minutes ordinary meeting - gympie council · 6/24/2015 · minutes. of the . ordinary meeting....

MINUTES

of the

ORDINARY MEETING

CHAIRMAN: Cr MW Curran (Mayor)

Held in the Boardroom

Town Hall

2 Caledonian Hill

Gympie Qld 4570

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 At 9am

Ordinary Meeting Minutes 24 June 2015 1

Gympie Regional Council

Gympie Regional Council ORDINARY

Mayor MW Curran (Chairman), Crs RA Gâté, LJ Friske, IT Petersen, MA McDonald, WW Sachs, RC Currie, WR Leitch and JA Walker

CONTENTS:

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS ..................................................................... 3

SECTION 1: OPEN WITH PRAYER ............................................................................................. 3

SECTION 2: APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE..................................................................... 3

SECTION 3: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES .............................................................................. 3

SECTION 4: PETITIONS .............................................................................................................. 4

4.1 PETITION - VALLEY RATTLER VOLUNTEER ASSOCIATION ......................................................................... 4

SECTION 5: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 5

5.1 REPRESENTATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH AN INDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY AND FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT 41 BROWNS ROAD, VICTORY HEIGHTS ....................................................................................................... 5

5.2 ADOPTION OF REVISED INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION FOR THE 2015-2016 FINANCIAL YEAR ................................................................................................................................................. 29

5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 92 CAVANAGH ROAD, GREENS CREEK ............................................................................................ 32

5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - 48 DWELLING HOUSES FOR APPROVED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 13 SORENSEN ROAD, SOUTHSIDE ......................................... 48

5.5 REPRESENTATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A TRANSPORT DEPOT, HIGH IMPACT INDUSTRY (COMPOST MANUFACTURING AND ORGANIC WASTE PROCESSING), BULK LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES AND CARETAKERS ACCOMMODATION AND ERA 33 – CRUSHING, MILLING, GRINDING OR SCREENING (MORE THAN 5000T PER YEAR), ERA 47 – TIMBER MILLING AND WOODCHIPPING (MORE THAN 100,000T PER YEAR), ERA 53 – COMPOSTING AND SOIL CONDITIONER MANUFACTURING (MORE THAN 100,000T PER YEAR) AT 1944 BRUCE HIGHWAY, GYMPIE .............................................................................................................................................. 58

5.6 ADOPTION OF MINOR AMENDMENTS FOR 2015/2016 FEES AND CHARGES ............................................ 75

SECTION 6: SOCIAL WELLBEING ........................................................................................... 78

SECTION 7: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 78

SECTION 8: GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 79

8.1 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2015-2016 ......................................................................................................... 79

8.2 COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT ........................................................................................................ 81

8.3 JUNE REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING ........................................ 83

8.4 MAY 2015 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT ............................................................................................ 85

SECTION 9: INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 87

9.1 RFT 2014-2015 T025 COONOONGIBBER CREEK ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ................................... 87

9.2 SEWERING SOUTHSIDE ....................................................................................................................... 90



SECTION 10: MAJOR PROJECTS AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES .............................................. 93

SECTION 11: WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 93

SECTION 12: TOURISM AND MARY VALLEY ........................................................................... 93

SECTION 13: GENERAL BUSINESS .......................................................................................... 93

SECTION 14: ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................... 94

5.2 ADOPTION OF REVISED INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION FOR THE 2015-2016 FINANCIAL YEAR ................................................................................................................................................. 94

ATTACHMENT 1 REVISED ADOPTED CHARGES RESOLUTION JUNE 2015 96 .................................... 94

8.1 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2015-2016 ......................................................................................................... 94

ATTACHMENT 1 GYMPIE REGIONAL COUNCIL OPERATIONAL PLAN 2015-2016 112 ........................ 94

8.4 MAY 2015 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT ............................................................................................ 94

ATTACHMENT 1 MAY 2015 - MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS 143 ................................................... 94

9.2 SEWERING SOUTHSIDE ....................................................................................................................... 94

ATTACHMENT 1 SOUTHSIDE SEWERAGE 156 ................................................................................ 94



The meeting commenced at 9.01am. PRESENT: Mayor Cr MW Curran (Chairman), Cr LJ Friske, Cr IT Petersen,

Cr RA Gâté, Cr MA McDonald, Cr WW Sachs, Cr WR Leitch, Cr RC Currie and Cr JA Walker. Also in attendance were Chief Executive Officer (Mr BJ Smith), Acting Director Corporate and Community Services (Ms C Swift), Acting Director Planning & Development (Mr M Stanton), Director Engineering Services (Mr B Fredman), Director Infrastructure Services (Mr D Scordalides), Manager Planning Strategy and Major Projects (Mr C Engle), Manager Development and Compliance (Mrs T Stenholm), Manager Building and Plumbing Services (Mr R Prout), Manager Corporate Governance (Mr B Hayes), and Minutes Clerk (Ms T Condon).

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS M18/06/15 – Cr WR Leitch – Conflict of Interest

SECTION 1: OPEN WITH PRAYER Pastor Peter Clegg from Gympie Church of Christ offered a Prayer for the advancement of the Region and the true welfare of its people.

One Minute’s silence was observed for family and friends of deceased residents of the Region.

SECTION 2: APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE

SECTION 3: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

M16/06/15 Moved Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded Cr J.A. Walker That the Minutes of the Gympie Regional Council Ordinary Meeting held on 03 June 2015 be taken as read and confirmed.

Carried



SECTION 4: PETITIONS 4.1 Petition - Valley Rattler Volunteer Association

PORTFOLIO: Tourism and Mary Valley

DIRECTORATE: Office of the CEO

DOC ID: 1776731 1. REPORT The petition of Members of the Valley Rattler Volunteer Association and members of the Public draws the attention of the Gympie Regional Council, Mary Valley Rattler Community Holdings Ltd and Rattler Railway Company Ltd …...to the unexplained closure of the Valley Rattler workshops in Gympie on 31 March 2015. The petitioners therefore request the immediate re-opening of the said railway workshops of the Valley Rattler in Gympie.

M17/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr W.W. Sachs That the Petition be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer for consideration.

Carried



SECTION 5: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Representations for Development Application for Material Change

of Use to Establish an Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility and Food and Drink Outlet at 41 Browns Road, Victory Heights

CONFLICT OF INTEREST In accordance with Section 173 of the Local Government Act 2009; Cr Leitch declared a perceived Conflict of Interest in Minute M18/06/15 due to a shared work role with the applicant. Cr Leitch left the meeting at 9.08am while the matter was discussed and voted on. Cr McDonald entered the meeting at 9.17am

PORTFOLIO: Planning and Development

DIRECTORATE: Planning and Development

AUTHOR: Planning Officer - J Engle Contract Planning Officer - S Adamson

DOC ID: 2014-1458 LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 3. Governance - cohesive, responsible and transparent

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION On 1 April 2015, Council determined application 2014-1458 for a Material Change of Use for an Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility. The application was approved subject to a number of standard conditions, as well as additional conditions relating to:

Off-street car parking;

Upgrading of the intersection of Gympie Connection Road and Browns Road;

Connection to water supply;

Payment of infrastructure charges; and

Hours of operation.



2. REPORT FILE NO: 2014-1458 APPLICANT: M & R Robinson RPD: Lot 2 on SP235882 SITE ADDRESS: 41 Browns Road, Victory Heights CURRENT USE: Vacant PROPOSAL: Indoor Sport and Recreation Food and Drink Outlet EXISTING ZONE: Residential Living Zone

Image: Map of subject site

Image: Aerial Photo

2.1 INTRODUCTION

On 17 April 2015, the applicant lodged a notice to Council suspending the appeal period.

On 12 May 2015, the applicant lodged representations to Council disputing several conditions of approval.

The applicant’s representations and officer comments are outlined below.



2.1.2 Approved Plans



2.2 Representations to Conditions 2.2.1 Condition 6

(a) Condition 6 of Council’s approval is as follows:

Provide at least 25 off-street car parking spaces (including access and manoeuvring areas).

(b) Applicant’s representations ‘The condition requires at least 25 off street car parking spaces to be provided. The proposal plans lodged with the application and considered by Council illustrate the applicant’s intent to provide 14 car parking spaces, based on the likely demand for parking generated by the proposed squash centre. The proposal plan also made provision for informal overspill car parking at peak demand times. There is no specific rate of car parking provision in the planning scheme for indoor sport and recreation, largely because of the broad range of activities this definition covers (including 10 pin bowling alleys, indoor cricket, amusement parlours, gymnasiums etc). Rather, the planning scheme requires “sufficient vehicle and bus parking having regard to the nature, scale and intensity of the use”. In other words, the car parking requirement for each proposal for indoor sport and recreation needs to be considered on the individual circumstances, having regard to the nature, scale and intensity of the use. The canteen/café component of the proposal attracts a car parking rate of 1 space per 30m2 of gross floor area. With a gross floor area of some 20m2, this aspect of the overall development attracts a requirement for 1 car parking space. The proposal to provide 14 car parking spaces is based on 2 spaces per squash court, 1 space for the operator and one space for the canteen/café. In all but peak demand times, where the informal parking arrangements will apply, this amount of formalised off street car parking would more than satisfy demand. It is unclear how Council arrived at a requirement of 25 car parking spaces to be provided, however it would appear to be based on 4 spaces per squash court plus 1 space for the canteen/café. It is considered that Council officers have significantly overestimated the likely car parking demand for a new facility consisting solely of squash courts. It is not a mixed activity centre with multiple sport and recreational uses occurring simultaneously, so the demand for car parking is limited to squash players, spectators and patrons of the canteen/café, most of whom are likely to be the players themselves.



A car parking rate of 4 spaces per squash court is extraordinarily high for a stand-alone single use complex. Each court will accommodate a maximum of 2 players at any one time, and spectator numbers will be minimal. As advised in the original proposal report, it is intended to make provision for a overflow parking on this large site for peak demand times (eg. formal competitions). To put the car parking requirement imposed by Council in context, the proposed building features a gross floor area (GFA) of 621.72m2. At 25 spaces, the car parking rate equates to 1 space per 24.8m2. For comparison, the planning scheme required the following car parking for high demand uses: Shopping centre (up to 2000m2) 1 space per 30m2 of GFA Hardware and trade supplies showroom 1 space per 40m2 of GFA Hotel (other than accommodation) 1 space per 40m2 of GFA Nightclub 1 space per 30m2 of GFA Function Facility 1 space per 25m2 of GFA Theatre 1 space per 10 people able to be seated It is inconceivable that the car parking demand for 6 squash courts would be greater than the demand generated by similar sized shops in the central business district, the Southside Town Centre, Bunnings, a hotel or nightclub. A 250 seat theatre – well in excess of the maximum number of people that will attend the squash centre at any one time – attracts a car parking requirement of only 25 spaces. At 14 spaces as proposed, the car parking rate equates to 1 space per 44m2 of GFA, which is considered to be reasonable having regard to the rates previously outlined. It is therefore requested that Council change condition 6 to require the provision of 14 formalised off street car parking spaces instead of 25.’ (c) Comments The applicant has proposed that the condition be amended to accommodate 14 spaces to allow for 2 spaces per court, 1 for the operator, and 1 for the canteen/café. Further, the applicant proposes that in peak operating times, overflow parking could be accommodated informally on-site. The representations provided by the applicant rely on the calculation of gross floor area (GFA) for calculations of how many spaces per m2 would be required in comparison for other businesses (ie. 1 per 30 sqm etc.) and on this basis, argues that the proposed parking equates to 1 space per 25m2 (approximately), and is sufficient. The planning scheme does not specify a parking rate for the proposed use. However, a review of multiple other Queensland planning schemes (city and regional locations) has indicated that parking required for squash courts is recommended at a rate of around 4-6



spaces per court in order to accommodate the number of players likely to be on-site during peak periods including fixtures or competitions. Review of other council car parking rates has identified car parking rates for similar uses as follows. The number of spaces that would be required by the proposal if these rates were applied are included in parentheses.

Sunshine Coast Council – Sufficient spaces to accommodate the number of vehicles likely to be parked at any one time

Noosa Council – 1 space per 20m2 of use area (ie. 31 spaces)

Brisbane City Council – 6 spaces per court (ie. 36 spaces)

City of Gold Coast – 6 spaces per court (ie. 36 spaces)

Using the rates applied by these other local governments; it is likely that a reasonable expectation for on-site parking would be between 31 and 36 spaces for the indoor recreation use, which is more than the 25 spaces currently required. Consultation undertaken with squash players indicates that operation of the facility during fixtures or a competition would commonly generate 4 players per court (24 spaces). Additionally, during such a period of operation, it is feasible that players would also turn up early for their scheduled time, and potentially stay late to watch other games. The result of this is that there could be a peak parking demand to accommodate up to 8 players per court (or 48 spaces). It is reasonable that the applicant should be providing adequate parking to accommodate general demand for fixtures that would occur during normal peak evening periods. This would equate to a parking rate of 4 spaces per court (24 spaces), plus 1 space for the operator of the canteen (consistent with the planning scheme rate for a food and drink outlet). Condition 6 requiring a total of 25 parking spaces is considered reasonable to support the likely general parking demand to accommodate fixtures. Consequently, this condition is not recommended to be changed. 2.2.2 Condition 8 (a) Condition 8 of Council’s approval states:

Browns Road is to be upgraded. Specifically the following works are to be undertaken in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer: a. bitumen widening of 1.0m with kerb and channel and

associated drainage for the frontage of the development.



b. Kerb and channel to be provided from the tangent point on Gympie Connection Road for the full frontage of Lot 2 SP235882 to Browns Road with the bitumen seal at both ends of the new construction to be tapered at 1 in 10 to join the edge of the existing bitumen seal.

c. upgrade the Gympie Connection Road – Browns Road intersection to an CHR(S) (short protected right turn lane) configuration for traffic turning right from Gympie Connection Road into Browns Road. Design drawings and construction of this work are to be approved by the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

d. street lighting is to be provided for the Gympie Connection Road – Browns Road intersection in accordance with current Australian/New Zealand Standards for Street Lighting and Equipment Design and Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 1 Development Standards. Design and construction of this work are to be approved by the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

e. No Stopping signs with road markings to be installed to the full frontage of the development (Gympie Connection Road and Browns Road) to meet the requirements of the MUTCD.

(b) Applicant’s representations ‘Particular concern is expressed in relation to 8.c., which requires an upgrade of the Gympie Connection Road-Browns Road intersection to an CHR(S) (short protected right turn land) configuring for traffic turning right from Gympie Connection Road into Browns Road. In the report to Council assessing the application, Council officers estimated the cost of the required works to be “well in excess of $200,000”. Not only is this condition an unreasonable imposition on the proposal because of the onerous cost, it offends the integrated assessment and approval process under the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS), established under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. One of the founding principles of the IDAS is that it coordinates state and local government assessment of development applications into a single, consolidated process. The state considers matters of state interest as determined by referral triggers in the Sustainable Planning Regulation, while the local government considers matters of local interest within its jurisdiction. Gympie Connection Road is a State Controlled Road (SCR). Referral of the application to the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) was duly undertaken as part of the application process, with a response provided on the 23 December 2014. Importantly, that response includes 3 conditions, requiring:



1. the development to be carried out in accordance with the proposal report submitted with the application.

2. the development to be carried out in accordance with the proposal plans.

3. no direct access between Gympie Connection Road and the subject site at any location other than between the permitted road access location.

Officers of the state government (DTMR) assessed the application against the “Access to state-controlled roads state code.” The code consists of 6 performance outcomes with associated acceptable outcomes. Of particular relevance to this application is performance outcome PO6, which states:

“Development having road access to a local road within 100 metres of an intersection with a state-controlled road maintains the efficiency of the state-controlled road”.

