.

As part of the consideration of the proposed change, it was identified that restricting the right-out movement from Greenwood Village Road would likely have a significant community impact. Consequently, discussions were held between the Planning and Development Department and Infrastructure Service Department to establish a “balanced” outcome from both a traffic, safety and community perspective. It was considered that an interim right-out movement could be acceptable, subject to modifications to the intersection design by way of signage, traffic islands, road markings and streetlighting. This would allow Council to potentially further modify the intersection when it fails from an operational or safety perspective. The changes to the intersection design as an interim solution no longer aligned with or integrated with the LGIP and the works were no longer considered trunk infrastructure.

This exercise established that the scale and cost of works associated with a major upgrade of this intersection is beyond what would be reasonable to condition on development within this catchment owing to the following:

- Substantial earthworks with up to 3m of cut, required to ensure the horizonal and vertical alignment met design standard.

- Constraints regarding existing corridor width and inability to secure additional land to accommodate required earthworks (separate private ownership).

- Inability to maintain two-way through traffic during construction without additional land and construction of temporary roads.

- Relocation of major services on northern side of existing carriageway, including optic fibre.

The interim works were completed as a part of the development of the subject site and remain in place to date. Attachment 1 provides details of the intersection configuration prior and post this development approval.

2022 Development Application – 25 Greenwood Village Road (7833/2022/MCU)

A development application was received for a Material Change of Use - Business Use (Service Station, Fast Food Premises) and Service/Trades Use (Warehouse, Mechanical Car Wash) at 25 Greenwood Village Road (to the southwest of the Redbank Plains Road / Greenwood Village Road intersection).

Conditions of this approval require works to the intersection to prevent the right-out movement from Greenwood Village Road to Redbank Plains Road to maintain the safety of this intersection. For the reasons outlined above it was not considered reasonable to condition the major intersection upgrade works as part of this development and these works were not considered trunk infrastructure. The traffic impact assessment submitted with this application indicated that the development was not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the operation of the surrounding road network on the basis that the upgrades were completed.

To date this approval has not been taken up nor have any further applications been submitted over this site.

2022 Development Application – 632-698 Redbank Plains Road (13185/2022/CA)

A development application was received for a Variation Request to override the local planning instrument to allow for development in accordance with the Residential Low Density Zone (Sub-area RL2) and the first stage of a residential subdivision consisting of 51 lots (stage 1) at 632-698 Redbank Plains Road, with access to the site from Greenwood Village Road.

Conditions of this approval require works to the intersection to prevent the right out movement from Greenwood Village Road to Redbank Plains Road to maintain the safety of this intersection. For the reasons outlined above it was not considered reasonable to condition the major intersection upgrade works as part of this development and these works were not considered trunk infrastructure. The traffic impact assessment submitted with this application indicated that this change was required in the short term based on ongoing background traffic growth on Redbank Plains Road regardless of the development. Importantly, this approval required the dedication of land from the Redbank Plains Road site frontage which facilitates a portion of the ultimate Redbank Plains Road upgrade in the future.

An operational works application (6657/2024/OW) was recently received for the detailed design of the site works and the alterations to the Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road intersection required by the approval. In considering this operational works application, details have been requested from the developer as to how road users and the community can be educated about the intersection changes, and the alternatives for those in the community wishing to travel east (currently undertaking a right turn onto Redbank Plains Road). To date this information has not been received and the application has not yet been decided.

Furthermore, a development application (8143/2024/RAL) was lodged on 24 July 2024 for stage 2 and 3 of this residential development, consisting of a further 130 residential lots. As this application has only just been received, officers are still undertaking a preliminary assessment and no decision has been made. The traffic report included with the application, references the previously conditioned modifications to the Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road intersection and notes that these works will resolve the existing safety issues at this intersection until such time as the ultimate upgrades and signalisation of this intersection can be facilitated.

Currently, there is no specific timeframe for when any works are likely to occur or the land to be dedicated for the future Redbank Plains Road upgrade.

While these approvals have indicated that the revised intersection configuration will operate safely in the interim it is likely that as further development occurs within the immediate area the need for these ultimate upgrade works will become more apparent. Details of the current proposed interim intersection configuration at Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road as part of this application can be viewed in Attachment 2.

2018 Development Application – 639 Redbank Plains Road (4122/2018/CA)

Whilst not within Greenwood Village Road, an application has been approved for 267 residential lots at 639 Redbank Plains Road to the northeast of Greenwood Village Road. Subsequent operational works applications have been approved for the initial stages of this development with an interim signalised intersection to be constructed on Redbank Plains Road approximately 550m east of Greenwood Village Road to provide the primary site access.

Development Infrastructure Charges

Council’s road network is considered to be an open system, which attracts trips from both within and outside of the Local Government Area (LGA). Furthermore, like most arterial roads within Council’s road network, Redbank Plains Road caters for citywide traffic demands, as well as movements between suburbs and major centres. Therefore, a varying portion of infrastructure charges received from all development applications across the city contribute towards major road upgrades such as Redbank Plains Road. The development infrastructure charges collected within the city, including those from developments within Redbank Plains over the last 10 years have not been expressly allocated to individual projects, but will have significantly contributed to the delivery of a number of major road upgrades (e.g. Redbank Plains Road Stages 1 – 3, Augusta Parkway and Mount Juillerat Drive) that have already been completed to service the key eastern growth suburbs.

Redbank Plains Road - Transport Planning

In 2019 Council completed corridor planning for the upgrade of Redbank Plains Road (Stage 4) between the Cunningham Highway and Collingwood Drive, a distance of approximately 3km. This planning determined the future corridor footprint and the construction order of cost for the upgrade of Redbank Plains Road to a four-lane urban standard road from the Cunningham Highway to Collingwood Drive, as well as for a longer-term upgrade to six

lanes for the section between the Cunningham Highway and Newhill Drive.

This corridor planning was subsequently endorsed via a report to the Growth and Infrastructure committee on 17March 2020, with the outcomes of the study to be adopted and used to inform future investment planning and detailed design activities for this section of Redbank Plains Road. Critically, this corridor planning considered a number of options for the Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road intersection and determined the alignment and configuration for the ultimate signalised intersection.

As per the Redbank Plains Road Corridor Planning, the ultimate intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road will be constructed approximately 40m to the south of the existing intersection to reduce earthworks, reduce impacts to major utility service, achieve an appropriate horizontal and vertical design for a major arterial road, and contain the property impacts to the southern side of the Redbank Plains Road corridor. The construction of this ultimate intersection will require property from 632-698 Redbank Plains Road which is subject to current operational works development application (6657/2024/OW). It is anticipated that this property requirement will be dedicated to road reserve in the short term. Based on the Redbank Plains Road Corridor planning, the proposed corridor for the ultimate signalised intersection with Greenwood Village Road can be viewed in Attachment 3.

Potential options, indicative costs and timelines

Interim Signalised intersection within existing road corridor

An interim signalised intersection (i.e. signalisation of existing intersection configuration) has previously been investigated. Based on the design developed as part of the 2016 Development Application over 32 Greenwood Village Road (1614/2016/CA), works of this nature would require significant earthworks (approximately 3m of cut) and would result in significant impacts to existing services and properties to both the north and south of Redbank Plains Road.

Considering the passage of time since this design option was initially developed and the significant increase in construction costs, it is anticipated that the likely cost to deliver this option would be in the order of $8m-$10m. More importantly, works of this nature would be completely sacrificial as they will not align nor integrate with the ultimate Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road intersection. In addition, given the continuing traffic growth that is occurring along the Redbank Plains Road corridor, the basic signalised intersection of the existing lane configurations would have a limited design life, before it would result in significant queues and delays (due to single lanes on all the intersection approaches).

Ultimate Signalised intersection on new alignment

As per Council’s corridor planning for Redbank Plains Road Stage 4, the ultimate signalised intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road will include two lanes in either direction and a right turn lane on Redbank Plains Road.

Should Council wish to deliver the ultimate intersection upgrade as an early stage of the larger Redbank Plains Road Stage 4, the intersection will need to be relocated approximately 40m to the south of the existing intersection. Significant interim tie in works (in the order of 300m) would also be required to both the east and west of the ultimate signalised intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road.

Based on other projects of a similar nature is it anticipated that the likely cost to deliver the ultimate intersection and appropriately tie back to the existing Redbank Plains Road to the east and west would be in the order of $25m-$30m. With a typical detailed design cost for a project of this scale likely to cost in the order of $1m.

Proceed with Development Approval conditions

Proceed with works as currently conditioned on development approval to restrict right turn movements from Greenwood Village Road onto Redbank Plains Road. These have not been costed but would be a cost to the developer.

Project Delivery Timeframes

Given the significant nature of the works required to construct either the interim signalised intersection within the existing Redbank Plains Road corridor or the ultimate intersection signalised intersection on the identified new alignment, it is anticipated that it would likely take at least 3 years to complete planning, design and construction for the interim upgrade option. It is further estimated that it would take at least 5 years to progress to construction for the ultimate signalised intersection as an early staged component of the larger Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 upgrade.

Recommendation

On balance, it is recommended that the planning for ultimate Redbank Plains Stage 4 continue as a singular project, and that the works planned to be undertaken through development activity in the area proceed as conditioned. It is further recommended that the timing of Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 be considered in future budget deliberations.

Legal IMPLICATIONS

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

Not Applicable

policy implications

The upgrade of Redbank Plains Road between Newhill Drive and Storey Street is included within Council’s current Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) for an upgrade to a 2-lane urban standard road with an indicative delivery timeframe of 2020.