There are 3 acceptable outcomes associated with this performance outcome, with AO6.1 stating that:

“The road access location to the local road is located as far as possible from where the road intersects with the state-controlled road and accommodates existing operations and planned upgrades to the intersection or state-controlled road”.

The point of including the above discussion is that in assessing the application against the state code, DTMR did not impose any requirements to upgrade Gympie Connection road or the intersection. DTMR officers were plainly satisfied that the proposed squash centre could proceed as proposed without eroding the efficiency of Gympie Connection Road, and without compromising the existing or future operation of the Gympie Connection Road or its intersection with Browns Road. In short, if the proposed squash centre was considered to be significant enough to warrant substantial works to be undertaken to the Browns Road/Gympie Connection Road intersection, it would be for DTMR, through the SARA referral process, to impose such conditions. It is not for Council to assume that DTMR “missed the requirement” and to impose it on DTMR’s behalf. The planning framework, and in particular the IDAS, simply does not work that way. Condition 8. c. is not a reasonable requirement to be imposed on the proposal by Council, and it is requested that this element of the condition be deleted in its entirety. In relation to the balance of the condition, it is accepted that upgrading of Browns Road is triggered by development of this land. It is requested however that the condition be altered to permit these works to be completed within 12 months of commencement of the use, rather than prior to the use commencing. There is no doubt that the use can



operate without kerb and channel and bitumen widening in Browns Road without causing any adverse external impacts. A 12 month period in which to construct the works would permit the use to commence, with proceeds assisting in the funding of these works.’

(c) Comments Works fronting Browns Road - The applicant has accepted the requirement for kerb and channel and road widening works for the part of the site that fronts Browns Road. However, the applicant has requested that this part of the condition be deferred for a 12 month period. The development is not staged, and the effect of the applicant’s request is that full commencement of the use would be permitted without undertaking the necessary works. It is reasonable that Browns Road be upgraded to an urban standard. Engineering advice provided suggests that the development would function poorly without the upgrade. In addition, to accept the applicant’s request to delay construction would set an untenable precedent for all other developments. It is not recommended that this part of the condition be deferred. General Road Upgrades - The applicant raises concerns with the remainder of condition 8 on the basis that the condition is: a) Unreasonable due to costs associated with the conditioned

works, and b) Unlawful because the condition requires works on a road outside

of Council’s jurisdiction, where the application has also been referred to the Department of Transport and Main Roads who did not condition such works on the concurrence agency response.

It is acknowledged that the costs associated with the works required as part of condition 8 are significant, however council officers have concerns regarding safety of the intersection with additional traffic loading caused by the proposed development. The works forming the basis of condition 8 are imperative to facilitate safe access to the approved development, and without them it is considered that the development should not be supported. The applicant has raised issues with respect to Council providing conditions for works on a State Controlled Road. This is because these or similar conditions have not been imposed by DTMR in their concurrence agency response. Despite this, Council is the assessment manager for the application and is ultimately responsible for the assessment. Further, the applicant has not provided any traffic engineering advice with the application material and therefore has not addressed this issue in any way. Council in discussion with representatives of the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning has been advised that the Department of Transport and Main Roads in their assessment of



development applications analyses the function of the state-controlled road. Additional loading of more than a 5% increase and direct access are of key concern. Safety concerns relating to intersections with Council roads are not usually commented on by the state. As such, it is essential that Council review this aspect of the development in their assessment. The same representatives also confirmed that it is not without precedent for a Council to impose works on a state-controlled road and referenced a recent example in a neighbouring Council region. While the road is under the control of the DTMR this does not include the whole of the intersection with Browns Road. Further, the Design Services Section and the traffic consultant engaged by Council have both advised that the current intersection is an inadequate standard to cater for the proposed development in a safe manner. This being the case the development should not proceed unless the works are undertaken. It was previously suggested at Council’s Ordinary Meeting that a no right turn sign may be erected to prevent vehicles from turning right into Browns Road from the Gympie Connection Road. This is not considered an appropriate solution because from a traffic safety perspective, a sign alone is not likely to prevent users turning right into Browns Road and further road works would most likely be required to prevent a right turn. Further, such an outcome is not desirable given that most of the traffic to the site would be forced through a residential area via Barton Road to the south. If this requirement was imposed, it is suggested that additional traffic and adverse amenity impacts might be caused to the residential properties to the south, which could have resulted in additional submissions being received from local residents. These impacts would grow with further development along Browns Road. No material has been provided to confirm that the Barton Road intersection can support additional loading, and further it is also not an outcome proposed by the applicant. In the absence of additional engineering advice being provided by the applicant, it is strongly suggested that the development should not proceed unless the intersection works are undertaken. Alternatively the applicant could undertake a traffic study of the Barton Road intersection to assess whether this intersection could support the additional loading with or without additional upgrade works. For this to occur determination of the Negotiated Decision Notice would need to be deferred. Under section 314 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), Council, as assessment manager must assess the application against the entire planning scheme and all relevant policies, including those relating to infrastructure. The fact that the concurrence agency response provided is silent on road upgrades, does not preclude Council from requiring road upgrades if warranted by the planning scheme, relevant policies and safety concerns.



Gympie Connection Road fronting the northern boundary of the site is identified under Councils Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) as a Major Arterial. Under Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 1: Development Standards, section SC6.1.7 ‘Design Standards’ applies to all roads within the region, including the intersection between Gympie Connection Road and Browns Road. Assessment by a qualified engineer has determined that upgrading of the intersection is required for the road to comply with safety standards. As such, works detailed within condition 8 are necessary in order for the development to achieve compliance with the appropriate safety standard, Planning Scheme Policy 1, and ultimately the planning scheme. Performance outcome 8 of Council’s Infrastructure and Operational Works (excluding Advertising Device) Code references Planning Scheme Policy 1 with respect to requirements for infrastructure design. As the applicant has not provided an alternative outcome for PO8, it is appropriate to condition necessary works that are consistent with Council’s adopted policy. Notwithstanding the significant costs for the works associated with condition 8, the works are:

Conditioned as a result of Council’s legal obligation to assess the application against the relevant matters identified in SPA (including the requirements of the planning scheme),

Relevantly triggered as necessary by a qualified Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ),

Relevant under Planning Scheme Policy 1, and

Reasonably required to ensure safety standards including the Austroads Guide are achieved and to support the considerable additional (local and non-local) traffic loading to be generated by the approved development.

2.2.3 Condition 10 (a) Condition 10 of Council’s approval reads as follows: Connection is to be made to Council’s water supply reticulation system at no cost to Council. (b) Applicant’s representations This condition requires connection to be made to Council’s water supply reticulation system at no cost to Council. It is accepted that reticulated water supply needs to be provided to the development site, however it is understood that in doing so, several properties between the existing water main and the site will benefit from access to the new main. The subject land is within an existing water supply service area, implying that Council intends to provide a reticulated water supply system to the entire area at some stage. On this basis, it is



unreasonable to require the proponent to fund the full cost of providing a reticulated system external to the site. A far fairer approach would be for Council to install the water main required to service the development site, and at the same time require a proportional contribution towards the cost of the water main from the proponent. The balance of the cost of the water main could then be recovered by Council at the time of development of the other benefited lots. It is therefore requested that the condition be replaced with a condition confirming that Council will install the required water main to service the land and that the proponent will be required to pay a proportional contribution (i.e. a “fair share”) towards the cost of providing the service. c) Comments The applicant has made representations against this condition on the basis that it is unreasonable to expect the developer to fund the full costs of connection to the reticulated water supply system. The proposed development is inconsistent with what is anticipated within the Residential Living Zone, and would place additional demand on the network over and above what is planned for within Council’s LGIP. The development site is also located outside of Council’s Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA). Additionally, the site is not included in the old water supply service area or in the priority infrastructure area in the current planning scheme (see below).

Under sections 650 – 651 of the SPA 2009, development of this nature is subject to an additional payment condition. An additional payment condition relates to infrastructure demand of more than that required to service the type and scale of future development that the LGIP assumes, requires earlier connection than what is planned for under the PIA and is located outside of the PIA.



Condition 10 is essentially an additional payment condition for the extension of the trunk water main. However, in this particular case Council has required trunk works instead of payment of additional funds. Both options are acceptable under the SPA 2009. Council’s planning scheme policy requires connection of development on urban sites including those within the Residential Living Zone to be connected to reticulated water services. Council has estimated that the connection costs to the water supply infrastructure are approximately $14,500. Consistent with Council’s approach to other developments located outside of the existing service connection area, it is recommended that the condition be imposed to require connection to the water supply at no cost to Council. 2.2.4 Condition 11 (a) Condition 11 of Council’s approval reads as follows:

Connection is to be made to Council’s sewerage reticulation system at no cost to Council when this network becomes available to this area, including payment of relevant infrastructure charges at the time of connection. Interim on-site treatment is permitted subject to the required approval for plumbing and drainage works.

(b) Applicant’s representations ‘It is requested that the words “including the payment of relevant infrastructure charges at the time of connection” be deleted from the first sentence of this condition. The subject land is outside the Priority Infrastructure Area and not within a sewerage service area. No time frame has been established within which Council intends to provide a reticulated sewerage system in this area. It may well be many years (if not more than a decade) before Council commits the necessary funds to service this area, at which time there may be a different policy framework applying to infrastructure provision and charging. As written, the condition plainly fails the finality test. It is not possible for the proponent to determine when a sewerage reticulation system will become available in this area, nor can any likely infrastructure charge be calculated with any degree of accuracy given the unknown time frames involved. As the condition rightly permits the approved use to operate using a suitable on-site effluent disposal system, any reference to infrastructure charges should be deleted from the condition. (c) Comments The applicant has requested that this condition be removed on the basis that the timing of the condition lacks certainty. It is agreed that



this condition is difficult to impose due to some unknown factors relating to when sewer will be available in the area. Further, Council has already determined that the development is able to be serviced on-site by effluent disposal. As such, it is recommended that condition 11 be removed. 2.2.5 Condition 17 (a) Condition 17 of Council’s approval reads as follows:

Fencing of the development site (along the full length of the southern and eastern boundaries) shall be provided in the form of a 1.8m high timber paling fence. Such fencing may be tapered down to 1.2m high over a maximum distance of 6.0 metres.

(b) Applicant’s representations ‘It is requested that the requirement to provide a 1.8m high timber paling fence along the site’s southern boundary be deleted. The existing vegetation along this boundary provides an effective screen, and correspondence from the owner of the adjoining property to the south will be provided in the coming days confirming they require no screen fencing along this boundary. In relation to the site’s eastern side boundary, which is some 25m from the proposed building, the proponent would prefer to provide pool fencing or similar combined with attractive landscaping along this boundary, and it is requested that the condition be amended to reflect this outcome. (c) Comments The applicant has requested that this condition be amended to:

Delete the requirement for additional fencing along the southern boundary, and

Provide pool style fencing with landscaping along the eastern boundary.

The applicant has provided comments to Council that the existing vegetation strip along the southern boundary (approximately 15 metres wide) is sufficient to screen the development. The condition was considered reasonable to preserve the amenity of future residential properties along the southern boundary, given the absence of any noise assessment submitted with the application and with the development being proposed on land zoned for residential purposes. This fencing could be delayed and instead imposed on any future approval for residential subdivision of this site. Pool fencing and landscaping along the eastern boundary is considered satisfactory.



2.2.6 Condition 22 (a) Condition 22 of Council’s approval reads as follows:

Hours of operation shall be from 7am to 10pm 7 days a week unless otherwise approved by Council.

(b) Applicant’s representations ‘It is requested that the condition be amended to read “Hours of operation for fixtures shall be from 7am to 10pm a week unless otherwise approved by Council. As currently worded, the condition infers that the facility must be closed and unoccupied by 10pm. Fixtures can often run to 10pm, and the reworded condition would permit the facility to operate in the same manner as other squash courts.’ (c) Comments The applicant requests that this condition be amended to require fixtures to be finalised by 10pm, but allow the facility to finish closing etc. after this time. As part of the assessment of the development application, the applicant was requested to provide an acoustic report to confirm the likely noise levels for the operation, and to assist with determination of appropriate hours of operation for amenity protection. The applicant opted to not provide the requested acoustic report. There are concerns that patrons leaving the grounds after 10pm will cause an amenity impact on the surrounding properties. It is anticipated that noise of talking, car doors and cars leaving the premises will carry throughout the area and be an issue for existing and future residents, particularly given the State accepted noise limits are reduced from 10:00pm. In the absence of any professional noise assessment it is not recommended that the condition be amended. 2.2.7 Conditions 28 and 29 (a) Conditions 28 and 29 currently read: 28. Infrastructure charges for the Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility

are payable as follows:

Adopted Infrastructure Charge Category

Network Current Amount

Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility Water Supply $18,570.90 Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility Sewerage

System $18,570.90

Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility Roads $24,761.20 TOTAL $61,903.00



but will be subject to indexation annually on 1 July. Note: Water supply and roads network charges are payable prior to the commencement of the use, and sewerage system charges will be payable immediately following commencement of the development to sewerage.

29. Infrastructure charges for the Food and Drink Outlet are payable as follows:



Commercial (Retail) Water Supply $557.40 Commercial (Retail) Sewerage System $557.40 Commercial (Retail) Roads $743.20 TOTAL $1,858.00

but will be subject to indexation annually on 1 July. Note: Water supply and roads network charges are payable prior to the commencement of the use, and sewerage system charges will be payable immediately following connection of the development to sewerage. (b) Applicant’s representations ‘Condition 28: For the reasons outlined in relation to condition 11, it is requested that all reference to the requirement to pay an infrastructure charge for the sewerage network be deleted from this condition. In accordance with Council’s approval and in particular conditions 11 and 12, the squash centre will be provided with its own, stand-alone on-site effluent disposal system. The facility is not reliant on the availability of a reticulated sewerage system to operate. The site is outside an identified sewerage service area, and the time-frame for Council to provide a reticulated sewerage system in this area is unknown. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for Council to levy an infrastructure charge for the perceived additional loading that the approved development may have on a non-existent sewerage system which may be provided at some stage in the distant future. If and when reticulated sewerage becomes available to the development site in the future, it would be for Council and the property owner to negotiate appropriate connection charges at that time. To quote Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution:



“Where the water network or sewerage network is not available in the area of the proposed development, the adopted charge for the development is to be reduced by the relevant proportion of the adopted charge allocated to the water network or sewerage network . . . “

Accordingly, it is requested that the sewerage infrastructure charge and the note at the end of the condition be deleted. In relation to the infrastructure charges for roads and water supply, it is unclear how these amounts have been calculated. In accordance with Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution, the squash courts fall within the indoor sport and recreation charge category. The adopted charge within this category is $103.30 per m2 of GFA, with Court areas at $10.30 per m2 of GFA. Each squash court features GFA of 64.84m2, creating a total court area GFA of 389.04m2. At $10.30 per m2 of GFA the infrastructure charge would be $4007.11. The remaining GFA of the building (excluding the canteen/café) consists of a central gallery (158.4m2), an office/store (20.4m2) and toilets/showers (29.25m2). The combined GFA for the balance of the indoor sport and recreation use is therefore 208.05m2. At $103.30 per m2 of GFA for this component of the use the infrastructure charge calculates at $21,491.56. Based on Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution, the combined infrastructure charge for the indoor sport and recreation component of the approved use is $25,496.67 – a figure well short of the $61,903 purported to be required by condition 28. Furthermore, Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution requires any infrastructure charges levied to be proportionally distributed across the various networks – Roads 40%, water supply 30% and sewerage 30%. Given that it has been demonstrated that no infrastructure charge should be levied for the sewerage network, the amount quoted above should be further discounted by 30%, creating an actual charge of $17,849.06. Finally, it is known that infrastructure charges have previously been paid in respect of this land when it was previously subdivided. Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution recognises previous infrastructure charges paid against land to constitute a credit, and requires such credit to be discounted from the calculation of any fresh charges. The infrastructure charge amounts contained in condition 28 are erroneously and substantially inflated, and in no way reflect Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution. It is requested that infrastructure charges for this approval be carefully recalculated, having regard to the information in these representations and any previous



infrastructure charges paid in respect of the land. It may well be that previously paid infrastructure charges exceed $17,849.06, in which case the condition should be deleted in its entirety. Condition 29: This condition relates to infrastructure charges required to be paid for the canteen/café component of the approved use. Whilst the charge itself at $1,858 is not unreasonable, it is requested that this charge also be reviewed in light of the representations in relation to condition 28. It is requested that the condition be deleted if previous infrastructure charges paid for this land exceed the total amount of infrastructure charges required for the approved use.’ (c) Comments The applicant has requested recalculation of the adopted charges to acknowledge a rate incorporated for ‘court areas’ of indoor sport and recreation facilities, to reduce the sewer component of the charge and to provide a credit for the existing lot. Original charges were imposed based on 599m2 of GFA for the squash centre and 20m2 GFA for the canteen/café. The GFA suggested for each court area is agreed with (ie 64.84m2), equating to a total court area GFA of 389.04. The GFA calculation suggested for the remainder of the building is not entirely agreed with. Gross floor area, for the purposes of the Infrastructure Charges Resolution, has the same definition as in the Queensland Planning Provisions which states: The total floor area of all storeys of the building, including any mezzanines, (measured from the outside of the external walls and the centre of any common walls of the building), other than areas used for:

building services; or

a ground floor public lobby; or

a public mall in a shopping complex; or

parking, loading or manoeuvring of vehicles; or

balconies, whether roofed or not. Note-definition from the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009.

Under the definition, the only area potentially not considered GFA would be the area marked on the plans as ‘deck’, given it serves a similar purpose to that of a ground floor public lobby as identified in the definition. The applicant’s GFA calculations appear to also omit the walkway in front of the toilets/showers.



Staff’s GFA calculation for the remainder of the building is therefore 224.56m2, as opposed to 208.05m2. A recalculation of the infrastructure charges for the indoor sport and recreation facility component therefore is as follows: Courts 389.04m2 x $10.30/m2 = $4,007.11 Remaining Building 224.56m2 x $103.30/m2 = $23,197.04 (Excluding canteen/café) TOTAL $27,204.15 Subtracting the sewerage component (ie 30%) from the total results in a total of $19,042. Re-apportioning this charge to roads, water and sewerage results as follows: Roads $10,881.14 Water $8,160.85 TOTAL $19,042 Similarly, deleting the sewerage component from the canteen/café charges, results in a new total of $1,300.60. A credit for the existing lot can be applied based on the amount of a financial contribution being paid for trunk infrastructure for the premises. When the lot was subdivided, an amount of $12,996 was paid towards roads and parks, with the roads component equating to $11,159. It is not considered appropriate to apply the parks component of $1,837 to this development given the current infrastructure charge for indoor sport and recreation has no parks component. Applying this credit to the roads component of the indoor sport and recreation facility charges would bring the total infrastructure charges due down to: Roads Nil Water $8,160.85 TOTAL $8,160.85 A remaining credit of $277.86 ($11,159 - $10,881.14) should also then ben applied to the roads component of the café charges as follows: Roads $465.34 Water $557.40 TOTAL $1,022.74 This credit would be applied on the basis that once the squash centre is under construction, a dwelling house on the property would no longer be exempt development as it would be defined as a ‘caretaker’s residence. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council’s rates records note this.



3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Nil

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil

5. CONSULTATION Design Services Division.

6. CONCLUSION In consideration of the representations provided by the applicant, it is recommended that Council issue a negotiated decision notice reflecting the recommended changes outlined in section 2.2 of this report.



M18/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr L.J. Friske That Council as Assessment Manager approve the issuing of an amended Adopted Infrastructure Charges Notice and Negotiated Decision Notice for Development Application 2014-1458 relating to a Material Change of Use for an Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility and Food and Drink Outlet incorporating the following amendments: (i) Condition 6 to show 14 constructed car parks with provision

for gravel overflow parking to meet peak parking requirements.

(ii) Condition 8 to be that the applicant shall obtain approval from

the Department of Transport and Main Roads for signage prohibiting right turn movements from Gympie Connection into Browns Road and the signage installed at no cost to Council.

(iii) Condition 11 to be amended to read: Connection is to be made to Council’s sewerage reticulation system at no cost to Council when this network becomes available to this area. Interim on-site treatment is permitted subject to the required approval for plumbing and drainage works. (iv) Condition 17 to be amended to read: Fencing of the development site along the full length of the southern and eastern boundaries shall be provided as follows: (a) 1.8m high timber paling fence along the southern boundary;

and (b) pool fencing (or similar alternative approved by Council), in

addition to dense landscaping, along the eastern boundary. (v) Condition 22 to remain. (vi) Condition 28 to be amended to read: Infrastructure charges for the Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility are payable as follows: Adopted Infrastructure Charge Category


Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility

Water Supply $8,160.85

Indoor Sport and Recreation Facility

Roads Nil

TOTAL $8,160 but will be subject to indexation annually on 1 July. (vii) Condition 29 to be amended to read:



Infrastructure charges for the Food and Drink Outlet are payable as follows: Adopted Infrastructure Charge Category


Food and Drink Outlet Roads $465.34 Food and Drink Outlet Water Supply $557.40 TOTAL $1,022

but will be subject to indexation annually on 1 July.

Carried 8/0

Cr Leitch returned to the meeting at 9.24am.



5.2 Adoption of Revised Infrastructure Charges Resolution for the 2015-2016 Financial Year



AUTHOR: Planning Officer - J Engle

DOC ID: 6-6-10-0019 LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 3. Governance - cohesive, responsible and transparent

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION On 21 January 2015, Council was advised of the reforms to Queensland’s local government infrastructure planning and charging framework under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA 2009). The item presented also advised Council regarding the transitional provisions now put in place to ensure Council’s current Priority Infrastructure Plan, (now referred to as a Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP)) and the Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (AICR) both continue to have effect until 1 July 2016 and 1 July 2015 respectively. As a result, Council must adopt a new Infrastructure Charges Resolution before 1 July 2015, to continue to levy infrastructure charges. Under the new legislation there is no scope to extend this timeframe. Further, the legislation also requires Council to review its LGIP and bring it in alignment with the statutory framework by 1 July 2016.

2. REPORT

Revision of the AICR in accordance with the new SPA 2009 requirements has been undertaken. All proposed changes to the Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution are not substantial diversions from Council’s current charge resolution. All changes reflect requirements as set out under the provisions of SPA 2009 to ensure that Council calculates charges, credits and offsets in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. In the absence of further detailed analysis, no changes to the infrastructure charge rates (outside of the consumer price index) are proposed at this time.

The proposed amendments to the AICR have been included as part of this agenda item for Council’s consideration, prior to final adoption at the ordinary meeting of 24 June 2015. Recommended changes to the existing AICR are summarised as follows:



Amendments to the format of the document to bring it into alignment with the new statutory guidelines.

Minor changes to correct title references to adopted charges for Tables 2 and 3 which refer to charge rates relevant to Material Change of Use and Reconfiguring a Lot.

Minor amendments to section 10 of the document relating to applicable credits to bring this in alignment with the requirements of section 636 of SPA 2009 to recognise credits for previous lawful uses that are no longer carried out.

Inclusion of the statutory criteria relating to the methodology for calculating offsets and refunds for trunk infrastructure works which reflect the default stipulations set by the new legislation.

Inclusion of the compulsory methodology for conversion criteria which will relate to future applications involving conversion of works for non-trunk infrastructure to trunk infrastructure reflecting the default criteria set by the new legislation.

Inclusion of Schedule 1: Dictionary in accordance with the default criteria set by the new legislation.

Inclusion of Schedule 2: Method for re-calculating establishment costs for land contributions in accordance with the default criteria set by the new legislation.

Inclusion of Schedule 3: Method of re-calculating establishment costs for work contributions in accordance with the default criteria set by the new legislation.

Charge rates increased in accordance with the Council adopted consumer price index of 2.73% consistent with the 2015-2016 Gympie Regional Council Budget.

The full proposed Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution for 2015-2016 is attached. The complete LGIP review process to be undertaken in the lead up to the 1 July 2016 deadline will inform further consideration of infrastructure charge rates to underpin the financial sustainability of our future trunk infrastructure networks. At the time of considering a revised LGIP, a revised AICR will also be prepared.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Adoption of the amended AICR will allow Council to continue to have the ability to levy infrastructure charges post 30 June 2015.


5. CONSULTATION The preparation of the amended Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution has been prepared in consultation with the firm Integrated



Infrastructure Planning to ensure that the document is in alignment with the requirements of the SPA 2009.

6. CONCLUSION The revised Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution is attached for Council’s consideration. The document reflects the statutory requirements set out under the State Government Guidelines. There are no substantial deviations from Council’s existing AICR. In accordance with the SPA 2009, the revised AICR must be adopted prior to 30 June 2015 in order for Council to continue to levy infrastructure charges for development approvals. ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Adopted Charges Resolution June 2015

M19/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr J.A. Walker That Council resolves to adopt the amended Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution for the 2015 – 2016 financial year in order to continue to levy infrastructure charges.

Carried



5.3 Development Application for a Material Change of Use - Telecommunications Facility at 92 Cavanagh Road, Greens Creek



AUTHOR: Planning Officer - S Court


1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Nil

2. REPORT FILE NO: 2015-0087 APPLICANT: NBN Co RPD: Lot 1 MPH23615 PROPOSAL: Material Change of Use for

Telecommunications Facility EXISTING ZONE: Rural LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT: Impact APPLICATION ADVERTISED: 21 April 2015 ADVERTISING CLOSED: 13 May 2015 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: Four (4)



2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 The Proposal This application seeks approval for a material change of use for a telecommunications facility on Lot 1 MPH23615, as part of the National Broadband Network (NBN). The site has frontage to Cavanagh Road, which is a sealed, council maintained road and an unformed, unnamed road to the rear of the property. The facility is proposed to provide wireless broadband network coverage for the Greens Creek and Cedar Pocket areas and also serve



as a communications anchor point for other NBN wireless facilities in the region. The proposal comprises of the following:

40m high monopole; 2 x parabolic dish antennas; 3 x panel antennas; 7.5m2 equipment shelter at ground level; 80m2 lease area; Ancillary equipment associated with operation of the facility; and 380m long x 3m wide access track off Cavanagh Road.

Access to the subject site will be provided via a new access point off Cavanagh Road. Access to the NBN Co compound will be via a gravelled access track (approximately 80m long) and then via a proposed unsealed access route (approximately 300m long). NBN Co proposes to utilise this access to the proposed facility during construction and operation. The site is sparsely vegetated and the applicant is not proposing any additional landscaping as a result of the development. Once operational, the facility will require annual maintenance visits and will remain unattended at all other times. The facility will function unstaffed on a continuous basis. The development is proposed to be setback approximately 353m from Cavanagh Road and a minimum of 20m from all side and rear boundaries. Proposal Plans



Figure 1: Overall site plan (Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd)



Figure 2: Site set out plan (Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd)

Figure 3: Site elevation and details (Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd)

2.1.2 Site Description



The allotment is 7.94ha in area and has an undulating topography ranging from 77m AHD at the rear north-western corner of the site adjacent to Lot 1 MPH5588 and 115m AHD at its highest point adjacent to Cavanagh Road. The relative height of the site at the point where the facility is proposed is approximately 109m AHD. The subject site is an irregular shaped rural allotment and is improved with one (1) residential dwelling and ancillary structures. The site otherwise contains sparse vegetation throughout most of the property. 2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses The immediate area surrounding the site is characterised by a range of Rural zoned land used for agricultural purposes ranging in size from 3 979m2 up to 60.7ha. Further to the south west are smaller allotments zoned as Rural Residential which make up the main residential area of Cedar Pocket. The proposed facility will be set back approximately 130m from the dwelling located to the north east and 267m from the dwelling to the west. Nearby townships include East Deep Creek (east), Mothar Mountain (south) and Cedar Pocket (east). 2.1.4 Site History Nil. 2.2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 2.2.1 Intent of the Zone The application was lodged under the Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme 2013, which commenced on 1 July 2013. The subject land is included in the ‘Rural’ zone. The intention of this zone is to: “(a) provide for a wide range of rural uses including cropping,

intensive horticulture, intensive animal industries, animal husbandry, animal keeping and other primary production activities;

(b) provide opportunities for non rural uses that are compatible with agriculture, the environment, and the landscape character of the rural area where they do not compromise the long-term use of the land for rural purposes; and

(c) protect or manage significant natural features, resources, and processes, including the capacity for primary production.”



Figure 4: Subject site zoning map 2.2.2 Compliance with the Planning Scheme (a) Scheme Definition “Telecommunications Facility” is defined in the planning scheme as: ‘Premises used for systems that carry communications by means of radio, including guided or unguided electromagnetic energy whether such facility is manned or remotely controlled.’ (b) Development Provisions Under the planning scheme, a material change of use for a telecommunications facility in the rural zone is ‘Impact Assessable’ development. Therefore the application is to be assessed against the entire planning scheme and the following codes are considered most relevant. Rural Zone Code Non rural uses are reflected in the purpose of the rural zone and may be considered appropriate where “compatible with agriculture, the environment, and the landscape character of the rural area where they do not compromise the long-term use of the land for rural purposes”. To this end, the proposed use is not a rural use but is considered to be compatible with the rural use of the land. The site is sparsely vegetated and the location of the proposed telecommunications facility was considered to potentially have an



impact on visual amenity for the surrounding area and its users. The applicant provided the following artistic impression/perspective drawing of the proposed tower from the site’s frontage to Cavanagh Road:

Figure 5: View looking south towards the facility from the sites frontage onto Cavanagh Road (approximately 360m separation distance)

Figure 6: View looking south west towards the proposed facility from Cavanagh Road (approximately 415m separation distance).



Figure 7: View looking south west towards the proposed facility from Cavanagh Road (approximately 520m separation distance). The applicant was requested to provide a detailed landscape plan, indicating vegetation buffers to partially screen the height of the tower. The applicant provided the following response in regards to this request: “While Aurecon C/- NBN Co acknowledge Council’s request for landscaping to partially screen the proposed tower and associated equipment shelters from Cavanagh Road, we consider in this instance that landscaping is not required … … vehicles will be travelling along Cavanagh Road at a constant speed and therefore the duration of views towards the facility from this location will be limited. Notwithstanding this, given the separation distance of 380m, the undulating topography and the slim line monopole design, the proposed facility is not considered to be obtrusive when viewed from Cavanagh Road. …The existing mature vegetation in conjunction with large separation distances will mitigate views towards the proposed facility … Additionally, the backdrop provided by Mothar Mountain ensures a large majority of the facility effectively blends in with the surrounds. While it is acknowledged the top portion of the facility will be visible from this view, given the separation distance of over 500m in conjunction with this existing vegetation, the facility is not considered to be obtrusive when viewed from the east … It is also noted that majority(sic) of the dwellings along Cavanagh Road are located to the north of the road and situated behind the existing vegetation that lines the rail corridor. Therefore any potential views from these dwellings will be obscured by the vegetation and large separation distances between the facility and the dwellings.