LGIP includes a further upgrade to a 4-lane urban standard road for Redbank Plains Road to Collingwood Drive with an indicative delivery timeframe of 2026 - 2031. However, it is noted that the current LGIP was developed in 2016 and traffic volumes on this section of Redbank Plains Road have now exceeded the capacity of the existing 2 lane rural standard road and are nearing the capacity of a 2-lane urban standard road.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Should the approved development at 632 Redbank Plains Road proceed and restrict the right turn movement from Greenwood Village Road into Redbank Plains Road as per the current conditions of approval, there is a risk that motorists from the Greenwood Village Road catchment wishing to travel east on Redbank Plains Road may make an unsafe u-turn on Redbank Plains Road between Greenwood Village Road and Newhill Drive. To mitigate this risk, Council will monitor the operations and could consider a temporary median island along Redbank Plains Road between Greenwood Village Road and Newhill Drive to eliminate the risk.

There is also the risk that should the restriction of the right turn movement from Greenwood Village Road into Redbank Plains Road proceed, it will place additional pressure (particularly during peak morning and evening periods) on existing intersections that already experience capacity and congestion issues. This includes the intersection of Hallets Road and School Road, which naturally would be an alternate option for motorists wishing to continue travelling eastbound on Redbank Plains Road. The other alternate option for eastbound motorists would be to travel west of Redbank Plains Road to the roundabout at Newhill Drive and turn around at the roundabout.

If the interim traffic signals are progressed, the risk is that Council would need to determine which other projects within the current capital works program will need to be deferred to bring forward this project. In addition, consideration of an investment of this scale ($8m-$10m) on an interim intersection is required, noting the range of other current demands for improvements across our road networks and the potential reputational risks that Council is prepared to invest in substantial sacrificial works.

In addition, whilst timing is variable and every effort will be made to expedite any identified project, the design and construction of the interim could take up to three years to complete. If completed, the interim signals may only be in place for a short time as Council moves into the planning and design of the ultimate upgrade of Redbank Plains Road stage 4 project.

Finally, in the event that the ultimate intersection upgrade is progressed immediately, other projects within the current capital works program will need to be deferred to bring forward this project being at a cost of approximately $25m-$30m. This will have an impact on other committed projects.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Within Council’s current three-year capital works program, there is $850,000 proposed towards planning and design for the Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 upgrade project in the 2026-2027 financial year.

Should Council determine that budget be allocated earlier than currently proposed to commence design for the ultimate intersection upgrade of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road, it is suggested that $1m would be required.

Should Council determine that budget be allocated to commence design for an interim traffic signal installation (to signalise the existing intersection configuration which will be sacrificial work), it is suggested that $400,000 would be required.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There has not been any formal community consultation regarding the contents in this report.

Conclusion

A Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Jacob Madsen at the Council Ordinary Meeting on 25 July 2024 regarding the intersection of Redbank Plains Road and Greenwood Village Road, Redbank Plains.

There have been several development applications surrounding the intersection on both Greenwood Village Road and Redbank Plains Road, however upgrading the intersection with traffic signal as an interim or ultimate solution is beyond what would be reasonable to condition development within this catchment.

The ultimate alignment of the intersection when Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 works are undertaken will be 40m south of the existing intersection and funds to commence planning and design are currently in the 2026-2027 financial year.

Any interim traffic signals installed on the existing intersection configuration would be sacrificial and would have a limited design life before it would result in significant queues and delays (due to single lanes on all the intersection approaches).

There is a current development approval to restrict right turn movements from Greenwood Village Road onto Redbank Plains Road which will address safety issues in the interim.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

OTHER DECISION

(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?	Recommendation B states that Council proceed with the current conditioned development approval to restrict right turn movements from Greenwood Village Road onto Redbank Plains Road until the ultimate intersection upgrade occurs as part of the Redbank Plains Road Stage 4 upgrade project.
(b) What human rights are affected?	Nil impact
(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.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Intersection configuration prior to and post development works. ⇩
2.	Proposed interim intersection configuration as part of current approvals ⇩
3.	Indicative road corridor for the ultimate siganlised intersection works ⇩

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dileo

Manager, Infrastructure Strategy

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Matt Anderson

General Manager (Asset and Infrastructure Services)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

General Manager (Planning and Regulatory Services)

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

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Meeting Agenda

13 August

2024

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee NO. 2024(02)

16 July 2024

Minutes

COUNCILLORS’ ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Andrew Antoniolli (Chairperson); Councillors Paul Tully (Deputy Chairperson), Mayor Teresa Harding, Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic, David Cullen (via audio-link), Jim Madden, Pye Augustine (Observer) and Marnie Doyle (Observer)

COUNCILLOR’S APOLOGIES:

Nil

OFFICERS’ ATTENDANCE:

Chief Executive Officer (Sonia Cooper), General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Services (Matt Anderson), General Manager Planning and Regulatory Services (Brett Davey), General Manager Community, Cultural and Economic Development (Ben Pole), General Manager Corporate Services (Matt Smith), Chief Financial Officer (Jeff Keech), Manager Capital Program Delivery (Graeme Martin), Manager Infrastructure Strategy (Tony Dileo), Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager (Mary Torres), Team Lead Open Space and Facilities (Mark Bastin), Acting Manager, Strategy and Performance (Haiden Taylor), Acting General Manager Environment and Sustainability (Phil A Smith), Manager Development Planning (Greg Potter), Principal Officer Projects (Graham Schultz), Manager, Resource Recovery (David McAlister), Manager, Compliance (Alisha Connaughton), Chief of Staff – Office of the Mayor (Melissa Fitzgerald), Manager Media, Communications and Engagement (Mark Strong), Coordinator Communication (Lucy Stone), Senior Communications and Policy Officer (Jodie Richter), Theatre Technician (Harrison Cate)

Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country

Councillor Andrew Antoniolli (Chairperson) delivered the Acknowledgement of Country

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

In accordance with section 150ET(4) of the Local Government Act 2009, Councillor Andrew Antoniolli advised of a previously declared Declarable Conflict of Interest in relation to Item 3 titled Planning and Environment Court Action in relation to one of the companies listed within the report (Nugrow). This was declared at the previous Infrastructure Planning and Assets Committee meeting dated 11 June 2024.

The eligible councillors at that meeting of 11 June 2024 resolved that Councillor Andrew Antoniolli could remain in that meeting, including by voting on the matter.

It was moved by Mayor Teresa Harding and seconded by Councillor Paul Tully that Councillor Andrew Antoniolli 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.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Tully Nil

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

Councillor Antoniolli did not take part in the vote on this matter.

The motion was put and carried.

BUSINESS OUTSTANDING

1. Stone Quarry Cemetery - Community Consultation

A report to the Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee of 12 October 2023 outlined the establishment of an Islamic faith burial section at Stone Quarry Cemetery. The report recommended:

A. That Council Officers continue to progress the establishment of an Islamic burial section at an Ipswich City Council managed cemetery.

B. That council consults with Mr George Hatchman and the Willowbank Area Residents Group as part of the process in establishing an Islamic Burial section.

C. That council reports back to a future Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee with the results of the consultation.

D. That the email from Mr George Hatchman and the associated correspondence and images be tabled and attached.

The recommended consultation has been undertaken as well as additional community consultation and engagement. This report provides an update on the outcome of the consultation and the progress to establish an Islamic Faith burial section at the Stone Quarry Cemetery.

Recommendation

Moved by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

Seconded by Mayor Teresa Harding:

That the report on the Stone Quarry Cemetery community consultation be received and noted.

Mayor Teresa Harding proposed the inclusion of the following recommendations:

B. That the final designs come back to the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee for consideration.

C. That all signage come back to the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee for consideration.

The mover of the original motion agreed to the inclusion of Recommendations B and C.

***Recommendation

Moved by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

Seconded by Mayor Teresa Harding:

A. That the report on the Stone Quarry Cemetery community consultation be received and noted.

B. That the final designs come back to the Infrastructure Planning and Assets Committee for consideration.

C. That all signage come back to the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee for consideration.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

Confirmation of Minutes

2. Confirmation of Minutes of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee No. 2024(01) of 11 June 2024

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Andrew Antoniolli:

Seconded by Councillor Paul Tully:

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee held on 11 June 2024 be confirmed.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

Officers’ Reports

Move into Closed Session

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Andrew Antoniolli:

Seconded by Councillor Paul Tully:

That in accordance with section 254J(3)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, the meeting move into closed session to discuss Item 3 titled Planning and Environment Court Action Status Report.

The meeting moved into closed session at 9.21 am.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

Move into Open Session

Recommendation

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

That the meeting move into open session.

The meeting moved into open session at 9.30 am.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

3. 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

Moved by Councillor Andrew Antoniolli:

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

That the Planning and Environment Court Action status report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

4. Exercise of Delegation Report

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 27 May 2024 to 28 June 2024.

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Paul Tully:

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

That the Exercise of Delegation report for the period 27 May 2024 to 28 June 2024 be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

5. Personal Tributes in Councils Openspace and Road Network - Assessment of Application

This is a report concerning a ‘Personal Tribute in Council’s Open space and Road Network’ application which has been received by Council from Mr Glen Park, in memory of his late father, Mr Graeme Park.

Recommendation

That the personal tribute noted in the application detailed in Attachment 1, be approved by Council.

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Paul Tully:

Seconded by Councillor Jim Madden:

A. That this matter be deferred for consideration at a future meeting of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee and that consultation be undertaken with the divisional Councillors and Mayor.