In summary, the presence of existing vegetation located along the road corridor, large separation distances afforded to the facility and the undulating nature of the immediate area, the amenity of the area will not be unduly affected by the facility. Therefore, it is considered that additional landscaping will not provide further screening benefits to the facility. Accordingly, and in this instance, it is considered that landscaping is not required”. The proposed facility will be set back approximately 130m from the closest dwelling located to the north east and 267m to the next closest dwelling to the west. Submissions with regards to visual amenity have been made from two (2) landowners in the area objecting to the development. Whilst these concerns are acknowledged, it is noted that: The proposed facility will be a minimum of 457m away from the

submitters’ dwellings; There is existing mature vegetation in the line of sight from the

telecommunications facility for both submitters and other residents in the surrounding area;

Any landscaping imposed as a condition of any approval to screen a telecommunications facility from surrounding properties would not completely screen the monopole tower; and

The monopole tower will be of a slim line design not considered to be obtrusive when viewed from Cavanagh Road.

Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the visual amenity and character of the area in a significant way. Other provisions of the Code require that “good quality agricultural land identified on the relevant overlay is preserved”. The development is proposed within an area identified on council’s good quality agricultural land (Class C) overlay mapping. The applicant has provided the following justification to address the use of good agricultural land for this proposal: “… the proposed facility will not result in the loss of GQAL. Given the relatively small (8m x 10m) building footprint and siting away from viable productive land, is not considered to lead to the potential alienation, fragmentation or inappropriate use of Good Quality Agricultural Land”. The total use area is 80m2 and the proposed access track to be utilised in the good quality agricultural land area is approximately 380 metres long. The total area proposed to be used is 1.53%. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development is not a rural use, it is considered that the development will be compatible at this location and the site could be used for agricultural purposes in the future.



The subject site is also located within a medium bushfire hazard area. There is no bushfire prone land identified at the location of the proposed facility:

Figure 8: Subject site bushfire hazard overlay The proposed development will not create increased demand for emergency services during a bush fire event as it does not involve new buildings. Emergency access is available to the proposed facility along the new access track from Cavanagh Road. Therefore, it is considered that the development will maintain the safety of people and property during bushfire events. It is considered that the development will not compromise the outcomes for the rural zone. Infrastructure and Operational Works (excluding Advertising Devices) Code The purpose of the Code is to be achieved through a number of overall outcomes including: “(a) Infrastructure is to be provided to an appropriate standard. (b) Vehicle parking and access arrangements reflect the nature

and intensity of the proposal. (c) Landscaping softens built form and provides relief from

buildings and hard infrastructure. (d) Filling or excavation avoids adverse environment impacts. (e) Development is established where the impacts of natural

hazards are avoided or safely managed. (f) Development is reflective of and responsive to the environment

constraints of the land.”



The development is generally consistent with the above overall outcomes. The infrastructure is needed to achieve an appropriate standard of wireless broadband communications in the locality, which is of considerable benefit to the general community. 2.3 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.3.1 Visual Amenity There is existing vegetation throughout the development site which provides visual screening benefits for the facility from the closest dwellings and residents in the surrounding area. It is acknowledged that the proposed monopole tower is 40m in height and may be visible off the site. Given the characteristics of the site, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the character and amenity of the area in a significant way. 2.3.2 Environmental EME Report The applicant provided an Environmental EME Report with the application which provides the estimated maximum cumulative radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (EME) levels at ground level emitted from the wireless base station antennas. It is advised that the maximum cumulative EME level for this site is 0.049% of the public exposure limits as regulated by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANSA) and Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Regardless, this issue is not a relevant planning issue that can be considered through the development application process. 2.3.3 Infrastructure Charges Council’s Adopted Infrastructure Charge Resolution considers a telecommunications facility to be a minor use and as such no charges are applicable. 2.3.4 Local and/or State Planning Polices The Queensland Government established the State Planning Policy (SPP) in December 2013 to simplify and clarify matters of state interest in land use planning and development. In accordance with Part E interim development assessment provisions of the SPP, there are three (3) state interests triggered and addressed below: Biodiversity:

The subject site is identified under the new SPP mapping as being subject to MSES – Regulated Vegetation (intersecting a water course);



The facility is located outside of the mapped watercourse areas under the State Planning Policy;

Therefore, the proposal will not have significant adverse environmental impacts on matters of state environmental significance;

Water Quality: The subject site is identified as being in a climatic region –

stormwater management design; As the application is not for a material change of use for urban

purposes that involves a land area greater than 2500 square metres, assessment is not applicable.

Natural Hazards: The subject site is identified as potentially being affected by

flooding within the Local Government flood mapping area and a potential bushfire impact buffer;

The subject site is not mapped as containing flood prone land; Further, the proposed use avoids the bushfire hazard areas and

will not increase the number of people living or working in the area, does not involve hazardous materials, and will not increase the risk or impact of a natural hazard.

2.4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 with two (2) objectors and two (2) submissions in support of the proposal received. Benefits to business owners and the proposed tower being in a suitable location in an isolated area limiting the aesthetic impact and lifestyle interruption for residents in the immediate vicinity were raised by submitters in support of the proposal. Issues of concern raised by the submitters objecting to the proposal are discussed below:

Issue Officer Comment Visual Amenity and belief that tower would be better positioned away from households

There is existing vegetation throughout the development site which provides visual screening benefits for the facility from the closest dwellings and residents in the surrounding area. It is acknowledged that the proposed monopole tower is 40m in height and may be visible off the site. Given the characteristics of the site, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the character and amenity of the area in a significant way.

Reduction in property value.

Council has received submissions that the proposed tower will affect property values and result in financial loss.



This is not an issue that is relevant to council’s planning scheme and is not a town planning issue.

Due process for public consultation not being followed

The applicant has confirmed compliance with all of the public notification requirements specified in sections 294 – 304 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Further to these requirements, the applicant held an information session on 10 February 2015 and invited local residents, Councillors, State and Federal members to find out more about the proposed facilities at Greens Creek and East Deep Creek. Council was advised that about 50 people attended the session.

Negative impacts on rural amenity

Given the characteristics of the site, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the character and amenity of the area in a significant way.

Non-compliance with the Gympie Regional Council 2013 planning scheme

While the proposed development is not entirely consistent with the Rural Zone Code, the proposed telecommunications facility is considered to benefit to the Greens Creek and Cedar Pocket communities and will not negatively impact on rural amenity.


4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning scheme.

5. CONSULTATION 5.1 Internal (a) Engineering Directorate Design Services Division has advised they have no requirements.

6. CONCLUSION The proposed development will provide significant benefit to the local Greens Creek and Cedar Pocket communities. While the proposed development is to be located in a rural area, this type of development by its nature needs to be located in prominent locations and above the tree line to achieve a line of sight. Given the separation that can be achieved from other rural and rural residential properties and the existing vegetation at the location and in the surrounding area, the proposed development will not cause significant adverse impacts.



While the proposed development is not entirely consistent with the provisions for the Rural Zone, to the extent that there is any conflict with the planning scheme there are sufficient grounds to overcome the conflict including:

The proposed telecommunications facility will provide significant benefit to the general Greens Creek and Cedar Pocket communities with respect to improved wireless broad band services, which is highly desirable; and

The proposed development will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the character and amenity of the area and will not cause environmental harm.



M20/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr J.A. Walker That Council, as Assessment Manager, APPROVE development application (2015-0087) for a Material Change of Use – Telecommunications Facility over Lot 1 MPH23615 located at 92 Cavanagh Road, Greens Creek, subject to the following conditions: Assessment Manager Conditions Conditions to be Satisfied Prior to the Commencement of the Approved Use 1. The development shall be generally in accordance with the

plans submitted with the application:

Drawing Title Drawn By Date

Overall Site Plan Drawing Number 4GYM-51-09-GRCS-C2 Rev 03

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd

12.01.15

Site Setout Plan Drawing Number 4GYM-51-09-GRCS-C3 Rev 03


16.01.15

Site Elevation and Details Drawing Number 4GYM-51-09-GRCS-C4 Rev 03


16.01.15

2. Obtain and comply with the requirements of a development

permit for building work. 3. Undertake at no cost to Council, the alteration of any public

utility mains (eg. Electricity, water, sewerage, gas etc.) or other facilities necessitated by the development of the land or associated construction works external to the site.

4. Maximum height of the monopole is not to exceed

40 metres, from the natural ground level. Advisory Notes

(i) Should the proposed/intended lease period, including options

to extend, exceed 10 years a development permit for reconfiguring a lot will need to be obtained.

Carried



5.4 Development Application for Material Change of Use - 48 Dwelling Houses for Approved Residential Subdivision at 13 Sorensen Road, Southside



AUTHOR: Planning Officer - S Court


1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Development application (2009-0411) to reconfigure a lot to create 126 Additional Lots was approved by council on 11 November 2009:

Figure 1: Approved Plan (11 November 2009).

An amended decision notice and approved plan for the creation of 139 additional lots in response to a Request to Change the approval was issued under delegation on 16 September 2014:



Figure 2: Amended Approved Plan (19 September 2014).

Operational works approvals were issued over the site involving external sewerage infrastructure (2014-0540) and road works, stormwater, water infrastructure, drainage works, earthworks and sewerage infrastructure for Stages 2, 3 and 4 (2014-0540) were issued on 2 September 2014 and 3 November 2014 respectively.

2. REPORT FILE NO: 2015-0265 APPLICANT: Project and Development Specialists

Pty Ltd RPD: Lot 200 SP238768 SITE ADDRESS: 13 Sorensen Road, Southside CURRENT USE OF LAND: Vacant – Farming PROPOSAL: Material Change of Use for 48

Dwelling Houses for Approved Residential Lots

EXISTING ZONE: Residential Living and Limited Development (Constrained Land)

LEVEL OF ASSESSMENT: Impact APPLICATION ADVERTISED: 28 April 2015 ADVERTISING CLOSED: 21 May 2014 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED: One (1)



Figure 3: Site location

Figure 4: Aerial imagery (2013)

2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 The Proposal This application is for a material change of use for 48 dwelling houses over 48 approved residential lots. The 48 approved residential lots are yet to be registered with the Titles Office however there is a current approval over the site involving the creation of 139 additional lots. Some of the 48 approved lots are partially zoned Residential Living, however the allotments are also partially or wholly zoned as Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone as a result of the flood hazard overlay:



Figure 5: Subject site flood hazard overlay map – Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme 2013. Due to the zoning, a dwelling house proposed within the Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone triggers impact assessment for a material change of use application. Whereas a dwelling house in the Residential Living Zone is exempt development not requiring planning approval. Subsequently, the applicant seeks to avoid the need to lodge 48 individual material change of use applications over 48 of the approved allotments that are now affected by the flood hazard overlay. No floor or elevation plans have been lodged with the application. This is to allow future landowners the opportunity to locate and design a dwelling on each lot within the parameters of any approved development permit as they require. Most of the planning issues requiring assessment over the site have been addressed through the reconfiguring a lot approval over the whole site. Therefore, the issue relating to the impacts of the flood hazard overlay and subsequent earthworks are to be assessed as part of this application as this is the main trigger for the application. Proposal Plans



Figure 6: Plan of Lots Affected (within the Limited Development Zone) (Bennett + Bennett)

Figure 7: Plan of Building Areas (within the Limited Development Zone) (Bennett + Bennett)

2.2.0 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2.2.1 Intent of the Zone

Limited Development (Constrained Land) Zone



The purpose of the Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone is to “identify land known to be significantly affected by one of more development constraints (such as past or future mining activities, flooding, land contamination, defence requirements, historical subdivisions and buffer areas). Such constraints pose severe restrictions on the ability of the land to be developed for urban purposes”. The overall outcomes sought for the zone include: “(a) Development of vacant small lots in the localities of Manyung,

Kinbombi and Cinnabar must demonstrate that there is adequate access to physical and social infrastructure.

(b) The limited development potential of land restricts the type, scale and intensity of land uses that are appropriate, which generally include agricultural, open space and recreation, and limited urban uses.

(c) Development is of a low intensity and scale and must be reflective and responsive to the flooding constraints of the land and the surrounding land use context.

(d) Existing uses may remain however no increases in scale or density of these uses are intended.

(e) Development is provided with appropriate infrastructure and services.

(f) Development is reflective of and responsive to the environmental constraints of the land.”

Figure 8: Subject site zoning map – Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme 2013.

2.2.2 Compliance with the Planning Scheme

(a) Scheme Definition



“Dwelling House” is outlined in the Gympie Regional Council 2013 planning scheme as: ‘A residential use of premises for one household which contains a single dwelling. The use includes outbuildings and works normally associated with a dwelling and may include a secondary dwelling where attached to the main dwelling and not exceeding 60m2”.

(b) Development Provisions Under the Gympie Regional Council 2013 planning scheme, a material change of use for a dwelling house in the Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone is ‘Impact Assessable’ development. Therefore the application is assessable against the entire planning scheme and the following codes are considered the most relevant. Limited Development (Constrained Land) Zone Code It is considered that the proposal and subsequent previous reconfiguring a lot approval (2009-0411) complies with the below relevant overall outcomes of the code as the subdivision development safely manages flood and bushfire prone land specifically: “(b) The limited development potential of land restricts the type, scale

and intensity of land uses that are appropriate, which generally include agricultural, open space and recreation, and limited urban uses;

(c) Development is of a low intensity and scale and must be reflective and responsive to the flooding constraints of the land and the surrounding land use context; …

(e) Development is provided with appropriate infrastructure and services;

(f) Development is reflective of and responsive to the environmental constraints of the land.”

Whilst all of the 48 dwelling houses proposed are within the Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone it is considered that the impacts of natural hazards (both flood and bushfire) have been effectively assessed and managed through the reconfiguring a lot approval (2009-0411) and operational work approval (2014-0541) for Stages 2 - 4. Earthworks have been applied for and approved at this location to provide adequate building envelopes suitable for residential lots above the 1 in 100 year flood line. Operational works for Stages 6 and 7, also affected by the Limited Development (Constrained Land) zone, are yet to be lodged with council for assessment. . A condition could be imposed as part of any approval to require earthworks to be carried out in accordance with previous approvals (2009-0411 and 2014-0541) and minimum floor levels for all dwelling houses to be 300mm above the



1 in 100 year flood line. Reference to both of these approvals and a requirement for a minimum floor level will ensure dwelling houses within Stages 6 and 7 will also be above the 1 in 100 year flood line. It is considered that the proposed development will be consistent with the approvals over the development site once all lots have been registered with the Titles Office and compliance has been met with regards to earthworks and infrastructure. Therefore, it is recommended that a condition be imposed that prior to dwelling houses being constructed, lots are to be registered with the Titles Office. All other outcomes of the Limited Development (Constrained Land) Zone Code not referenced here are considered not to be applicable to this application. Infrastructure & Operational Works (excluding Advertising Devices) Code The purpose of the Code is to be achieved through a number of overall outcomes including: “(a) Infrastructure is to be provided to an appropriate standard. (b) Vehicle parking and access arrangements reflect the nature and

intensity of the proposal. (c) Landscaping softens built form and provides relief from buildings

and hard infrastructure. (d) Filling or excavation avoids adverse environment impacts. (e) Development is established where the impacts of natural hazards

are avoided or safely managed. (f) Development is reflective of and responsive to the environment

constraints of the land.” The development is considered to be consistent with the above overall outcomes. 2.3 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 2.3.1 Appropriateness of the Proposal The use of the site for 48 dwelling house over 48 approved residential lots is considered appropriate in this area given the size of the approved lots and the earthworks proposed (2014-0541) in conjunction with the reconfiguring a lot approval (2009-0411). 2.3.2 Flooding The site is subject to flooding (see Figure 5) and the development site and layout is considered to effectively respond to the flooding potential maintaining personal safety at all times. 2.3.3 Utilities and Services



The site is to be serviced by reticulated water and sewerage and infrastructure charges have been applied to the reconfiguring a lot approval (2009-0411). 2.3.4 Infrastructure Charges There are no charges applicable for this development. 2.3.4 Local and/or State Planning Polices The Queensland Government established the State Planning Policy (SPP) in December 2013 to simplify and clarify matters of state interest in land use planning and development. The application is compliant with the State Planning Policy, and the Wide Bay Burnett Regional Plan 2.4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and one (1) submission was received objecting to the proposal. The issues raised in the objection consisted of concerns relating to: Stormwater management over the site and the surrounding area; Managing flood prone land over the site and in the surrounding

area as a result of the reconfiguring a lot approval; Lack of sewer infrastructure over the whole development site; Protecting wildlife over the development site; Potential traffic impacts as a result of the number of approved lots; Access on to the site and the surrounding area; Socio-economic impacts from unemployment if jobs are not

created to support the residents within the estate; and Lack of schools to educate the increased number of children that

may reside within the whole development. All of these concerns where considered and managed during the reconfiguring a lot approval process.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Nil.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning scheme.