B. That the applicant be invited to provide a finalised new application form.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

6. Public Monuments and Memorials - Assessment of Application

This is a report concerning a ‘Public Monuments and Memorials’ application which has been received by Council from Mrs Luise Manning, Chair of the Springfield Lakes Nature Care Incorporated, proposing the installation of a commemorative plaque to recognise the Queen’s Jubilee Grant from the late Queen Elizabeth II, which funded the planting of 2000 trees in Opossum Creek Parklands, Brookwater.

Recommendation

That the commemorative plaque in the application detailed in Attachment 1, be approved by Council.

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Paul Tully:

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

That the matter be deferred for consideration at a future meeting of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee and that consultation with the divisional Councillors and Mayor take place prior to the re-presentation of the report.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

7. Provisional Projects Approval

This is a report seeking Council consideration of, and capital funding for, the Provisional Projects listed in this report.

The projects have been suggested by the Councillors for assessment against the Capital Investment in Provisional Projects Policy.

The projects noted in this report have been assessed by the Asset and Infrastructure Services Department and are considered consistent with the policy and are tabled for consideration by Council to progress.

Recommendation

That Council approve the Provisional Projects listed below to design and construction in accordance with the Capital Investment in Provisional Projects Policy:

1. Division 1 – Extension of the existing storage facility within Redbank Plains Recreation Reserve, Redbank Plains $11,700.

2. Division 2 – Installation of a Peace Pole within Robelle Domain, Springfield Central $15,000.

3. Division 3 – Installation of bollards, associated slip rail and lighting for an overflow carpark for Jim Finimore Park, Leichhardt $48,000.

4. Division 4 – Installation of footpath connection fronting Rosewood State School at School Street, Rosewood $25,000.

Mayor Teresa Harding proposed that the item for Division 2 relating to the Installation of a Rotary Peace Pole within Robelle Domain as listed below, be deferred to the next meeting of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee:

Division 2 – Installation of a Rotary Peace Pole within Robelle Domain, Springfield Central $15,000.

***Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Andrew Antoniolli:

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

A. That Council approve the Provisional Projects listed below to design and construction in accordance with the Capital Investment in Provisional Projects Policy:

1. Division 1 – Extension of the existing storage facility within Redbank Plains Recreation Reserve, Redbank Plains $11,700.

2. Division 3 – Installation of bollards, associated slip rail and lighting for an overflow carpark for Jim Finimore Park, Leichhardt $48,000.

3. Division 4 – Installation of footpath connection fronting Rosewood State School at School Street, Rosewood $25,000.

B. That the Installation of a Rotary Peace Pole within Robelle Domain as listed below, be deferred to the next meeting of the Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee.

Division 2 – Installation of a Rotary Peace Pole within Robelle Domain, Springfield Central $15,000.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

8. Asset and Infrastructure Services Department Capital Delivery Report May 2024

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Asset and Infrastructure Services Department for the month of May 2024.

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Andrew Antoniolli:

Seconded by Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic:

That the report on capital delivery by the Asset and Infrastructure Services Department be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil

MATTERS ARISING

9. Animal Management (Cats & Dogs) Act 2008 changes and guidelines for local government

Councillor Antoniolli (Chair) tabled the letter from LGAQ (on behalf of the Animal Management Taskforce) to the Hon. Mark Furner MP, Minister for Agricultural Industry Development and Fisheries and Minister for Rural Communities in relation to proposed amendments to the Animal Management (Cats & Dogs) Act 2008 for noting of the committee.

10. Commencement of Next Meeting

Recommendation

Moved by Councillor Paul Tully:

Seconded by Mayor Teresa Harding:

That the Finance and Governance Committee commence at 10.40 am.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Antoniolli Nil

Tully

Harding

Jonic

Cullen

Madden

The motion was put and carried.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 9.00 am.

The meeting closed at 10.18 am.

*** Refer Council Ordinary Meeting of 25 July 2024 for amendment

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Meeting Agenda

13 August

2024

Doc ID No: A10430669

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: Cable Theft Across the LGA

AUTHOR: Acting Manager, Works and Field Services

DATE: 23 July 2024

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning copper cable theft across the local government area (LGA) and actions taken to reduce thefts.

Recommendation/s

That Council note the efforts taken by Council employees to minimise the theft of copper cable.

RELATED PARTIES

· Asset and Infrastructure Services Department

· Works and Field Services Branch

· Community, Cultural and Economic Development Department

· Community and Cultural Services Branch

· Queensland Police Service

· Local Sports Clubs and Sport Field Users

ifuture Theme

Safe, Inclusive and Creative

Purpose of Report/Background

This report presents a summary of the impact and actions related to the theft of copper cable within the Ipswich City Council Local Government Area and provides data and learnings from across the state of Queensland.

Thieves have been targeting critical infrastructure across Queensland and multiple service providers from electricity, water, and telecommunications. Ipswich City Council has experienced numerous instances of copper cable theft from Council owned assets, including from switchboards, cable pits, streetlights, and pathway lights.

Scale of metal theft across Queensland and locally

Table 1 provides the number of metal theft offences in Queensland, by police region (QLD Parliamentary Committees, Inquiry into scrap metal theft, Report No. 45, 2023).

Table 1 - Number of metal theft offences in Queensland, by police region

The Southern region (which includes Ipswich) experienced 1,134 thefts during the report period.

Energy Queensland (Australia’s largest, wholly government-owned electricity company) has seen an increase in copper theft across the state and within the Ipswich region as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Energy Queensland copper theft incidents 2017-18 to 2022-23, by operational region

Source: QLD Parliamentary Committees, Inquiry into scrap metal theft, Report No. 45, 2023

Queensland energy providers reported in March 2024 that thefts and attempted thefts of copper from their infrastructure had nearly tripled between 2020 and 2022.

Ipswich City Council records provided in Table 2 outline the cost of copper cable theft from the 2020-2021 financial year to 2023-202024, reaching $775K (note insurance claims cover most of these costs).

Table 2 - Cost of cable theft in Ipswich City Council Local Government Area, by financial year

The brief overview above shows that the occurrence of copper cable theft and metal theft is being experienced across the whole of Queensland and impacting a broad range of service providers.

Legislative response

The Parliamentary Transport and Resources Committee has recommended that the Queensland Government strengthen the legislative framework for the sale and purchase of scrap metals in Queensland, including investigating claims of unlicensed operations in the scrap metal industry and strengthening police and criminal court powers (QLD Parliamentary Committees, Inquiry into scrap metal theft, Report No. 45, 2023).

Surrounding Councils

City councils across the Southeast Queensland region have all been experiencing issue with theft of copper cables. Following is an overview of the issues and responses from other local councils.

Logan City Council

· Experienced differing levels of copper cable theft (has reduced recently)

· Thieves have also targeted aluminium seating

· Have tried to reduce thefts by replacing cable with less attractive alternatives (i.e. aluminium cable) and making access to pits more difficult (concrete blocks).

City of Gold Coast

· Have seen an increase in thefts from around Christmas 2023

· Have tried to reduce thefts by replacing cable with less attractive alternatives (i.e. aluminium cable) and making access to pits more difficult (locks).

City or Moreton Bay

· Have experienced theft of both copper cables and pipes (plumbing)

· Have seen a sharp increase in thefts at project sites like sporting fields upgrades, street lighting projects and even a train station

· Impact of theft include sporting clubs being unable to train during the evenings, which is their primary training time.

Redland City Council

· Sites in isolated locations are being targeted

· Have trialled filling cable pits with sand as shown in Figure 2

Figure 2 - Redland City Council - Cable pit filled with sand

A person standing next to a cement square

Description automatically generated

· Thieves are now digging beside the pits to access the cables (working around the locks and sand filled traps).

Ipswich City Council

Theft trends

Within the Ipswich local government area common targets include sports fields and large switchboard mains (high risk, high reward) and secluded parks/pathway lights (low risk, low reward) and streetlights.

Vandalism is taking place both during the day and at night. Most cables are being cut live and pits left open, leaving an electrical safety hazard for public as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Ipswich City Council - Electrical cable theft damage

Impact on asset users

Community groups, sport clubs and residents are being impacted by the theft and damage to electrical infrastructure.

Sports clubs have had to cancel or relocate evening training sessions due to sports field lighting being damaged. Some clubs have gone without power and lighting for weeks. The damage to infrastructure has impacted both sport field lighting and club house power. Several clubs have temporarily relocated to alternative locations (where possible), or in some cases restricted training and playing to daylight hours only (impacting participation).

Residents have commented about their reluctance to use footpaths and other public areas at night due to both safety concerns and the risk of falls/trips.

Solutions being implemented

Ipswich City Council have implemented and are trialling several options to deter copper cable theft.

· Replacing copper with aluminium cable

o Aluminium has a much lesser scrap value as shown in Table 3

Table 3 - Scrap value of cables

o So far this has reduced vandalism/theft as thieves cease the removal of cables once they determine it is not copper

o There is still some damage but easier and faster to repair

o However, aluminium is not as conductive as copper

o This generally leads to a requirement for larger sized cables (which often requires larger conduits to be installed – extra cost and time for repairs).

· Reducing copper cable size

o Where possible replacing copper cables with smaller diameter cables to reduce the ‘scrap yield’ or ‘reward’ for theft.

· Installing Ahlmann Company (ACO) pad-lockable cable pit lids

o Provides increased security while not impeding access for maintenance/inspections

Figure 4 - ACO pad-lockable pit lid

o Lockable lids are found to be only a theft deterrent as they can still be opened if thieves are motivated.

· Installing concrete blocks

o Being trialled at 3 sites

o Concrete block installation is cheaper than ACO pad-lockable lids

Figure 5 - Concrete block on top of cable pit

A white box on a pole in a grassy field

Description automatically generated

o However, requires crane hire to access pits which will increase maintenance costs

Figure 6 - Crane truck for concrete block delivery

A machine on the ground

Description automatically generated

o Heavy crane vehicles can cause damage to sport fields and paths etc

Figure 7 - Heavy crane truck damage to grass fields

A tire tracks in a field

Description automatically generated

o It is anticipated that thieves will move onto sites that don’t have concrete blocks, meaning that this measure may have the unintended effect of ‘shifting’ the thefts, not stopping them.

· Installation of smart nodes (includes power supply monitoring capability) to provide timely advice of loss of power which may reduce the time to identify thefts

· Bluetooth tag installed on cable at one site

· Filing police reports

o Working with police to maximise the successful prosecution of thieves

o Police have a keen focus on sport field lighting thefts

o Various council officers have direct contact with Police Officers and representatives.

Solutions not being employed at Ipswich City Council

· Sand filled traps are not being utilised at Ipswich City Council for the following reasons:

o Fault finding becomes substantially more difficult without the ability of visual inspection (leading to longer interruptions for normal wear and tear breakdowns)

o Costs of engaging a vac truck to remove sand every time we need to inspect cabling (greater maintenance costs)

o It has not prevented the theft of cables at other councils/locations but rather changed the method thieves use (i.e. digging beside the pits)

o It does not prevent intentional cable damage

o If a cable is damaged/faulty and the sand is damp, the entire sandpit could potentially sit energised at 230v without the circuit protection tripping.

o Most pit lids are also conductive so in a worst-case scenario, someone could step onto the pit lid (workers or the public) and receive a serious electric shock.

· Video cameras are not being used

o Difficult to predict where the theft may occur

o Impossible to install camera at all sites

o Most likely outcome is that the theft will shift to other sites (without cameras), not stop the theft

o Costly to set up and has ongoing costs

· Safe City network

o Safe City’s primary goal is to safeguard people in busy, popular pedestrian spaces

o Safe City and Asset Protection manage two types of camera systems within council

§ Safe City cameras - These are proactively engaged cameras on our fibre network in popular, open space such as retail type precincts (i.e., CBD), near transport hubs (railway stations, major bus stops, and popular parks with the required infrastructure.

§ Asset cameras - These are reactive, usually not movable and are used to monitor council assets, usually council-owned or occupied buildings.

o Cameras for offence detection (e.g., illegal dumping etc.) are managed by Council’s Compliance Team

o Cameras for flood detection are managed through the Emergency Management Team

o Safe City and Council have used a third-party camera system temporarily to protect council assets at construction yards or to gain insight to criminal activities as part of a police operation

§ These cameras are not monitored by Safe City and are not part of the Safe City camera network

§ If suspicious behaviour is detected the third-party camera/system notifies nominated contact/officer (not necessarily Safe City)

o Policy note:

§ Safe City generally will not install cameras in residential areas due to privacy

§ Prior to installing any camera initiated for council, a privacy impact assessment and statement should be prepared as per the Queensland Information Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations

§ All cameras should also have “Collection Notices” (signs) installed at the time of activating.

Policy response

· Electrical Specifications for Parks and Facilities

o Works and Field Services have updated the Electrical Specifications for Parks and Facilities (Version 9: Section 5.3.2 - Mains and sub-mains) to read:

Aluminium cables must be considered for mains and submains cabling larger than 25mm² in situations where it is possible for cable theft to occur, especially in sports fields and large parks

o This will reduce the use of copper cables in future installations (including developer sites).

Other options for consideration

· Brisbane City Council have installed small signs of cable pits indicating the use of aluminium cables

A black rectangular object with text on it

Description automatically generated

o Note: Works and Field Services have commenced the process to have signs manufactured

o Once signs are installed it may be beneficial to have the marketing team develop an article with the Mayor and Councillor/s advising the community of the proactive steps being taken to reduce cable theft.

Legal IMPLICATIONS

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

Local Law 7 (Local Government Controlled Areas and Roads)

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The risks associated with the theft of copper cable from council owned assets include:

· Risk of electrocution to public & thieves from exposed cables or failure of network earthing systems

· Risk of electrocution or burns for Council staff who may access electrical equipment that has been vandalised

· Risk to the integrity of electrical installations (including network earthing systems)

· Risk of fire damage to infrastructure due to theft activities

· Risk of fall or trips due to poor lighting of public spaces such as paths, roads and sportsgrounds

· Risk of insurance premium increases due to frequent claims for theft cost recovery

· Risk of Council rates needs to increase to pay for cost of thefts and deterrents

· Risk to Council reputation due to reduced access to assets (sports fields for training at night etc)

· Risk of exposure of asbestos materials in older electrical installations

· Risk to Council reputation if poor lighting leads to increase in other criminal activities.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The Council recoups some of the repair costs from insurance claims.

The cost of proactive solutions (such as (ACO) pad-lockable cable pit lids and concrete blocks) are borne by the Council directly.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

(a) The following stakeholders have been consulted with in the development of this report.

Conclusion

This report has provided a brief overview of the sector wide issue of metal theft across Queensland which is being experienced by councils, utilities, construction companies and energy providers.

Legislators are considering changes to scrap metal dealer laws police and law court powers to disincentive metal theft.

A cross section of local councils in the Southeast Queensland region has found that other councils are dealing with cooper cable thefts.

Ipswich City Council teams are working closely with police services, implementing deterrents where possible and trailing innovative solutions to reduce copper cable theft locally.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT

The Recommendation states that Council note the efforts taken by Council employees to minimise the theft of copper cable. The decision to note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.

Michael Jordan

Acting Manager, Works and Field Services

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

James Hilyard

Manager, Works and Field Services

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Matt Anderson

General Manager (Asset and Infrastructure Services)

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

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Meeting Agenda

13 August

2024

Doc ID No: A10433797

ITEM: 6

SUBJECT: Asset and Infrastructure Services Department Capital Delivery Report June 2024

AUTHOR: Acting Principal Officer (Program Management)

DATE: 24 July 2024

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Asset and Infrastructure Services Department for the month of June 2024.

Recommendation/s

That the report on capital delivery by the Asset and Infrastructure Services Department 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

The Capital Works Program of the Asset and Infrastructure Department has seen a spend of $18.7 million against budget of $20.4 million for the month of June.

The final year-to-date expenditure for the financial year 23-24 amounted to $99.94 million, in line with the target year-to-date budget of $100.32 million. This final result is within 0.4% of the full year budget

The table below shows the baseline for the published budget and expenditure to date for the 2023-2024 FY.

Program Variances (Budget vs Actual)

Asset Rehabilitation overall, achieved an actual spend of $1.43mil against an adopted budget of $2.27mil for the month of June.

Rephasing of works associated with the Hiddenvale Road Bridge replacement project resulted in a spend of $72k against a budget of $625k for the month of June. Service locations are now complete, with the Bridge contractor having established on site with initial earthworks underway for the pads required for the piling operation underway.

The first stage of the East Ipswich Drainage project has seen an expenditure of $84k, compared to the initial baseline budget of $202k for the month of June. The appointed contractor for the project is currently in the process of obtaining the necessary traffic management approvals. Once these are in place, work on the site is expected to begin in early August.

Local Amenity overall, had an actual expenditure of $392k compared to the phased budget allocation of $539k for the month.

Flood Mitigation and Drainage overall, achieved an actual spend of $445k against an adopted budget of $1.37 mil resulting in a variance of $920k for the month of June.

Parcel Street Stormwater Investigation works incurred a spend of $2k against a budget of $535k due to delays associated with the commencement of the construction activities as a result of the ongoing consultation associated with the easement requirements.

The installation of motion Sensors on the Marburg Rosewood Detention Basin have been deferred for delivery until 24-25FY, as a result the project incurred a $0 spend against an adopted budget of $250 k.

Transport and Traffic had an actual expenditure of $8.81mil, being above budget by $2.83mil when compared to the phased budget allocation of $5.98 mil for the month.

Significant progress was achieved over the month of June for Redbank Plains Road Stage 3 with civil works progressing across all work zones. The project achieved expenditure of $1.16 mil against the original baseline budget of $871k.

The combined expenditure for all three Springfield Parkway Stages stood at $4.49 million, exceeding the baseline budget of $2.75 million. With great results being achieved with Springfield Greenbank Arterial again achieving greater than expected results with increased activity occurring on site.

The execution phase associated with the traffic signal upgrade at Mary and William Street is progressing, with the final asphalt tasks planned for the end of August, weather permitting. The spending for this month amounted to approximately $2.0 million, against a baseline budget of $726k, resulting in a budget variance of $1.26 million for the month of June.

Parks Sports and Environment overall, achieved an actual spend of $1.26mil resulting in a $739k spend above the budget of $521k for the month of June. This can primarily be attributed to:

Richardson Park incurred expenses of $637,000 during the month, having a baseline budget of $0 due to the re-phased timing of works. Construction activities have now been finalised, with no outstanding defects and has now been accepted by Council.

Progress on the grant-funded Cameron Park Upgrade project has also experience increased productivity with the contractor having now been established on-site since April, with the demolition of the existing amenities block complete and all earthworks for the installation of the new playground nearing completion. Expenses for the month reached $390 k against a current monthly baseline budget of $0.

Fleet experienced a $7.25mil expenditure against a monthly budget of $9.46 mil.

Due to industry-wide inventory shortages, Council have faced challenges in procuring resources for fleet replacement and expansion. These circumstances have been evident throughout the financial year, demonstrating the broader supply constraints that are currently impacting the industry.