5. CONSULTATION (a) Engineering Directorate There are no specific engineering requirements relevant to the proposal, subject to compliance with the conditions of the previous reconfiguring a lot and operational work (earthworks) approvals.



6. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the proposal be approved with conditions.

M21/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr M.A. McDonald (A) That Council, as Assessment Manager, APPROVE

development application (2015-0265) for a Material Change of Use – 48 Dwelling Houses for 48 Approved Residential Lots over Lot 200 SP238768 located at 13 Sorensen Road, Southside, subject to the following conditions:

Assessment Manager Conditions Conditions to be satisfied prior to the commencement of the use:

1. The development herein approved may not start until the

following development permits have been issued and complied with as required - (a) Development Permit for Building Work.

2. All lots subject to this approval are to be registered with

the Titles Office prior to a development permit for Building Work being issued.

3. Earthworks are to be undertaken and completed in

accordance with the previous approvals over the site specifically: (a) Reconfiguring a Lot – Subdivision to create 139

Additional Lots (2009-0411); and (b) Operational Work – Road works, Stormwater, Water

Infrastructure, Drainage Works, Earthworks and Sewerage Infrastructure (2014-0541).

4. The minimum floor levels of any dwelling house erected

over the site is to be 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood line of RL 62.80m (AHD).

5. All of the approved dwelling houses are to comply with the requirements of council’s Amenity & Aesthetics Policy.

(B) A property note will be imposed on the registered lot of

each approved dwelling house to disclose the conditions of this approval.

Carried



5.5 Representations for Development Application for Material Change of Use for a Transport Depot, High Impact Industry (Compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Caretakers Accommodation and ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and woodchipping (more than 100,000t per year), ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 100,000t per year) at 1944 Bruce Highway, Gympie



AUTHOR: Contract Planning Officer - S Adamson


1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION A development application for material change of use for a new transport depot and relocation of an existing compost manufacturing business was approved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 11 April 2015. On 6 May 2015 the applicant suspended their appeal period and on 4 June 2015 submitted representations in regards to a number of the conditions.

2. REPORT FILE NO: 2014-1332 APPLICANT: Corbet Property Pty Ltd RPD: Lot 205 on SP263809 SITE ADDRESS: 1944 Bruce Highway CURRENT USE OF LAND: Vacant Rural Land PROPOSAL: Transport Depot, High Impact Industry

(Compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Caretakers Accommodation and ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and woodchipping (more than 100,000t per year), ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 100,000t per year)

EXISTING ZONE: Rural



SUBMISSIONS: One (1) properly made

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

The representations relate to the staging of the development and seek to make changes to conditions 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 21, which are addressed below. The applicant advises that the reason for the staging, amongst other things is because:



The need to be able to promptly relocate the existing composting activities (including the 30m² site office) from the applicant’s Woondum Road site due to the pending resumption of the whole of that site by the State for the Bruce Highway by-pass, and

In order to better coordinate with the freeholding triggers listed in the conditions of the Development Lease over the subject site from the State.

The applicant now proposes to undertake the development in the following stages: Stage 1A: Transport Depot, and High Impact Industry (compost

manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Environmentally Relevant Activities: ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and wood chipping (more than 100,000t per year) and ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 200t per year) including a temporary office of approximately 30 m2 GFA

STAGE 1B: Transport Depot, and High Impact Industry (compost

manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Environmentally Relevant Activities: ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and wood chipping (more than 100,000t per year) and ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 200t per year) including with a minimum GFA of 1500m²

STAGE 2: Transport Depot, High Impact Industry (compost

manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies, Caretaker’s Accommodation and Environmentally Relevant Activities: ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and wood chipping (more than 100,000t per year) and ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 200t per year) as currently approved.

The applicant has requested that a new condition/s be inserted in the Negotiated Decision Notice to approve this proposed staging and relevant conditions including infrastructure contributions be adjusted to accommodate this proposed staging. Comment: No objection is raised with respect to the proposed staging of the development. The staging will be incorporated into condition 1 of the approval that refers to the approved plans for the development. Condition 4 Condition 4 of the approval states that:



Hours of operation for the proposed development shall be as follows: High impact industry (Compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), and Bulk landscape supplies: Monday to Saturday: 7.00am - 6pm; Sunday: Closed; Transport depot: Monday to Sunday: 7.00am - 6pm Sunday: Closed; The above hours of operation exclude access in the case of emergencies and noting that transport vehicles and plant may need to enter and leave the site all hours day and night depending on scheduling by applicant. However, this is subject to satisfying all noise requirements issued under the Environmental Authority Permit by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, in particular with respect to night time operations. Representations: The applicant seeks to commence operations at 5am to 7pm Monday to Saturday, but allow for some other traffic movements as required for emergencies and depending on scheduling arrangements. The applicant has acknowledged that Council has approved the hours of operation as originally proposed in the application material. However, the applicant has reassessed the proposed hours of operation having regard to the transport logistics and the potential for unintended delays of transport freight, and the like. The applicant prefers that this condition be amended to allow the development to commence two (2) hours earlier in the morning and finish one (1) hour later at night from Mondays to Saturdays. The applicant believes that the following grounds support the requested amendment: The subject site is situated in a Rural Zone and in close proximity to

an Industrial Investigation Zone. The requested extended hours of operation are considered unlikely to result in conflict with existing or rural land uses or potential future rural and industrial land uses;

The subject site abuts flood prone land on all sides other than the

northern side. This adjoining 57 hectare lot to the north is included in a Rural Zone and has a dwelling erected within this adjoining lot is positioned over 650 metres from the northern boundary of the subject site. In any regard to Bruce Highway is currently located less than 280 metres from this existing house. As such it is highly unlikely that the adjoining lot to the north can be further subdivided and that any noise generated on the subject site will create noise levels at the existing house above traffic using the nearby Bruce



Highway. Subsequently, it is considered that an extension to the hours of operation is unlikely to create an additional noise nuisance above background levels;

The subject site has direct and good connectivity to major road

networks including the Bruce Highway and Mary Valley Link Road. Consequently, haulage routes associated with the approved uses are not located within close proximity of residential areas and therefore any traffic generated for these additional hours of operation should be an issue for surrounding uses; and

Surrounding land uses consist predominately of agriculture and rural

activities that generally operate extended hours outside of normal business hours.

Comment: The hours of operation contained in the condition reflect the advice previously provided by the applicant and this is how the application was publically notified. One (1) submission was received, which raised a concern with the respect to noise being generated by the development. Despite this, the location of the development is close to the Bruce Highway, which is a key reason why the development has been supported. The proposed development is well located beside the Bruce Highway, which currently provides for significant traffic movements, including large trucks. This being the case the noise generated by the proposed development is unlikely to be significantly greater than the noise generated by the Bruce Highway; however the change in the hours being 2 hours earlier and 1 hour later in the day could have some impact in the immediate locality. In particular, to the property to the west is more removed from the Bruce Highway than the proposed development. Further, the property to the north is closer to the Bruce Highway than the proposed development. In any event, the applicant will be required to comply with the noise criteria under the Environmental Authority Permit issued by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, in particular with respect to night time operations. Despite the above the application was publically notified as operating from 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. Consequently, it is considered reasonable to allow the use to operate from 6am to 7pm. Condition 10 Condition 10 of the approval states that: Infrastructure charges payable will be in accordance with the Infrastructure Charges Notice that has been issued for the



development. The total cost of infrastructure contributions payable under the Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution is as follows:



Commercial (Bulk Landscape supplies)

Roads $108,450.00

Industry (Transport Depot)

Roads $41,331.60

High Impact Industry Roads $8,952.80 TOTAL $158,734.00

But will be subject to indexation annually on 1 July. Representations: The applicant has requested that this condition be amended in the following two (2) ways: Amend the payment amounts to correspond with those GFAs

approved for each stage of development requested above as well as relating directly to the approved buildings/GFAs; and

Reduce the amounts payable for each stage of development

suggested in these representations based on the following grounds. Comments: The applicant has provided a range of reasons with respect to how the infrastructure charges should be considered. The charges have been applied based on the uses applied for. However, the applicant is suggesting that the contributions should be based on the nature of those uses being primarily of an industrial nature. Further, that the uses applied for will operate in an integrated manner therefore should be considered differently. It should also be noted that infrastructure charges relate to the road network only and do not apply to water supply and sewerage network infrastructure. The applicant states: In the above condition Council has determined that the whole of the

approved bagging facility is a “bulk landscape supplies” use and has then levied the charge applicable to the “Commercial” Charge Category under Council’s above 2014 resolution over the total GFA of approved bagging facility being 3,000m². The applicant disagrees that the approved bagging facility is a “Commercial” Charge Category under Council’s above 2014 resolution. Some compost and the like manufactured on the subject site will be carted in bulk from the subject site by transport vehicles and other compost, etc.



will be bagged onsite before being carted away in the same transport vehicles. Both bagged and bulk product will be delivered to retailers/commercial premises off site for subsequent sale. There will be no retail sales on site;

It is considered unreasonable that Council’s has required the

applicant to pay an additional $108,450.00 in charges towards roads if some of the product is put into bags before being delivered. Based on Council’s above condition, if the applicant was to produce the same quantity of compost, etc. and not place any product in bags in the bagging facility before delivery then the $108,450.00 charge would not be applicable. Likewise the $108,450.00 charge would not be applicable if the bagging occurred outside a building. The reliance of levying the charge solely on GFA is considered illogical in this instance;

The bagging facility is part of the proposed industry use and cannot

be considered to be in “Commercial” Charge Category and thereby attracting twice the charge applied to “High Impact industry” Charge Category and almost three times that required for the “Industry” Charge Category. It is acknowledged that Council’s resolution does not include definitions for any charge categories but the resolution does quote examples in the “Commercial” charge category as being “agricultural supplies store”, “bulk landscape supplies” garden centre”, “hardware and trade supplies’, “outdoor sales” and “showroom”. All are defined land uses in Council’s planning scheme. It is considered relevant that Council’s planning scheme definition for “bulk landscape supplies” actually excludes uses where the majority of supplies sold are pre-packaged therefore bagged.

The approved Transport Depot is an “Industry” Charge Category

whereas the approved compost manufacturing and organic waste processing are in the “High Impact Industry” Charge Category. Other landscaping supplies will be also manufactured and stored in in bulk on external pads. Some compost, landscaping supplies and the like will be bagged depending on market demand. It is submitted that the landscape supplies as proposed in this instance and the approved bagging facility are also in the “Industry” Charge Category;

Comment: Under the Fees & Charges Schedule for 2114-15 the following rates apply: Industry $25.80m² of GFA; High Impact Industry $36.10m² of GFA. The applicable rate that would apply for the road network component is 50% of the applicable charge, which equates to the following: Industry $12.90m² of GFA;



High Impact Industry $18.05m² of GFA. The applicant’s representations are agreed with, in part only. It is accepted that the development is integrated and the uses overlap in terms of being High Impact Industry, Industry or Bulk Landscaping Supplies. However, the premise on which the proposed development was supported was that the proposed development is primarily for a High Impact Industry Use, which has associated impacts that makes the development more suited to a rural area having direct access to the Bruce Highway. It is not reasonable for the applicant to now argue that the use is mostly of an industrial nature, otherwise the use should have been located in the Industry Zone in an urban area. Despite this, it is reasonable to reconsider how the charges have been applied, given the further information provided by the applicant. The floor areas applicable for the development are as follows:

Proposed Building GFA (m²) Workshop 3,174 Office 496 Bagging Facility 3,000 Weighbridge 32 Total 6,702

It is suggested that given the use is primarily an industrial use the contributions payable should be based on the floor areas as proportioned above, being either for High Impact Industry or Industry. Consequently, the workshop, office and weighbridge are considered to be purely industrial in nature. Further, it is reasonable to include the bagging facility as part of the High Impact Industry, given that this is directly related to the composting material being produced on site. This being the case, the following contributions are considered reasonable.

Floor Area Applicable Rate Road Network Contribution

Workshop – 3174m² Industry - $12.90 $40,944.60 Office – 496m² Industry - $12.90 $6,398.40 Bagging Facility – 3,000m²

High Impact Industry - $18.05

$54,150.00

Weighbridge – 32m² Industry - $12.90 $412.80 Total $101,905.80

The applicant contends that the rate for an Industry Use, being $12.90m² of GFA should apply for the entire development. This equates to a contribution amount in total of about $86,842.80. The applicant further contends that the above charge ($86,842.80) is excessive for the approved development on this particular site due to additional reasons, which include the following:



The applicant paid Council an assessment fee of $47,312.00 to assess this above development application and had intended requesting that Council reduce the fees payable in this regard following Council’s completion of its assessment of the development application. It is appreciated that Council’s Schedule of Fees and charges adopts a general approach in determining assessment fees for a wide variety of development proposals and sites. It is considered this fee is excessive because the nature of the proposal and site and also the fact assessment fees were paid to the State agencies who assessed certain matters of State significance such as road access and certain environmental considerations. Rather than seek a refund in fees already paid the applicant is requesting that in effect, a corresponding credit be approved to the above charges.

The site is at the corner of two State controlled roads namely the

Bruce Highway and the Mary Valley Link Road, neither of which are the responsibility of Gympie Regional Council. Given that all the infrastructure charges is to be paid towards roads is considered unlikely that Council would be spending the funds on upgrading State controlled roads;

Given the nature of the approved uses there will majority of traffic

generated by the approved uses(sic) will not travel or access Council maintained roads; and

Additionally, the applicant suggests any vehicles traveling south

from the subject site will not access any Council maintained roads before exiting the Gympie Regional Council local government area;

The Corbet’s Group will be simultaneously ceasing to operate its

existing composting operations on the existing Woondum Road site as a direct result of resumption from the Department of Transport and Main Roads to accommodate Stage C of the Cooroy to Curra bypass for the Bruce Highway. Council’s above 2014 resolution relating to in essence provides the ability for certain credits to be granted for existing industry uses that will cease on the development of a particular site. In this instance existing uses will cease on another site and therefore the applicant considers credits from the existing Woondum Road site should be applied by Council for the existing High Impact Industry use; and

It is considered unreasonable that a building containing a

weighbridge would attract an infrastructure charge although it is only attracts a very minor amount and its GFA approximately equals the temporary office in Stage 1A.