Summary

At the end of June, the Capital Works Program of the Asset and Infrastructure Services Department achieved an excellent result with the full year cumulative expenditure being $99.94 million against the budget allocation of $100.32 million, a variation of 0.04%.

Major Projects

Springfield Parkway & Springfield-Greenbank Arterial Road Upgrade

A general overview of the project shows good progress being made on all three stages, with the progress best outlined as:

Stage 1 All components with the exception of the Landscaping and the works above the 3.6m culverts extension north of Hymba Yumba are complete and the defect and omissions identified at the interim practical completion have been addressed. BMD are in the final stages of planning for the outstanding Landscaping works including some upgrades, to coincide with Spring and the outstanding works above the 3.6 culverts will be actioned when the extension is completed in August/September. Urban Utilities require a modification to the concrete barrier along Escarpment and this has been designed and will be completed with Stage 3 works.

Stage 2 The Design has reached the 100% Milestone and has been reviewed internally. Gas, UU and Telstra relocation designs are complete and are in the process of being issued with electrical and the remaining communication designs well advanced. With concrete work in the creek bed complete and the embankment stabilised, the 3.6m culvert extensions works north of above Hymba Yumba culvert are making excellent progress and remain on budget and program. The two Early Works Packages (Earthworks/Stormwater and UU Water Main Relocation) are being prepared and will be put to market subject to budget. The stormwater pipe has been delivered and the wall panels and RE Fill are with procurement for supply. Council’s internal Crew have completed clearing works and did an excellent job and minor initial fill works are being undertaken in preparation for the earthworks package by BMD.

Stage 3 is making excellent progress now that service relocations and the deep stormwater through rock are complete. A second phase of night works over 4 to 6 weeks in August/September combined with an alternative mill and fill pavement at the Off Ramp intersection will see up to 2 months shaved off the Program and pave the way for the intersection and ParknRide crossing to be commissioned pre Christmas, with only finishing works remaining for the new year. While there has been further slips on the Off Ramp batter, an interim treatment of trimming the slope to a flatter profile has been agreed and will be completed with the night works phase and will match minor shaping in the reserve. The final treatment is still in design, but this approach will prevent the Project completion being delayed.

Collaborations between the Council, Queensland Rail, and Lions continues to ensure access to essential areas is maintained and impacts to commuters and match days are minimised. The Queensland Rail Eastern Carpark is completed helping to alleviate impacts of night time closure of the ParknRide.

Financially, the first two TMR Funding invoices have been submitted and paid and the second funding application is progressing positively. Overall the Project remains on Budget.

Redbank Plains Road Upgrade

With continued oversight from Council (ICC), Naric Civil Pty Ltd has achieved significant progress with the civil construction. Throughout June, work has advanced across all zones. Although some areas remain partially completed, the entire site footprint is currently under traffic management—a feature that has been in place for some time.

The project’s focus is now on completing the Southern Zone and Northern Zone, with the goal of removing traffic management controls from these areas. This will provide a clear indication that the project is nearing completion.

Notable developments include the progress of footpaths and driveways on the western verge. Additionally, the completion of the centre retaining wall safety barrier between Barry Drive and Shannon Street has opened up the remaining section of road for upgrades. Despite the need to demolish and reconstruct a defective section of footpath and curb between Highbury and Jansen, we remain on track (weather permitting) and are working diligently toward completion and site demobilization by Christmas 2024.

Passenger Transport Accessible Infrastructure Program (PTAIP) - Bus Stop Program

The Program (PTAIP) aims to enhance passenger transport facilities across Queensland, ensuring compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requirements. Funded by the Queensland Government, PTAIP continues to support councils with upgrading the existing bus stops and other transport infrastructure. There are currently 5 stops remaining for construction that have PTAIP funding. Design for these projects is currently being finalised and it is intended they will be scheduled for construction in the 2024-2025 financial year.

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 Operational projects.

Master Schedule status of Practical Completion milestone for June

(Exclusive of emergent projects)

As at end of June, project completion status shows 33 projects have reached practical completion from a total of 37 projects that are scheduled for delivery this FY.

Current status of Construction projects for 2023-2024 FY

The data shown above for status of projects scheduled for delivery in the 2023-2024 FY.

Majority of projects scheduled for delivery this financial year have been designed and handed over for construction, with only 1 project yet to be handed over to construction.

Legal IMPLICATIONS

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

Local Government Act 2009

policy implications

Nil.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The Asset and Infrastructure Services Department has a departmental risk register that includes the 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.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

No financial / resource implications.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

No community consultation was required in relation to this report.

The Stakeholder Management Branch of the Asset and Infrastructure Services 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.

Conclusion

The Asset and Infrastructure Services Department is committed to delivering high quality infrastructure for the community.

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.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Appendix A - Asset Rehabilitation Report ⇩
2.	AIS Capital Portfolio Update Report - June 2024 Powerpoint ⇩

Tom Reynolds

Acting Principal Officer (Program Management)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Graeme Martin

Manager, Capital Program Delivery

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Matt Anderson

General Manager (Asset and Infrastructure Services)

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

Infrastructure, Planning and Assets Committee

Meeting Agenda

13 August

2024

Doc ID No: A10409807

ITEM: 7

SUBJECT: Development Application Recommendation 2129/2023/MCU - Material Change of Use - Intensive Animal Husbandry (Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility)

AUTHOR: Senior Planner (Development)

DATE: 16 July 2024

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning an application seeking approval for a Material Change of Use – Intensive Animal Husbandry (Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility) at 763 Ipswich Boonah Road, Purga.

The application requires determination by Council in accordance with the Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy, as more than 20 properly made submissions objecting to the proposed development have been received.

The proposed development has been assessed against 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. 2129/2023/MCU, being the Material Change of Use for Intensive Animal Husbandry (Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility), subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1 of this report.

RELATED PARTIES

The related parties to this application are:

· Applicant – Snow Catton Pty Ltd c/- Bplanned and Surveyed Pty Ltd

· Acoustic Assessment – JT Environmental Engineering Consultants

· Acoustic Assessment (Third-Party Review) – Stantec

· Civil Engineering – CMT Engineers

· Ecological Assessment – Green Tape Solutions

· Town Planning – Bplanned and Surveyed Pty Ltd

· Waste Management Plan – JT Environmental Engineering Consultants

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

SITE ADDRESS:	763 Ipswich Boonah Road, PURGA QLD 4306
APPLICATION TYPE:	Material Change of Use
PROPOSAL:	Material Change of Use - Intensive Animal Husbandry (Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility)
ZONE:	Rural Pastoral (Rural B)
OVERLAYS:	· OV13 High Voltage Electricity Transmission Lines · OV5 Adopted Flood Regulation Line · OV7A Building Height Restriction Area 90m · OV7A Outer Horizontal Surface RL 176.5 · OV7B 13km Operational Airspace Buffer – Wildlife Attraction Restriction Area
APPLICANT:	Snow Catton Pty Ltd c/- Bplanned and Surveyed Pty Ltd
OWNER:	Snow Catton Pty Ltd
EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRADING NAMES:	Unknown
APPLICATION NO:	2129/2023/MCU
AREA:	22.86ha
REFERRAL AGENCIES:	· State Assessment Referral Agency (Concurrence Agency) · Powerlink (Advice Agency) · Queensland Racing Integrity Commission (Third Party Advice)
EXISTING USE:	Single Residential Dwelling
PREVIOUS RELATED APPROVALS:	Not applicable
DATE RECEIVED:	6 March 2023
DECISION PERIOD START DATE:	3 October 2023
EXPECTED DETERMINATION DATE:	29 August 2024

LOCALITY PLAN:

PROPOSAL PLANS:

Figure 1 (above): Site Plan 1:2000

Figure 2 (above): Site Plan 1:500

Figure 3 (above): Elevations (Kennel Block A)

Figure 4 (above): Floor Plan (Kennel Block A)

Figure 5 (above): Elevations (Kennel Block A)

Figure 6 (above): Elevations (Kennel Block A)

Figure 7 (above): Floor Plan (Kennel Block A)

Figure 8 (above): Floor Plan (Kennel Block A)

Figure 9 (above): Elevations (Kennel Block B)

Figure 10 (above): Elevations (Kennel Block B)

Figure 11 (above): Floor Plan (Kennel Block B)

SITE DETAILS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES:

The subject site is a 228,600m² (22.86ha) block of land located in the suburb of Purga, which is approximately 13km south of Ipswich. The site is bounded by rural land to the north and west (which are encumbered by residential dwellings), Strathmore Lane (unconstructed road reserve) to the south, and Ipswich Boonah Road to the east which provides formal access to the site.

Surrounding land uses include intensive animal husbandry, truck depots, and rural residential living which are generally accompanied by low-scale rural pursuit uses. Notably, the nearest dwelling is 297m to the north and the Greater Brisbane Greyhound Racing Centre is located approximately 6.5km north of the subject site on Ipswich Boonah Road.

The site itself is generally cleared with scarce vegetation, particularly in the northern regions and includes several scattered dams. There are several outbuildings proximate to an existing single residential dwelling which achieves vehicular access from Ipswich Boonah Road, a state-controlled road. A Powerlink easement traverses the site generally located in the south-eastern corner of the lot.

PROPOSAL:

The application seeks approval to operate for the purposes of Intensive Animal Husbandry in the form of a Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility.

Up-to 125 Greyhounds (including pups) to be onsite at any one time for breeding and training purposes. The greyhounds are to be accommodated in blocks pf kennels which are setback (at minimum) 129m from Ipswich Boonah Road to the east, 156m from the northern boundary, and 242m to any other boundary. ‘Block A’ consists of 55 kennels with associated dog runs, a kitchen, cold room, medical rooms and a whelp kennel; and ‘Block B’ consists of 48 kennels with associated dog rural and a storage area.

In addition, the proposal includes the following features:

· Two (2) kennel blocks (Block A and Block B) consisting of a total of 103 kennels with attached, undercover dog runs.

· Six (6) ‘pup yards’ are located proximate to Block B and setback approximately 67m from Ipswich Boonah Road to the east, and at least 210m from any other boundary. The yards are 10m x 60m in area and adjoin each-other.

· Two (2) exercise yards setback approximately 23m from Ipswich Boonah Road to the east, 189m to the northern boundary, and at least 210m to any other boundary.

· A 200m fenced straight running track located approximately 100m east of the western boundary, and at least 145m from any other boundary. This track will only be utilised by dogs kennelled onsite for exercise/training purposes.

· A ‘bullring’ (a small circular training/racing track) approximately 12m in diameter and 10m west of kennel Block B.

· Four (4) parking spaces to be provided for staff and visitors.

· Four (4) onsite staff members and two (2) offsite staff members.

· Access to be provided via the existing residential access point and driveway. The driveway crossover is subject to State Assessment Referral Agency conditions as Ipswich Boonah Road is a state-controlled road.

Note: Only dogs kennelled onsite are permitted to use training facilities.

The use is proposed to operate as follows:

· Dogs released from kennels to yards from 6:00am.

· Dogs get a meal from 6:30am-7:00am.

· Dogs exercise periodically from 7:00am-4:30pm with meals throughout the day.

· All dogs are kennelled at 5:30pm.

· Dogs are taken outside at 8:30pm for toilet purposes and returned to kennel.

Note: Some operations are required to be staged to ensure no more than 40 dogs are outside their kennels at any one time.

Key Points:

As detailed below, the application was Impact Assessable and therefore public notification was required pursuant to the Planning Act 2016. During the public notification period, Council received 6,223 submissions (after removing duplicates) during the public notification period. Notably, 6,162 submissions were received utilising pro-forma templates from two (2) animal welfare groups. Submission numbers are categorised below to clarify their characteristics:

· 5,023 properly made submissions were received

· 1,293 properly made submissions were Australian residents

· 57 properly made submissions were received from Ipswich residents

· 17 non pro-forma, properly made submissions were received from Ipswich residents

The primary concerns that were raised in the submissions included the following:

· Animal welfare

· Ecological impacts

· Noise management

· Property values

· Planning scheme non-compliance

· Risk-management

· Odour impacts

· Social impacts of gambling

· Community engagement

· Council’s reputation

· Visual impacts

· Precedent for future applications

Below is a summary of how these matters have been addressed and/or appropriately resolved:

Animal Welfare

Animal welfare was the most consistent concern identified throughout the submissions. Due to the matters raised throughout the submissions, Council requested the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission to review the submissions summary letter and provide third-party advice/comment on relevant matters.

The Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission provided responses to relevant matters. This response has been accepted as third-party comment (see attached Third Party Advice - Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission).

Ipswich City Council’s assessment and comment on animal welfare is limited as these matters, while important, are not assessable under the Queensland planning framework. Accordingly, reliance on such matters is regulated by the Greyhound Australasia Rules and administered by the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission.

Planning Scheme Non-Compliance

The application has been assessed against the assessment benchmarks as defined under the Ipswich Planning Scheme, any matters prescribed by regulation, and any other relevant matter.

The application has undergone a comprehensive assessment. Key assessment criteria have been discussed below.

Ecological Impacts

The site is subject to a Koala Priority Area and Core Koala Habitat as per the Queensland State Government’s Development Assessment Mapping System. However, the assessment of impacts to Koalas is devolved to Council. The Ecological Assessment (prepared by Greentape Solutions) submitted in support of the application identifies areas of mapped Core Koala Habitat and Threatened Ecological Melaeuca irbyana (Swamp Paperbark) communities as identified in Figure 12 below.

During the assessment of the application, the applicant was requested to ensure that all facilities associated with the proposed use are located a minimum of 50m setback from Core Koala Habitat and Threatened Ecological Communities in accordance with the assessment benchmarks contained in Schedule 11, Part 2, Section 4(1)b)(i) of the Planning Regulation 2017 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Ecological response to Council’s information request generally demonstrated the possibility for safe koala movement through the site by way of Koala exclusion fencing installed around all areas where greyhounds are proposed to be housed, exercised, and trained; however, ‘Exercise Yard 1’ still remained within the 50m exclusion zone. Accordingly, the plans have been marked-up to reduce the size of ‘Exercise Yard 1’ to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Further to the above, the Ecological Assessment states that areas of the site will be landscaped (refer to the image presented in Figure 12 below) utilising locally endemic species to facilitate safe koala movement within the Koala Priority Area and mitigate potential impacts associated with the use. Vegetation retention, revegetation and landscaping conditions targeted to addressing this mitigation measure, have been imposed.

Figure 12. Landscaping Plan

In relation to wastewater impacts, the overall outcomes of the Rural B Zone Code and the Overall and Specific outcomes of the Intensive Animal Husbandry Code requires detail of how waste generated by the proposed use can be adequately managed to avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including contamination risks to waterways and land. Potential impacts to areas of Core Koala Habitat and the critically Endangered Threatened Ecological Communities (TEC), from increased nutrient load or change in hydraulic regime, also required consideration.

The conceptual Wastewater Washdown system and drainage plans (SMT Engineers stormwater response) identify the separation of kennel washdown waters (with subsequent treatment through a system such as an Everard tank prior to land irrigation) from stormwater flows, which will be directed to the existing farm dam.

The updated Waste Management Plan JT Environmental (Rev G dated 2 August 2023) indicates that faeces will be collected up to 5 times per day and stored within dedicated bins located between Block A and Block B. Conditions have been recommended requiring an adequate waste service be provided to ensure waste storage does not result in nuisance odour or harbour or encourage pest/vermin.

The proposed waste and stormwater management system does not appear to significantly alter the current hydrological and nutrient regimes affecting areas of TEC.

A stormwater quality management condition has not been recommended. Rather a condition directing that washdown waters must not contaminate land and water, has been recommended.

Noise Management

The Overall and Specific outcomes of the Intensive Animal Husbandry Code require demonstration of how noise associated with the proposed use can be adequately managed to ensure that the noise amenity of nearby residential receivers will not be adversely impacted.

The assessment manager reviewed three (3) revisions of a noise impact assessment submitted in support of the proposed use and, owing to numerous uncertainties, ambiguities, inconsistencies, and concerns regarding the quality of technical reporting within all reports submitted, a third-party peer review was sought. The third-party peer review comments reiterated Council’s concerns and a third further advice letter was issued on 2 April 2024 incorporating these concerns.

In response, a fourth Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), dated 2 May 2024, was submitted to the assessment manager for review. Despite the extensive information request and response review process, several concerns remain with the fourth NIA (dated 2 May 2024), including how the proposed use could reasonably, feasibly, and practically operate in accordance with the operational management measures recommended within the NIA. Of note, the NIA recommends that when wind speeds exceed 5m/s in any direction, use of the training track should be prohibited and a maximum of 40 dogs should be permitted outside.

As part of Council’s assessment, a review of Amberley’s meteorological conditions (closest weather station receiver) between 9:00am and 3:00pm daily weather observations were undertaken. The Noise Impact Assessment recommendation would preclude use of the training track during an unknown number of hours on approximately 46% of days throughout the year (that are shown to have 3:00pm wind speeds exceeding 5m/s); interrogating this as a seasonal breakdown, represents 53% summer days and 64% of spring days. Further, the noise impact assessment recommendation would require the applicant to establish an automatic weather station on-site, complete with alarm notifications for rising wind speeds and on-site management actions when speeds exceeded 5 m/s. This level of operational management control is not considered reasonable for the nature and scale of the proposed use.

It is unclear from the report why the recommendation to prohibit use of the training track when winds >5m/s was made. However, due to the similar distance of the training track and pens from nearby receivers, it would appear unnecessary to preclude this specific activity when an overall limit has been placed on the total number of dogs utilising outdoor areas.

In response to the omissions and lack of transparency in the fourth NIA (dated 2 May 2024), to ascertain whether conditional approval could be considered for part of the proposed use a review of source noise data for similarly sized kennel operations was undertaken. Of note, in support of the fourth NIA report, the applicant compared a previous boarding kennel application at 451 Ipswich Boonah Road, Purga (application 5873/2018/MCU).

Council’s review, in addition to that documented as part of the Assessment Manager Information Request dated 5 April 2023, incorporated:

- review of the relevant 1995 Court Order conditions pertaining to noise management at the Imparra Pet Motel (451 Ipswich Boonah Road);

- detailed interrogation of the noise impact assessment and information submitted in support of the 5873/2018/MCU expansion application (increasing the number of dogs to 128); and

- utilising the source noise data presented in the 5873/2018/MCU noise impact assessment to perform basic noise propagation “sanity check” calculations for the proposed use.

When considering the noise impact assessments, it is important to note the differences in the noise assessment approach utilised. The Imparra Pet Motel noise modelling exercise predicted noise impacts from 128 dogs by “factoring up” source noise level measurements obtained from the facility operating with 50 dogs boarded. The proposed greyhound use at 763 Ipswich Boonah Road is stated to have utilised a number of point sources based on sound levels measured from 10 large dogs.