The applicant requests that condition 10 be amended as follows: The total cost of infrastructure contributions payable to Council for Council’s Roads Network is $50,000.00 for 2014-15 and will be subject to indexation annually on 1 July.



Comment: The above comments provided by the applicant are not agreed with. The Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution applies to the applicable charge against the impact on trunk networks for a range of uses, regardless of location. That is, the charge applicable is based on the network impacted upon by the development, which in this case is the road network. The general principle with the new infrastructure charging framework is that all developments contribute to the upgrading of trunk infrastructure. Regardless of the location of a site, developments will generate some use of local roads, by employees attending work for example. Granting a reduction based on a site fronting a State controlled road could be problematic and create difficulties with ensuring a consistent approach for future developments. A majority of existing and proposed developments front or are located close to a State controlled road. Consequently, it is not reasonable to apply contributions based on location. If this is the case, then it could be argued by other applicants that a network charge should be reduced because of the proximity of a site to a State controlled road, such as the Bunnings Store or the like. This is not how the Adopted infrastructure Charges Resolution is intended to apply and could potentially lead to claims being made by others. Given the above, it is suggested that the condition should be amended to reflect a total contribution amount of $101,905.80, as calculated above. Conditions 11 and 12 The applicant has made representations with respect to Condition 11, which states: A properly prepared Landscape Management Plan in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 4: Landscaping is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer. The landscape plan is to denote areas of existing vegetation and/or existing trees proposed to be retained. Landscaping works are to be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. The landscaping shall be maintained (watering, fertilising, mulching, weeding, and the like) at all times; and Condition 12, which states: The Landscape Management Plan shall provide significant vegetative screening from key road frontages to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development from the Bruce Highway and the surrounding road network generally. The Landscape Management Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall address landscaping



to be provided within and outside of the development footprint on the site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council. Representations: The applicant advises that Condition 11 inadvertently referred to the wrong policy number, which is to be corrected. Further, it is suggested by the applicant that the conditions overlap and should be made clearer. The applicant also suggests that the condition does not stipulate that a further development approval for operational work is required. Comment: The intent of the conditions are to require the applicant to provide a reasonable amount of landscaping on site, in particular near the key road frontages to soften the development when viewed directly from the Bruce Highway and the surrounding road network. This is because the proposal is for a significant industrial development located near the Bruce Highway, in a rural area. Consequently, it is important that the conditions remain. While the applicant is correct in that the conditions do not include a requirement to obtain a development permit for operational work, part 5 of the Decision Notice states that a development permit for operational work for landscaping is required. However, it is agreed to amend the conditions in order to provide more clarity as requested by the applicant, as follows: Condition 11: A Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and in accordance with SC6.1.7.12 of the Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme 2013. The Landscape Plan shall address the following to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council: landscaping to be provided within and outside of the

development footprint on the site generally as shown on the approved plans;

denote areas of existing vegetation and/or existing trees proposed to be retained within and outside of the development footprint on the site; and

landscaped screening is to be provided from key road frontages to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development from the Bruce Highway and the surrounding road network.

Condition 12: A Landscape Management Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person. A properly prepared Landscape Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer as part of the required Development Application for Operational Works.



The Landscape Management Plan is to include the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 11 and proposals relating to the construction and ongoing management and maintenance of landscaping. It should be noted the landscaping works are to be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plans and that landscaping shall be maintained (watering, fertilising, mulching, weeding, and the like) at all times. Conditions 14, 16 and 19 The applicant has also made representations about conditions 14, 16 and 19, as follows: Condition 14: A Stormwater Drainage Master Plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and is to address the impact of the proposed development on the existing stormwater drainage in the area, including upstream and downstream of the site. Condition 16: The method of treatment of stormwater runoff from and through the site shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure and Operational Work (excluding Advertising Device) Code and the requirements of the Environmental Authority Permit. (An RPEQ to certify the plans submitted address the requirements of this condition). Condition 19: The applicant shall prepare and implement a Site Based Management Plan (SBMP) for the site, which is prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person. The SBMP will address all other conditions of approval, but in particular seek to prevent environmental harm from being caused during the construction and operational phases of the development. The SBMP will also address all other areas of risk, including bushfire. Representations: The applicant requests that a note be added to these conditions and/or the note in Condition 16 be amended, (i.e. “An RPEQ to certify the plans submitted address the requirements of this condition”) so that Council’s requirements do not complicate the ability to comply with the environmental authorities for the ERAs required for the operation of the site under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Comment:



The applicant’s comments are noted. The applicant is required to submit a Site Based Management Plan, which is to address both the requirements under the planning scheme and the requirements imposed under the environmental authority issued by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. However, it is agreed to remove the reference to the Environmental Authority Permit in Condition 16, to remove any doubt what aspects apply. It is not necessary to amend any of the other conditions mentioned above. Condition 21 No earthworks or filling works are to be undertaken on the site prior to the issue of a development permit for operational work. Representations: The applicant understands the intent of condition 21 as currently worded however requests the condition to be amended so as to allow operational work that is not assessable development to be undertaken, including those works which are not directly associated with the approved uses. Comment: It is not entirely clear why the applicant is seeking to change the condition. This is because there is no reason why a development application for operational work for earthworks could not be lodged, given that an approval has issued. In any event, the condition only applies to work associated with the development proposal. Any other operational work on the land that is not associated with the proposed development is not relevant to the condition and is subject to the requirements of the planning scheme in any event.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Nil.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil.

5. CONSULTATION Design Services Division.

6. CONCLUSION The applicant has made a number of representations with respect to staging the development and about conditions 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 21. The representations have been considered and it is agreed to allow the staging of the development and to amend conditions 4, 10, 11, 12 and 16. The key issue is with respect to the amount of infrastructure contributions payable for the development. It is agreed that the amount payable should be reconsidered based on the integrated nature of the use; however, the applicant’s representations are not fully agreed with.



The suggested amount payable based on the Industry and High Impact Industry rate is $101,905.80, as calculated above. This represents a reduction in the order of $60,000 from the current approval. The applicant suggests that a random charge of $50,000 should apply, which is not agreed with. However, it is considered reasonable that the development commence at 6am and not 5am given that the development proposal as advertised stated that the development would operate from 7am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday. No objection is raised with the development operating to 7pm, Monday to Saturday. The representations have been considered and it is recommended to allow the proposed staging and to amend some of the conditions. The recommendation is worded accordingly.



M22/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr W.R. Leitch That in response to representations for Representations for Development Application for Material Change of Use for a Transport Depot, High Impact Industry (Compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Caretakers Accommodation and ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and woodchipping (more than 100,000t per year), ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 100,000t per year) at 1944 Bruce Highway, Gympie for a Transport Depot, High Impact Industry (Compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Caretakers Accommodation and ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and woodchipping (more than 100,000t per year), ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 100,000t per year) located at 1944 Bruce Highway, Traveston Council issue a negotiated decision notice incorporating the following amendments: (i) acknowledge the following approved staging for the development: Stage 1A: Transport Depot, and High Impact Industry (compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Environmentally Relevant Activities: ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and wood chipping (more than 100,000t per year) and ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 200t per year) including a temporary office of approximately 30 m² GFA

STAGE 1B: Transport Depot, and High Impact Industry (compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies and Environmentally Relevant Activities: ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and wood chipping (more than 100,000t per year) and ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 200t per year) including a GFA of 1500m².

STAGE 2: Transport Depot, High Impact Industry (compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), Bulk Landscape Supplies, Caretaker’s Accommodation and Environmentally Relevant Activities: ERA 33 – Crushing, milling, grinding or screening (more than 5000t per year), ERA 47 – Timber milling and wood chipping (more than 100,000t per year) and ERA 53 – Composting and soil conditioner manufacturing (more than 200t per year) incorporating the balance of the approved development. (ii) Condition 4 to read:



Hours of operation for the proposed development shall be as follows: High impact industry (Compost manufacturing and organic waste processing), and Bulk landscape supplies: • Monday to Saturday: 6.00am - 7pm; • Sunday: Closed; Transport depot: • Monday to Saturday: 6.00am - 7pm • Sunday: Closed; The above hours of operation exclude access in the case of emergencies and noting that transport vehicles and plant may need to enter and leave the site all hours day and night depending on scheduling by applicant. However, this is subject to satisfying all noise requirements issued under the Environmental Authority Permit by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, in particular with respect to night time operations. (iii) Condition 10 to read: Infrastructure charges payable will be in accordance with the Infrastructure Charges Notice that has been issued for the development. The total cost of infrastructure contributions payable under the Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution is as follows:



Industry (Workshop, Office, Weighbridge)

Roads $47,755.80

TOTAL $47,755.80 but subject to indexation annually on 1 July. (iv) Condition 11 to read: A Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and in accordance with SC6.1.7.12 of the Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme 2013. The Landscape Plan shall address the following to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council: landscaping to be provided within and outside of the

development footprint on the site generally as shown on the approved plans;

denote areas of existing vegetation and/or existing trees proposed to be retained within and outside of the development footprint on the site; and

landscaped screening is to be provided from key road frontages to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development from the Bruce Highway and the surrounding road network.



(v) Condition 12 to read: A Landscape Management Plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person. A properly prepared Landscape Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Chief Executive Officer as part of the required Development Application for Operational Works. The Landscape Management Plan is to include the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 11 and proposals relating to the construction and ongoing management and maintenance of landscaping. It should be noted the landscaping works are to be completed in accordance with the approved landscape plans and that landscaping shall be maintained (watering, fertilising, mulching, weeding, and the like) at all times. (v) Condition 16 to read: The method of treatment of stormwater runoff from and through the site shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Infrastructure and Operational Work (excluding Advertising Device) Code. (An RPEQ to certify the plans submitted address the requirements of this condition).

Carried



5.6 Adoption of Minor Amendments for 2015/2016 Fees and Charges



AUTHOR: Manager Building and Plumbing Services - R Prout

DOC ID: LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 3. Governance - cohesive, responsible and transparent

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:

Nil

2. REPORT The required minor changes to the 2015/2015 Building Work, Schedule of Fees and Charges have been brought on by recent advice from Council’s Records Section and Information Communication Technology Branch (ICT). The proposed changes relate to the electronic archival lodgement of privately certified building approvals and electronic lodgement of building applications with Council’s Building Services Team. At present the upload limit for electronic documentations with InfoXpert is 1024MB or 1GB. However Records generally find that files of half this size will not upload. In this situation the Records Section does not have any other options available to cater for the uploading of larger electronic files. Also there is an issue with the overall usability of these files once uploaded, i.e. the larger the file, the more difficult it becomes to open due to ICT limitations. Further when uploading files which take longer than 30 minutes to complete the system simply times out. Given the above the Building Services Team needs to alter its fees and charges to reflect the maximum size for electronic documentation to 500MB. It is envisaged that this limitation will not create any issues for private building certifiers, as the average electronic lodgement at present is between 30MB – 50 MB.



The Building and Plumbing Services Branch has also been advised that as the connection speeds between Council offices is improved the timing out issue will be resolved. It should also be noted that InfoXpert is continually reviewing load limitations and if overtime it is identified that a need exists for an increase, then it is envisaged that InfoXpert will respond to customer requirements. Proposed Changes Page 115 under the heading Building Lodgment Fees the following two lines are proposed to be deleted from the schedule: Electronic Archival Lodgment – Council Certified – Class 1 & 10

only (for each individual Allotment) - Fee $143.99; Private Certifier Electronic Archival Lodgment – Any Building

Classification – file size exceeds 1GB (for each Individual Allotment – 1 application per lodgment) – Fee $143.00

Page 115 under the heading Building Lodgment Fees the following line is to be reworded i.e. file size 1GB is to be replaced with file sizes 500MB as follows: Private Certifier Electronic Archival Lodgment – Any Building

Classification – maximum file size 1GB (for each Individual Allotment – 1 application per lodgment) – Fee $143.00 To be replaced with:

Private Certifier Electronic Archival Lodgment – Any Building

Classification –maximum file size 500MB (for each Individual Allotment – 1 application per lodgment) – Fee $143.00

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no budget implications.

4. POLICY IMPLICATION:

Nil

5. CONSULTATION:

Manager - Information Communication Technology Branch; and Records Management Supervisor - Records Section.

6. CONCLUSION:

The proposed minor amendments to the 2015/2016 Schedule of Fees and Charges address a number of small technical issues with Council’s existing ICT systems.



The proposed changes will reduce confusion by council staff and the general public when using the document.

M23/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr R.A. Gâté That Council approves the following amendments to the 2015/2016 Schedule of Fees and Charges: 5.5 Building Work: The following two lines are deleted from the schedule on page 115 of the document: Electronic Archival Lodgment – Council Certified – Class 1 &

10 only (for each individual Allotment) - Fee $143.99; and Private Certifier Electronic Archival Lodgment – Any Building

Classification – file size exceeds 1GB (for each Individual Allotment – 1 application per lodgment) – Fee $143.00.

The following line is reworded: Private Certifier Electronic Archival Lodgment – Any Building

Classification – maximum file size 1GB (for each Individual Allotment – 1 application per lodgment) – Fee $143.00

To be replaced with:

Private Certifier Electronic Archival Lodgment – Any Building

Classification –maximum file size 500MB (for each Individual Allotment – 1 application per lodgment) – Fee $143.00

Carried



SECTION 6: SOCIAL WELLBEING

SECTION 7: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING The Meeting adjourned for morning tea at 9.49am. RESUMPTION OF MEETING The Meeting resumed at 10.10am.



SECTION 8: GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8.1 Operational Plan 2015-2016

PORTFOLIO: Governance and Economic Development


AUTHOR: Manager Corporate Governance - B Hayes


1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council adopted its Corporate Plan 2014-2019 on 6 August, 2014 via Minute M18/08/14. The corporate plan articulates a range of actions to be achieved across the 5-year period. These actions are progressed by undertaking the activities specified in Council’s annual operational plan.

2. REPORT Section 174 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Regulation) requires that Council adopt an annual operational plan for each financial year. The operational plan must be consistent with Council’s 5-year corporate plan. In addition, s175(1) of the Regulation requires as below:- The annual operational plan for a local government must— (a) be consistent with its annual budget; and (b) state how the local government will— (i) progress the implementation of the 5-year corporate plan during the period of the annual operational plan; and (ii) manage operational risks; and (c) include an annual performance plan for each commercial business unit of the local government. Given the annual expenditure threshold limits set for significant business activities under the Regulation, Council does not currently operate any commercial business units, hence the reporting requirements outlined in s175(1)(c) of the Regulation do not apply. Consistent with Council’s action based corporate plan approach, an operational plan has been developed for the 2015-2016 period that nominates a total of 97 activities all of which are tied directly back to the 31 actions identified in the corporate plan. These activities are



designed to further Council’s vision and key strategic objectives as detailed in the Corporate Plan 2014-2019. The Operational Plan 2015-2016 maintains a clear emphasis on tracking those activities uniquely linked to the corporate plan actions. A broad range of ‘business as usual’ activities are actioned and monitored on a regular basis via various management and reporting mechanisms. Relevant performance targets/measures and responsibilities have been assigned for each activity listed in the operational plan. Updates on progress being made with the implementation of the annual operational plan are reported to Council on a quarterly basis. The outcome of an annual review of the implementation of the operational plan is further presented to Council in accordance with the requirements of s104(5)(b)(iv) of the Local Government Act 2009. Details of the outcome of this review are also publicly reported within Council’s Annual Report.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The operational plan must be consistent with the annual budget.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Policy development and application should be in line with the strategic objectives set by Council’s corporate and operational plans.