Although the fourth submitted NIA (dated 2 May 2024) remains unclear as to exactly how the noise prediction model was configured, the comparative review suggests:

- When no adverse meteorological conditions were contributing to the potential enhancement of noise propagation from the site towards the nearest sensitive receivers, operation of the proposed use during daytime hours (7:00am-6:00pm) is likely to be able to comply with the established noise level goals;

- Noise level goals may be exceeded during evening and night-time hours (6pm-7am) if dogs were permitted outside of their kennels; and

- The order of noise levels likely to be experienced at nearby receivers to the proposed use appear to be equivalent with the approved kennels subject to 5873/2018/MCU.

Further to the above, the application material indicates that the proposed buildings are to be insulated internally utilising Poly TMXM bubble insulation. Although no acoustic attenuation detail was provided for review, the use of this material for thermal insulation is likely to have some acoustic attenuation benefits for when the dogs will be housed internally. In addition, the acoustic report recommends that dog cleaning, feeding, grooming, training, and exercise be restricted to the hours of 7am-6pm.

It should be noted that the site plans show 1.8m high colourbond screening fencing to be installed around the kennel runs and bullring. The response to Council’s Further Issues Letter indicates that the intent of this fencing is to limit the view of animals housed within the kennels and buildings to their surrounds thereby minimising distraction and excitation which may result in nuisance barking noise. The fencing is referenced in the acoustic report and stated to have no acoustic benefit.

Conditions have been recommended which incorporate operational restrictions requiring all dogs to be housed indoors during night-time hours, along with a restriction on the maximum number of dogs within outdoor areas at any time.

Property Values

Council’s assessment has ensured the proposed use achieves the Overall Outcomes of the Ipswich Planning Scheme which (at minimum), ensures the use is designed and managed to protect the character of the nearby area and maintain the rural amenity.

Nonetheless, as per s45(5)(b) of the Planning Act 2016, Council cannot have regard to a person’s personal circumstances, financial or otherwise.

Risk-Management

Several submissions raised concerns if a dog was to escape and/or become diseased. These are an operational matter; however, the dogs are kept within fenced areas and whilst being moved around the grounds, are on leash. Disease concerns are regulated by the Greyhound Australasia Rules and administered by the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission as per the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission advice.

Dust and Odour Impacts

Conditions have been prepared requiring all parking, access, and manoeuvring areas to be constructed of concrete or bitumen.

The waste management plan proposes methods for storage of solid waste and treatment of washdown waters in areas which contain significant offset distances to nearest sensitive uses. Odours associated with the proposed use are therefore not expected to be significant.

Gambling

Ipswich City Council’s assessment and comment on gambling is limited as these matters, while important, are not assessable under the Queensland planning framework. Accordingly, reliance on such matters is regulated by the Wagering Act 1998, which is administrated by the Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation.

Visual Impacts

The prominent structures of the proposed use are kennel block A and B which are 932m² and 494m²respectively, totalling a maximum height of 3.66m. As previously discussed, these blocks are setback (at minimum) 129m from Ipswich Boonah Road to the east, 150m from the northern boundary, and 242m to any other boundary. Structures of this scale are generally anticipated in Rural Areas. It is not uncommon for structures of this scale to be associated with an ‘Agricultural’ use, which are generally exempt from planning assessment. In addition to the above comments, the entire use area is generally screened as detailed below:

Updated Site Plans show ‘areas of existing trees to be intensified with similar native species to achieve visual and acoustic screening’ between use areas and areas visible to the public. These areas coincide with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment, to mitigate potential impacts to koala populations within a Koala Priority Area. As such, conditions have been recommended requiring these areas to be landscaped, consistent with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment.

The acoustic report does not contemplate any acoustic screening benefits from “vegetation”. The benefits of “intensification” to existing trees are therefore considered to be limited to visual screening and koala habitat enhancement outcomes (as discussed under the “Natural Environment” heading, above).

It is noted that the submitted Landscape Concept Plan includes a proposed densely planted landscaped buffer to Ipswich Boonah Road, part of which coincides with the proposed landscaped areas recommended for koala habitat enhancement (refer to the image of Figure 12 in the Natural Environment discussion, above).

Precedent for Future Applications

Any future application will be assessed under the relevant planning framework.

Additional key points

· The proposal is anticipated to utilise approximately 11,348m² of area which accounts for 5% of the site area.

· Council’s Environment Health Officers will be required to assess the design of the kennels and exercise yards as part of the relevant future commercial kennel and breeding licences. Conditions associated with the licence would address matters such as food storage, waste management, public health and health and welfare of the animals.

· To ensure compliance with the relevant benchmarks, it has been conditioned that the dwelling be demolished, or an application for a ‘Caretaker Residence’ be applied for as required under section 12.8.5 of the Ipswich Planning Scheme.

ASSESSMENT BENCHMARKS:

The application is Impact Assessable and has been assessed against the assessment benchmarks set out by the categorising instruments in accordance with section 45(5)(a)(i) of the Planning Act 2016.

The relevant assessment benchmarks which have been applied for the purposes of this assessment are as follows:

Categorising Instrument	Assessment Benchmarks
Planning Regulation 2017, Schedule 10	Part 9, division 1 – Infrastructure Related Referrals
State Planning Policy July 2017, Part E	Planning for liveable communities and housing Planning for economic growth Planning for environment and heritage Planning for safety and resilience to hazards Planning for infrastructure
Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006	Desired Environmental Outcomes and Performance Indicators (Part 3) Rural Areas Code (Part 10, division 3 and division 5 – Rural B (Pastoral) Zone) Character Places Overlays Code (Part 11, division 3) Development Constraints Overlays Code (Part 11, division 4) Intensive Animal Husbandry Code (Part 12, division 8) Parking Code (Part 12, division 9) Local Government Infrastructure Plan (Part 13)

The application was found to comply with the assessment benchmarks applying to the development or can be conditioned to comply.

OTHER MATTERS GIVEN REGARD:

The assessment must give regard to the relevant matters identified in section 31 of the Planning Regulation 2017 and in accordance with section 45(5)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act 2016.

The application was given regard to, the following matters:

Relevant matter	Given regard to
Planning Regulation 2017, s31(1)(b)	(i) the strategic outcomes for the local government area stated in the planning scheme; and (ii) the purpose statement stated in the planning scheme for the zone and any overlay applying to the premises under the planning scheme; and (iii) the strategic intent and desired regional outcomes stated in the regional plan for a region; and (iv) the State Planning Policy, parts C and D; and (v) for premises designated by the Minister—the designation for the premises; and
Planning Regulation 2017, s31(1)(f)	any development approval for, and any lawful use of, the premises or adjacent premises; and
Planning Regulation 2017, s31(1)(g)	the common material.

OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS:

In accordance with section 45(5)(b) of the Planning Act 2016, the assessment may be carried out against, or having regard to, any other relevant matter other than a person’s personal circumstances, financial or otherwise. In this instance, the assessment had regard to the following:

· The current relevance of the assessment benchmarks in light of changed circumstances: The Draft Ipswich Plan 2024, that completed formal public consultation in July 2023, has proposed the use to be Code Assessable; and

· Absence or mitigation of negative impacts: Amenity impacts relating to noise, odour and other matters raised in the assessment and submissions are appropriately addressed by the development and conditions of approval.

NOTICE ABOUT THE DECISION (STATEMENT OF REASONS):

In accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016, a ‘notice about the decision’ is required for this application. Accordingly, a Statement of Reasons is included with this decision. This Statement of Reasons provides the justification for Council’s decision.

INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENTS:

In accordance with the Ipswich Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 1) 2024, no infrastructure charges are applicable for ‘Intensive Animal Husbandry’.

SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES:

Not applicable.

Legal IMPLICATIONS

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

Planning Act 2016

Planning Regulation 2017

policy implications

Not applicable.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

A risk to Council exists should the proposal not be determined in accordance with legislative requirements. The assessment and subsequent recommendations have been prepared to minimise the risk.

PURSUANT TO THE DA RULES THE DUE DATE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION IS 29 AUGUST 2024 (WHICH INCLUDES AN EXTENDED DECISION PERIOD WITH AGREEMENT BY THE APPLICANT). THE APPLICANT COULD LODGE A DEEMED REFUSAL APPEAL IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT IF THE DECISION NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY 29 AUGUST 2024. UPON ISSUING THE DECISION NOTICE THE APPLICANT AND/OR SUBMITTERS MAY CHOOSE TO APPEAL THE COUNCIL’S DECISION IN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial or resource implications associated with this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

REFERRAL AGENCIES

State Assessment Referral Agency

The application was referred to the State Assessment Referral Agency (SARA) as Ipswich Boonah Road is a State-controlled road. On 10 August 2023, the SARA provided a response to Council with conditions relating to the driveway crossover and stormwater management.

Powerlink

The application was referred to Powerlink as part of the premises (southern portion) is subject to a transmission entity easement which is part of the transmission supply network. On 2 May 2023, Powerlink provided a response as an advice agency which did not raise any concerns for the proposal.

Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission

The application was referred to the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission (QIRC) for third-party advice owing to submissions primarily relating to animal welfare concerns. On 13 October 2023, the QIRC provided a third-party comment as discussed throughout this report.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Public notification of this application was undertaken pursuant to the Planning Act 2016. The applicant undertook public notification from 24 August 2023 to 14 September 2023 for a period of 15 business days. Council received 5,023 properly made submissions (after removing duplicates); noting 57 properly made submissions were received from residents of Ipswich and 17 non-pro-forma, properly made submissions were received from Ipswich residents. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions include:

Matter raised

How matters were dealt with in reaching a decision

Animal Industry/Welfare

· The Greyhounds will be subject to abuse.

· Overbreeding concerns.

· Poor living conditions.

· Greyhound racing funding concerns.

Animal welfare was the most consistent concern throughout the submissions. Due to the matters raised throughout the submissions, Council requested the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission to review the submissions summary letter and provide third-party advice/comment on relevant matters.

Ipswich City Council’s assessment and comment on animal welfare is limited as these matters, while important, are not assessable under the Queensland planning framework. Accordingly, reliance on such matters is regulated by the Greyhound Australasia Rules and administered by the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission.

Ecological Impacts

· Proximity to Koala habitat

· Proximity to significant flora

During the assessment of the application, the applicant was requested to ensure that all facilities associated with the proposed use are located a minimum of 50m setback from Core Koala Habitat and Threatened Ecological Communities in accordance with the assessment benchmarks contained in Schedule 11, Part 2, Section 4(1)b)(i) of the Planning Regulation 2017 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Ecological response to Council’s information request generally demonstrated the possibility for safe koala movement through the site by way of Koala exclusion fencing installed around all areas where greyhounds are proposed to be housed, exercised and trained; however, ‘Exercise Yard 1’ still remained within the 50m exclusion zone. Accordingly, the plans have been marked-up to reduce the size of ‘Exercise Yard 1’ to ensure compliance with this requirement.

In relation to wastewater impacts, the overall outcomes of the Rural B Zone Code and the Overall and Specific outcomes of the Intensive Animal Husbandry Code requires detail of how waste generated by the proposed use can be adequately managed to avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including contamination risks to waterways and land. Potential impacts to areas of Core Koala Habitat and the critically Endangered Threatened Ecological Communities, from increased nutrient load or change in hydraulic regime, also required consideration.

The proposed waste and stormwater management system does not appear to significantly alter the current hydrological and nutrient regimes affecting areas of TEC.

A stormwater quality management condition has not been recommended. Rather a condition directing that washdown waters must not contaminate land and water, has been recommended.

Noise Management

· Proximity to existing residents will impact on amenity.

Whilst undertaking an assessment of the application, the assessment manager reviewed three (3) revisions of a noise impact assessment submitted in support of the proposed use and, owing to numerous uncertainties, ambiguities, inconsistencies and the poor quality of technical reporting within all reports submitted, a third-party peer review was sought. The third-party peer review comments reiterated Council’s concerns and a third further advice letter was issued on 2 April 2024 incorporating these concerns.

In response, a fourth Noise Impact Assessment (NIA), dated 2 May 2024, was submitted to the assessment manager for review. Despite the extensive information request and response review process, several concerns remain with the fourth NIA (dated 2 May 2024) including how the proposed use could reasonably, feasibly and practically operate in accordance with the operational management measures recommended within the NIA. Of note, the NIA recommends that when wind speeds exceed 5m/s in any direction, use of the training track should be prohibited and a maximum of 40 dogs should be permitted outside.

As part of Council’s assessment, a review of Amberley’s meteorological conditions (closest weather station receiver) between 9:00am and 3:00pm daily weather observations were undertaken. The Noise Impact Assessment recommendation would preclude use of the training track during an unknown number of hours on approximately 46% of days throughout the year (that are shown to have 3:00pm wind speeds exceeding 5m/s); interrogating this as a seasonal breakdown, represents 53% summer days and 64% of spring days. Further, the noise impact assessment recommendation would require the applicant to establish an automatic weather station on-site, complete with alarm notifications for rising wind speeds and on-site management actions when speeds exceeded 5 m/s. This level of operational management controls is not considered reasonable for the nature and scale of the proposed use.

It is unclear from the report why the recommendation to prohibit use of the training track when winds >5m/s was made. However, due to the similar distance of the training track and pens from nearby receivers it would appear unnecessary to preclude this specific activity when an overall limit has been placed on the total number of dogs utilising outdoor areas.

In response to the omissions and lack of transparency in the fourth NIA (dated 2 May 2024), to ascertain whether conditional approval could be considered for part of the proposed use, a review of source noise data for similarly sized kennel operations was undertaken. Of note, in support of the fourth NIA report, the applicant compared a previous boarding kennel application at 451 Ipswich Boonah Road, Purga (application 5873/2018/MCU).

Council’s review, in addition to that documented as part of the Assessment Manager Information Request dated 5 April 2023, incorporated:

- review of the relevant 1995 Court Order conditions pertaining to noise management at the Imparra Pet Motel (451 Ipswich Boonah Road);

- detailed interrogation of the noise impact assessment and information submitted in support of the 5873/2018/MCU expansion application (increasing the number of dogs to 128); and

- utilising the source noise data presented in the 5873/2018/MCU noise impact assessment to perform basic noise propagation “sanity check” calculations for the proposed use.

Although the fourth submitted NIA (dated 2 May 2024) remains unclear as to exactly how the noise prediction model was configured, the comparative review suggests:

- Noise level goals may be exceeded during evening and night-time hours (6pm-7am) if dogs were permitted outside of their kennels; and

- The order of noise levels likely to be experienced at nearby receivers to the proposed use appear to be equivalent to the approved kennels subject to 5873/2018/MCU.

It should be noted that the site plans show a 1.8m high colourbond screening fencing to be installed around the kennel runs and bullring. The response to Council’s Further Issues Letter indicates that the intent of this fencing is to limit the view of animals housed within the kennels and buildings to their surrounds thereby minimising distraction and excitation which may result in nuisance barking noise. The fencing is referenced in the acoustic report and stated to have no acoustic benefit.

Conditions have been recommended which incorporate operational restrictions requiring all dogs to be housed indoors during night-time hours, along with a restriction to the maximum number of dogs within outdoor areas at any time.

Risk-Management

· Dogs may escape and cause harm to adjoining residents and/or animals.

· Disease may spread to adjoining residents and/or animals.

Several submissions raised concerns if a dog was to escape and/or become diseased. These are an operational matter; however, the dogs are kept within fenced areas and whilst being moved from around the grounds, are on leash. Further, disease concerns are regulated by the Greyhound Australasia Rules and administered by the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission as per the Queensland Racing and Integrity Commission advice.

Dust and Odour Impacts

· The use will generate dust and odour which will impact on nearby residents.

Engineering conditions have been prepared requiring that all parking, access, and manoeuvring areas are constructed of concrete or bitumen.

Visual Impacts

· The use will impact on the visual amenity of the area.

The prominent structures of the proposed use are kennel block A and B which are 932m² and 494m² respectively, totalling a maximum height of 3.66m. As previously discussed, these blocks are setback (at minimum) 129m from Ipswich Boonah Road to the east, 150m from the northern boundary, and 242m to any other boundary. These structures are generally anticipated in Rural Areas. Specifically, if the proposed use were to be defined as an ‘Agricultural’ use under the Ipswich Planning Scheme, these structures may be exempt from planning assessment. In addition to the above comments, the entire use area is generally screened as detailed below:

Updated Site Plans show ‘areas of existing trees to be intensified with similar native species to achieve visual and acoustic screening’ between use areas and areas visible by the public. These areas coincide with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment, to mitigate potential impacts to koala populations within a Koala Priority Area. As such, conditions have been recommended requiring these areas be landscaped, consistent with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment.

Property Values

· Surrounding property values will diminish if the application is approved.

Nonetheless, as per s45(5)(b) of the Planning Act 2016, Council cannot have regard to a person’s personal circumstances, financial or otherwise.

Gambling

· The use will encourage gambling which impact on Ipswich’s society.

Precedent for Future Applications

· Approving the application will set a precedence of approvals for future likewise applications.

Any future application will be assessed under the relevant planning framework.

Conclusion

An assessment of the proposal as described above has been undertaken and it has been determined that the Material Change of Use – Intensive Animal Husbandry (Greyhound Dog Breeding and Training Facility) at 763 Ipswich Boonah Road, Purga, generally complies with the assessment benchmarks or can be conditioned to comply. It is therefore recommended that the development application be decided in accordance with the recommendation and attachments of this report.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION

(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?	Decision to approve development application number 2129/2023/MCU.
(b) What human rights are affected?	The applicant is a company and therefore does not have human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019. Privacy and reputation (s25 of the Human Rights Act 2019): 4,688 properly made submissions was received during the public notification period for the application and therefore Council has an obligation to consider human rights in relation to the submitters. The submitters do have appeal rights pursuant to the Planning Act 2016. The proposed decision does not have the potential to restrict or interfere with the right to privacy because before a person makes a submission regarding a development application they are provided advance notice (via Council’s website) that it is a requirement under the Planning Act 2016 that contact details of all properly made submitters be included on any decision notice and therefore they have the ability to consider whether to proceed with making a submission in spite of the legislatively required disclosure of their personal information. In acknowledging a properly made submission, Council provides a letter to submitters advising them of this statutory requirement. In the instance, the submitter’s personal information is already published on Development.i as the submitter did not advise Council that they did not want their personal information to be published (this opportunity is provided upon lodgement of submission). The submitter may request that the information be removed from Development.i and may also choose to withdraw their properly made submission should they not want their details to be included on the decision notice in accordance with statutory requirements.
(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.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	2129/2023/MCU Decision Notice (DRAFT) ⇩
2.	2129/2023/MCU Approval Plans (DRAFT) ⇩
3.	2129/2023/MCU Properly Made Submitters List ⇩
4.	2129/2023/MCU Statement of Reasons (DRAFT) ⇩

Blake O'Neill

Senior Planner (Development)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Nikki Morrison

Development Assessment West Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Greg Potter

Manager, Development Planning

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

General Manager (Planning and Regulatory Services)

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

Division	Project	Order of Cost
2	Installation of an electronic solar powered Speed Awareness Sign in Summit Drive – Springfield Lakes	$20,000