5. CONSULTATION Office of the CEO All Directorates

6. CONCLUSION An annual operational plan has been prepared in accordance with all legislative requirements. The format and focus of the plan is strongly aimed at helping Council achieve its action based Corporate Plan 2014-2019. A range of activities linked directly to furthering the 31 actions specified in the corporate plan are included within the Operational Plan 2015-2016 together with associated performance targets. ATTACHMENTS 1. Gympie Regional Council Operational Plan 2015-2016

M24/06/15 Moved Cr M.A. McDonald Seconded Cr R.C. Currie That the Gympie Regional Council Operational Plan 2015-2016, as presented, be adopted.

Carried



8.2 Councillor Code of Conduct



AUTHOR: The Mayor - Cr M Curran

DOC ID: LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 3. Governance - cohesive, responsible and transparent Choose an item.

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Since its formation in 2008, Gympie Regional Council has operated without a formal Councillor Code of Conduct. While current legislation does not mandate that Council has such a code, it is appropriate for Council to reconsider its position on this matter.

2. REPORT With the migration from the prescriptive format of the Local Government Act 1993 to the principles based Local Government Act 2009 (Act), the legislative requirement for Queensland councils to adopt a formal Councillor Code of Conduct was removed. It was considered at the time of introducing the new legislation that the requirement for Councillors to observe the principles of the Act, and the responsibilities of Councillors as outlined in the legislation, removed the need for any mandatory Councillor Code of Conduct. The LGAQ further supported this view in the initial training it provided to Council when introducing the 2009 Act. Since that time, a majority of councils have voluntarily re-introduced a Councillor Code of Conduct to support their operational needs. A review of the councils adjoining Gympie has revealed that five out of six of those councils now have a Councillor Code of Conduct in place ie. Sunshine Coast, Noosa, Fraser Coast, South Burnett and Somerset Regional Councils. (North Burnett and Gympie currently do not have a Councillor Code of Conduct.) It is appropriate for Council to consider adopting a Councillor Code of Conduct to further publicly show its support for the intent of the Act in relation to the high ethical and behavioural standards expected of all Councillors.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS



4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The introduction of a Councillor Code of Conduct would further demonstrate Council's commitment to maintaining high ethical and behavioural standards which is implied in all policy matters.

5. CONSULTATION The Mayor CEO Manager Corporate Governance

6. CONCLUSION In line with the stance being taken by a majority of Queensland councils, the introduction of a Councillor Code of Conduct would prove complimentary to Council's existing Staff Code of Conduct in demonstrating Council's commitment to maintaining high ethical and behavioural standards across the entire organisation.

M25/06/15 Moved Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded Cr J.A. Walker That a Draft Councillor Code of Conduct be prepared and presented for Council's consideration at the next Ordinary Meeting.

Carried



8.3 June Report of the Audit and Risk Management Committee Meeting



AUTHOR: Chief Executive Officer - B Smith

DOC ID: LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 2. Economic development - vibrant, strong and resilient

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Local Government Regulation 2012, S211(c), requires that:

The audit committee of a local government must, as soon as practicable after a meeting of the committee, give the local government a written report about the matters reviewed and the committee’s recommendations about the matters.

The CEO must present the report at the next meeting of the local government.

2. REPORT The Audit and Risk Management Committee convened on Tuesday 9 June 2015. The following agenda items were discussed: Internal Audit Update A draft report on review of real estate assets has been completed and is currently being reviewed prior to being submitted to the next Audit and Risk Committee meeting. Financial Year 2015-2016 Internal Audit Plan Work will commence on the next two audits being Plant and Asset Management. The Committee endorsed the Internal Audit Plan for 2015/2016. CEO Update An update was provided in relation to business planning across Council and raising the awareness of the risks that each business unit faces and of the Strategic Risk Register. Corporate and Community Services Update The interim management letter from the Queensland Audit Office was discussed in conjunction with a status report in relation to the various projects being undertaken across Council requiring ICT support. Examples include CRM/NAR project and Authority to InfoXpert



Interface. A detailed report on these projects will be provided at the workshop of 8 July. Recently Adopted Policies Policies adopted by Council were discussed as was the list of policies yet to be adopted. Strategic Risk Register The Strategic Risk Register was provided for consideration and will be presented to the Committee twice a year. Risk Management Plan The redrafted Risk Management Plan was presented for consideration. Other Business Date of the next Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting is set for 15 September 2015.



5. CONSULTATION Audit and Risk Management Committee

6. CONCLUSION The Audit and Risk Management Committee continues to deal with relevant matters as identified above in accordance with its Charter.

M26/06/15 Moved Cr I.T. Petersen Seconded Cr R.C. Currie That the report from the Audit and Risk Management Committee on 9 June 2015 meeting be received.

Carried



8.4 May 2015 Monthly Financial Report


DIRECTORATE: Corporate and Community Services

AUTHOR: Finance Manager - C Swift


1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Council’s monthly financial statements for the period ending 31 May 2015 are provided for Council’s information. Council, at its meeting of 13 May 2015 endorsed the amendments to the 2014/15 Annual Budget, as presented within the report titled ‘2014/15 Budget – Third Budget Review’ (Council Minute No. M17/05/15). The May 2015 financial statements provide a comparison of actual results to the amended budget (Third Budget Amendment).

2. REPORT The Statement of Financial Position as at 31 May 2015 compares Council’s Assets, Liabilities and Community Equity position to the previous financial year, for the same period, being May 2014. This comparison shows Council’s Net Assets have increased by $19.3 million. The Operating Statement by Directorate (Whole of Council) as at 31 May 2015 shows a positive operating result of $13.3m that is 67% ($5.3M) above the amended budget forecast. The operating result consists of operating revenue that is $1.1M (1.5%) higher than year to date budget while operating expenses are $4.1M (5.8%) below year to date budget. Based on the third budget amendment, the end of year position is in surplus. The Investment Report as at 31 May 2015 compares Council’s invested funds to the previous financial year. This comparison shows Council has $90.6M invested, compared with $99M at this time last financial year, with the majority of funds held with the Queensland Treasury Corporation and receiving an interest rate return of 3.02%.



The Rate Collection Report as at 31 May 2015 compares Council’s rate collection to the previous financial year (May 2014). The level of rates arrears is 12.3%, compared with 13.2% for the same period last year. The Capital Budget Year to Date Report (by Directorate and by Asset Type) and the associated graphs show that as at 31 May 2015 $36.4M (64.8%) of Council’s capital works program was financially expended.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Budget allocations set at the commencement of the budget year may change as a result of variances occurring throughout the year. Council has adopted the amendments to the 2014/15 Annual Budget, as presented within the report titled ‘2014/15 Budget – Third Budget Review’ (Council Minute No. M17/05/15). No further budget amendments are planned for the 2014/15 financial year.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Monthly management reporting and quarterly forecasts are in line with Council policy and the Local Government Act 2009.

5. CONSULTATION Consultation has occurred with all Managers, Directors and the Chief Executive Officer.

6. CONCLUSION Council’s financial statements for the period ending 31 May 2015 provide a comparison of actual results to the third budget amendment, as adopted by Council (Council Minute No. M17/05/15). ATTACHMENTS 1. May 2015 - Monthly Financial Reports

M27/06/15 Moved Cr R.C. Currie Seconded Cr M.A. McDonald That the financial statements (as attached) for the period ended 31 May 2015, be approved.

Carried



SECTION 9: INFRASTRUCTURE 9.1 RFT 2014-2015 T025 Coonoongibber Creek Road Bridge

Replacement

PORTFOLIO: Infrastructure

DIRECTORATE: Engineering Services

AUTHOR: Project Manager - R Tebbutt

DOC ID: LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 1. Infrastructure - planned, connected and safe

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Tender 2014-2015 T025 consists of the replacement of the existing timber bridge over Araucaria Creek with a reinforced concrete bridge on Coonoongibber Creek Road in Brooloo, Queensland. Tender advertisements occurred on Saturday 2 May 2015 in The Gympie Times, and QCPC e-Tender website.

2. REPORT Public Tenders for: RFT 2014-2015 Coonoongibber Creek Road Bridge Replacement closed at 11:00am on Wednesday 27 May 2015. Tenders were received as follows:

Tenderer Totals as submitted

BSA Constructions Pty Ltd (ALTERNATIVE TENDER) $702,889.00

Pentacon Pty Ltd $712,513.30

PJM Civil Contractors Pty Ltd $768,221.06

Kathrea Group Pty Ltd $769,756.62

Department of Transport & Main Roads t/a Roadtek

$840,209.00

BSA Constructions Pty Ltd $866,813.35

Birt Enterprises Pty Ltd $893,105.40

ARK Construction Group Pty Ltd $911,240.00



Tenderer Totals as submitted

IDC Contracting Pty Ltd $934,470.36

Sunshine Coast Consulting Pty Ltd $962,759.11

Hutchinson Builders Pty Ltd $968,929.50

St Hilliers Property Pty Ltd $1,007,655.00

Albem Operations Pty Ltd $1,016,224.38

Davbridge Properties Pty Ltd t/a Davbridge Constructions $1,095,833.20

Civcorp Pty Ltd $1,502,957.86

All amounts are inclusive of GST Of the fifteen (15) tenders received, the three (3) lowest conforming tenders, being:

Name of Tenderer Submitted Tender Amount

Corrected Tender Amount

Pentacon Pty Ltd $712,513.30 $713,130.40

PJM Civil Contractors Pty Ltd $768,221.06 $746,168.26

Kathrea Group Pty Ltd $769,756.62 $735,025.03

were evaluated on non-price and price criteria in accordance with the Conditions of Tendering. The alternative tender from BSA Constructions Pty Ltd departed significantly from the conforming design, replacing cast-in-place piles with screw pile and the TMR style deck units with an alternative hollow core style deck. For the minor saving (approx.. $10,000), the alternative tender is considered to provide insufficient benefits to justify departing from the tried, true and reliable conforming design. The tender from Pentacon requires a correction due to an addition error, however the amount does not impact on the tender order. The Pentacon tender is the lowest tender and the higher tenders do not offer any advantages for the extra cost.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The conforming tenders all fall within the Capital Works Budget allocation for this project.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS No policy implications.



5. CONSULTATION The Tender Assessment Panel consisted of:

Position Person Organisation / Role

Panel Chairman Mr Rod Tebbutt Manager – Special Projects

Panel Member Mr Lawry O’Brien General Manager – Design Services

6. CONCLUSION The tender assessment identified Pentacon Pty Ltd as the preferred tenderer. Pentacon Pty Ltd are not only the lowest conforming tender but have previous experience with Gympie Regional Council successfully completing the flood resilience improvement works on Drummond Drive and Penny Road (Contract 2013-2014 T016 ) in 2014.

M28/06/15 Moved Cr L Friske Seconded Cr J.A. Walker That council accept the tender received from Pentacon Pty Ltd for the amount of $713,130.40 (corrected) inclusive of GST for Tender 2014-2015 T025 for the replacement of the existing timber bridge over Araucaria Creek reinforced concrete bridge on Coonoongibber Creek Road in Brooloo, Queensland.

Carried



9.2 Sewering Southside

PORTFOLIO: Infrastructure

DIRECTORATE: Engineering Services

AUTHOR: General Manager Water & Sewerage - I Schiefelbein

DOC ID: LINKS TO CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC THEMES: 1. Infrastructure - planned, connected and safe Choose an item.

1. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This report details plans regarding the sewering of the remainder of the urban properties in Southside. Council has previously resolved to develop a program for the rollout of sewers and house connections. Minute M28/04/15 refers.

2. REPORT An evaluation of the extent of work required to provide sewerage to urban type properties in Southside has been completed. Preliminary estimates of costs have been developed for providing sewerage to properties in Southside in line with Council’s revised policy. These costs now include allowances for internal house drainage lines which will become the property of the home owner. The preliminary cost estimate to complete all of the works including internal house drainage is approximately $13,000,000 made us as follows:- Prelim. Est. No of Properties Serviced Areas outside of existing sewered catchments $6,690,000 360 Fully developed catchment areas $3,570,000 180 Partly developed catchment areas with potential for subdivision $2,740,000 80 A program has been developed based upon an expenditure in the order of $1M per annum and an evaluation of a number of criteria including the following:- (a) Cost effectiveness (b) Orderly progress of the provision of sewerage (c) Age and type of on-site sewerage system currently being utilised



(d) Environmental issues (e) Location and extent of future works that pass through future potential

subdivisions The program is summarised below and shown diagrammatically in the attached plan:- Area Preliminary Estimate Year Davey Road, Copp Road $1,070,000 2015/2016

Langara Drive, Jasmine Ave, Kimberley Ave, Cox Road, David Court, Gardenia Court, Veronica Road, Heritage Lane $1,140,000 2016/2017

Lasiandra Drive, Bethany Court, McIntosh Creek Road $1,080,000 2017/2018

Acacia Circle, Emerald Drive (Part), Normandy Hill Road $1,000,000 2018/2019

Emerald Drive (Remainder) $1,100,000 2019/2020

Opal Street $1,000,000 2020/2021

Katrina Court, Topaz Court, Deakin Court (Part) $1,000,000 2021/2022

Deakin Court (Remainder) $1,050,000 2022/2023

Daphne Road, Koala Court $1,189,000 2023/2024

Mary Valley Road, Carbeen Ct $900,000 2024/2025

Moreland Road, Corbet Road, Stumm Road $510,000 2025/2026

During the implementation of this program, it is expected that the subdivision affected areas that are not included in the above program, would be serviced as part of the adjacent subdivision at the development stage. An allowance of say $200,000 per annum would enable these areas to be connected progressively over the next 10 years. Areas which are catchment affected could be connected as necessary as development proceeded or would be done at the end of the program, as programmed. Provision of sewerage to the Eel Creek Road area has been made for Daphne Road and Koala Court in say 2023/2024 as a temporary system. The actual timing of future subdivisional development in the area may affect the program for connection of these catchments and the extent of work provided. It should be noted that this program is based upon preliminary designs and that minor changes to catchment boundaries are possible.

3. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Impacts on all Budgets from 2015/2016 up to 2025/2026.




5. CONSULTATION Internal

6. CONCLUSION A plan for the logical progression of sewerage to existing Southside urban unsewered lots has been developed. This plan can be utilised to inform the public and to inform the Budget for the life of the scheme. ATTACHMENTS 1. Southside Sewerage

M29/06/15 Moved Cr W.R. Leitch Seconded Cr R.A. Gâté That Council adopts the proposed program for sewering of the remainder of the urban properties in Southside as per attached plan.

Carried



SECTION 10: MAJOR PROJECTS AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

SECTION 11: WASTE MANAGEMENT

SECTION 12: TOURISM AND MARY VALLEY

12.1 Mayoral Matter – Postal Vote Infringements

M30/06/15 Moved Cr M.W. Curran Seconded Cr I.T. Petersen That Council resolves that the Mayor corresponds with the Deputy Premier asking her to give consideration to waiving all penalties imposed upon residents who have been identified as failing to lodge a postal vote in the 2015 Gympie Mayoral By Election

Carried

SECTION 13: GENERAL BUSINESS

13.1 Leave of Absence – Cr McDonald

M31/06/15 Moved Cr R.A. Gâté Seconded Cr R.C. Currie That Cr McDonald be granted leave of absence from all Council meetings from Thursday 30 July 2015 to Monday 10 August 2015

Carried



SECTION 14: ATTACHMENTS

5.2 Adoption of Revised Infrastructure Charges Resolution for the 2015-2016 Financial Year Attachment 1 Revised Adopted Charges Resolution

June 2015 ....................................................... 95

8.1 Operational Plan 2015-2016 Attachment 1 Gympie Regional Council Operational

Plan 2015-2016 ............................................ 111

8.4 May 2015 Monthly Financial Report Attachment 1 May 2015 - Monthly Financial Reports ......... 142

9.2 Sewering Southside Attachment 1 Southside Sewerage .................................... 155

There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.02am

Confirmed this FIFTEENTH day of JULY 2015

________________________ Cr M.W. Curran

CHAIRMAN

Ordinary Meeting Minutes 24 June 2015 95 Item 5.2 Adoption of Revised Infrastructure Charges Resolution for the 2015-2016 Financial Year Attachment 1 Revised Adopted Charges Resolution June 2015


Gympie Regional Council Infrastructure Charges Resolution – 30 June 2015

(1) Application to local government area

The Infrastructure Charges Resolution applies to the entire Gympie Regional Local Government area.

(2) When resolution has effect

This resolution is made under s648D of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and has effect on and from 1 July 2015.

(3) Interpretation A term used in this resolution has the meaning assigned to that term in one of the following:

a. the Act and associated regulations; b. the Queensland Planning Provisions (version 3) or as amended; c. the dictionary in Schedule 1; d. the Macquarie Dictionary.

In the event a term has been assigned a meaning in more than one of the instruments listed, the meaning contained in the instrument highest on the list will prevail.

(4) Trunk infrastructure

Trunk infrastructure is defined by the items stated in the Table 4.20 of Planning Scheme, excluding stormwater.

(5) Priority infrastructure area

The priority infrastructure area for Gympie Regional Council is identified in the Gympie Regional Council Planning Scheme.

(6) Comparison of planning scheme use categories and SPRP charge categories

To assist in applying the adopted infrastructure charges schedule in schedule 1 of the State planning regulatory provision (adopted charges) 2012, Table 1 provides a guide to the uses under the planning scheme that come within the uses mentioned in column 2 of the adopted infrastructure charges schedule.



Table 1 - Planning scheme use categories and adopted charge categories

Adopted infrastructure charge category

Planning scheme use category

Residential caretaker’s accommodation, dual occupancy, dwelling house, multiple dwelling

Accommodation (short term)

hotel, short-term accommodation, tourist park

Accommodation (long term) community residence, hostel, relocatable home park, retirement facility

Places of assembly club, community use, function facility, funeral parlour, place of worship

Commercial (bulk goods) agricultural supplies store, bulk landscape supplies, garden centre, hardware and trade supplies, outdoor sales, showroom

Commercial (retail) adult store, food and drink outlet, service industry, service station, shop, shopping centre

Commercial (office) office, sales office

Education facility child care centre, community care centre, educational establishment

Entertainment hotel (non-residential component), nightclub, theatre

Indoor Sport and Recreational Facility

indoor sport and recreation

Industry low impact industry, medium impact industry, rural industry, transport depot, warehouse, waterfront and marine industry

High impact industry high impact industry, noxious and hazardous

industries Low impact rural animal husbandry, cropping, permanent

plantations, wind farm High impact rural aquaculture, intensive animal industries, intensive horticulture, wholesale nursery, winery

Essential services emergency services, health care services, hospital, residential care facility, veterinary services

Specialised uses air services, animal keeping, car park, crematorium, extractive industry, major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, motor sport, outdoor sport and recreation, port services, tourist attraction, utility installation

Minor uses advertising device, home based business, landing, market, park, roadside stalls, telecommunications facility, temporary use

Other uses A use not otherwise listed in column 2, including a use that is unknown because the development application does not specify a proposed use.



(7) Application of the levied charge

The types of development that may trigger the levying of an adopted infrastructure charge under this adopted infrastructure charges resolution are - a. Reconfiguring a lot; and b. Material change of use of premises. Where the development is not required to be connected to the water network or sewerage network, the adopted charge for the development is to be reduced by the relevant proportion of the adopted infrastructure charge allocated to the water network or sewerage network as shown below in Table 4 and 5. (8) Adopted infrastructure charge for reconfiguring a lot

The adopted infrastructure charge for reconfiguring a lot is the amount stated in Table 2 less any credit identified in section 10 below.

Table 2 Adopted Infrastructure Charge - Reconfiguring a Lot

Type of lot Location Adopted Infrastructure Charge

Residential Gympie and surrounds, Cooloola Cove, Rainbow Beach and Tin Can Bay

$16,979.00

Goomeri, Imbil and Kilkivan $10,612.00

Rural Residential $14,856.00

Rural $9,550.00

Township $4,244.00

Industry Gympie and surrounds, Cooloola Cove, Rainbow Beach and Tin Can Bay

$13,265.00


District Centre and Local Centre

Gympie and surrounds, Cooloola Cove, Rainbow Beach and Tin Can Bay

$18,571.00


Specialised Centre (Monkland Showroom Precinct)

$13,265.00

Specialised centre (Gympie Medical Precinct)

$16,979.00

Other To be determined by Council

at the time of assessment



(9) Adopted infrastructure charges - Material Change of Use The adopted infrastructure charge for material change of use is the amount stated in Table 3 less any credit identified in section 10 below.

Table 3 Adopted Infrastructure Charge – Material Change of Use

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3


Use Adopted Infrastructure Charges

Residential Caretaker’s accommodation Dual occupancy Dwelling house Multiple dwelling

$10,612.00 per 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling or

$12,734.00 per 3 or more bedroom dwelling.

Accommodation (short term)

Hotel Short-term accommodation Tourist park

For a tent or caravan site in a tourist park $1,061.00 per tent or caravan site.

For a cabin in a tourist park or dwelling in short-term accommodation $5,306.00 per dwelling unit.

For a suite, whether self-contained or not in short-term accommodation or a hotel $2,653.00 per suite. Accommodation

(long term) Community residence Hostel Relocatable home park Retirement facility

$7,959.00 per dwelling unit or relocatable dwelling site in a relocatable home park or retirement facility

$2,653.00 per suite in a hostel or community residence.

Places of Assembly Club Community use Function facility Funeral parlour Place of worship

Club or community use – nil charge

Other uses – $37.10 per m2 of GFA

Commercial (bulk goods)

Agricultural supplies store Bulk landscape supplies Garden centre Hardware and trade supplies Outdoor sales Showroom

$74.25 per m2 of GFA

Commercial (retail) Adult store Food and drink outlet Service industry Service station Shop Shopping centre

$95.50 per m2 of GFA






Commercial (office)

• Office • Sales office

• $74.25 per m2 of GFA

Education facility • Childcare centre • Community care centre • Educational establishment

• Nil charge

Entertainment • Hotel (non- residential component) • Nightclub • Theatre


Indoor sport and recreational facility

• Indoor sport and recreation

• $106.10 per m2 of GFA, court areas at • $10.60 per m2 of GFA

Industry • Low impact industry • Medium impact industry • Rural industry • Transport depot • Warehouse • Waterfront and marine industry


High impact industry • High impact industry • Noxious and hazardous industry


Low impact rural • Animal husbandry • Cropping • Permanent plantations • Wind farm

• Nil charge

High impact rural • Aquaculture • Intensive animal industry • Intensive horticulture • Wholesale nursery • Winery


Essential services • Emergency services • Health care services • Hospital • Residential care facility • Veterinary services

• Emergency services, hospital or residential care facility – nil charge • Other uses – $74.25 per m2 of GFA






Specialised uses • Air services • Animal keeping • Car park • Crematorium • Extractive industry • Major sport, recreation and entertainment facility • Motor sport • Outdoor sport and recreation • Port services • Tourist attraction • Utility installation

• The maximum adopted charge is the charge that the local government decides should apply for the use at the time of assessment.

Minor uses • Advertising device • Home based business • Landing • Market • Park • Roadside stalls • Telecommunications facility • Temporary use

• Nil charge

Other uses • A use not otherwise listed in column 2, including a use that is unknown because the development application does not specify a proposed use.

• The maximum adopted charge is the charge (in column 3) for the charge category (in column 1) that the local government decides should apply for the use at the time of assessment.

(10) Credits The credit for the premises is calculated as an amount which is the greater of the following: a. The amount of a previous adopted infrastructure charge paid for the development of the premises; b. Where an applicant can provide evidence of a previous financial contribution paid for trunk infrastructure for the premises, the amount of the financial contribution paid; c. Where the premises are subject to an existing lawful use, or a previous lawful use that is no longer taking place, or other development on the premises that may be lawfully carried out without the need for a further development permit, the amount stated for an adopted charge: i. For Reconfiguring a Lot - Table 2; and ii. For Material Change of Use – Table 3. This allows the charge to be credited to take into account the existing usage of trunk infrastructure by the premises on the subject site. So that there can be no doubt, where a credit exceeds the value of an adopted charge no refund will be paid by Council.



Where the water network or sewerage network is not available in the area of the proposed development, the credit for the development is to be reduced by the relevant proportion of the adopted infrastructure charge allocated to the water network or sewerage network as shown below in Table 4 and 5.



Table 4 Proportion of adopted infrastructure charge allocated to each network for Material Change of Use


Network Proportion of the adopted infrastructure charge Residential Park 10%

Roads 30% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Accommodation (short term Park 10% Roads 30% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Accommodation (long term) Park 10% Roads 30% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Places of assembly (club and community use)

Nil

Places of assembly (excluding club and community use)


Commercial (bulky goods) Roads 50% Water Supply 25% Sewerage System 25%

Commercial (retail) Roads 40% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Commercial (office) Roads 40% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Education facility Nil

Entertainment Roads 40% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Indoor sport and recreational facility Roads 40% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Industry Roads 50% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 20%

High impact industry Roads 50% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 20%

Low impact rural Nil

High impact rural Roads 60% Water Supply 20% Sewerage System 20%

Essential services (excluding health care Roads Nil Water Supply




Network Proportion of the adopted infrastructure charge services and veterinary services) Sewerage System

Essential services (health care services and veterinary services)


Specialised uses Roads To be determined by Council at the time of assessment

Water Supply Sewerage System

Minor uses Nil Other uses Park To be determined by

Council at the time of assessment

Roads Water Supply Sewerage System

Table 5 Proportion of adopted infrastructure charge allocated to each network for Reconfiguring a Lot Type of lot Network Proportion of the

adopted infrastructure charge

Residential Park 10% Roads 30% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Rural Residential Park 10% Roads 90%

Rural Roads 100% Township Park 10%

Roads 50% Water Supply 40%

Industry Roads 50% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 20%

District centre and local centre Roads 40% Water Supply 30% Sewerage System 30%

Specialised centre (Monkland Showroom Precinct)


Specialised centre (Gympie Medical Precinct)


Other Park To be determined by Council at the time of assessment

Roads Water Supply Sewerage System



(11) Offsets and refunds One of the following apply if an applicant is conditioned by the Council to provide a Trunk Infrastructure Contribution which services or is planned to service premises other than premises the subject of the relevant approval and an levied charge applies to the development the subject of the relevant approval:

a. An offset – where the establishment cost for the Trunk Infrastructure Contribution is equal to or less than the levied charge; or

b. A refund – where the establishment cost for the Trunk Infrastructure Contribution is more than the levied charge. The ICN will include the establishment cost of the Trunk Infrastructure Contribution the subject of the offset. An applicant may apply, in writing, to the Council to have the establishment cost re-calculated in accordance with the process outlined in Schedule 2: Method for re-calculating establishment cost (Land Contribution) and Schedule 3: Method for re-calculating establishment cost (Work Contribution). The offset to the value of the establishment cost will be applied to the levied charge. The refund will be equal to the difference between the establishment cost of the trunk infrastructure contribution and the levied charge. (12) Conversion criteria This section applies where:

a. A development approval requires the construction of non-trunk infrastructure; and b. The construction of the non-trunk infrastructure has not commenced. An applicant may apply, in writing, to the Council to have non-trunk infrastructure converted to trunk infrastructure and eligible for an offset. The Council will consider the application, and may request further information, based on the following criteria. All criteria must be met for a conversion application to be approved and the Council will give the applicant notice of the decision. The infrastructure:

a. Has capacity to service multiple other developments in the area; and

b. Services development which is consistent with the planning assumptions in the Planning Scheme; and

c. Services development completely inside the priority infrastructure area; and

d. Is owned or is to be owned by the Council; and

e. Is not temporary infrastructure or sacrificial works to be superseded by an ultimate solution; and

f. The function and purpose of the infrastructure is consistent with other trunk infrastructure identified in Table 4.20 and the plans for trunk infrastructure shown in the Planning Scheme, excluding stormwater; and

g. The infrastructure would meet the desired standards of service in the Planning Scheme; and

h. The infrastructure is not consistent with non-trunk infrastructure for which conditions may be imposed in accordance with section 665 of the Act; and

i. The type, size and location of the infrastructure is the most cost effective option (based on the life cycle cost of the infrastructure to service future urban development in the area at the desired standard of service) for servicing multiple users in the area; and

j. The infrastructure could have been planned by the Council without knowing the detailed



layout of lot reconfigurations or the design details for material change of use applications in the area.



(13) Indexing adopted infrastructure charges The adopted charge for all development will be increased from the date of the ICN to the date of payment and in line with the PPI index. Schedule 1: Dictionary

“Act” means the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and all subordinate legislation made under that Act. “Bedroom” means a habitable room that:

a. is of sufficient floor area to accommodate the placement and use of a standard single bed; and b. incorporates the level of privacy normally associated with private sleeping accommodation. c. However, the term does not include multipurpose spaces such as family rooms, living rooms or similar, or any other room that is only likely to be used on an infrequent basis or by a short term visitor to the premises. “PPI Index” means the 3 year moving average quarterly average Producer Price Index for construction (6247.0 – index number 3101) available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Schedule 2: Method for re-calculating establishment cost (Land Contribution)

The following methodology will be followed when recalculating the value of a Land Contribution:

(1) The establishment cost of trunk infrastructure that is land must be determined using the before and after method for estimating the current market value of land (the before and after method of valuation). The before and after method of valuation must be given effect through the following procedural requirements:

a. The applicant, at their own cost, must provide to the Council a valuation of the specified land undertaken by a certified practicing valuer using the before and after method of valuation (the valuation).

b. The Council may accept the valuation.

c. If the Council accepts the valuation, the valuation is the establishment cost of the infrastructure.

d. If the Council does not accept the valuation provided by the applicant, it must, at its own cost, have a valuation undertaken by a certified practicing valuer.

e. If the Council rejected the valuation provided by the applicant, it must provide written notice to the applicant and propose a new valuation and its reasons for doing so.

f. Where a written notice of the Council’s proposed valuation has been given, the applicant may negotiate and agree with the Council regarding a valuation. The agreed valuation is the establishment cost of the infrastructure.

g. If agreement cannot be reached, the Council must have a valuation undertaken by an independent, certified practicing valuer to assess the market value of the specified land.

The independent, certified practicing valuer is to be appointed by the Council, in its discretion, in consultation with the applicant. The Council will request the applicant provide two valuers for the



Council’s consideration. The cost of this independent assessment is to be equally shared between the Council and the applicant. The amended valuation determined by the independent certified practicing valuer is the establishment cost of the infrastructure.

h. The Council must give an amended ICN to the applicant stating: i. the value of the establishment cost of the infrastructure which has been indexed to the date it is stated in the amended ICN using the land value index. ii. that the establishment cost of the infrastructure stated in the amended ICN is indexed from the date that it is stated in the amended ICN to the date it is to be offset against the levied charge in accordance with the land value index. (2) The specific inclusions for determining the establishment cost of the land component of an infrastructure contribution are limited to the value of the land. (3) The specific exclusions for determining the establishment cost of the land component of an infrastructure item are: a. Registration fees; b. Stamp Duty; c. Goods and Services Tax; d. Costs associated with the preparation of a survey plan; and e. Legal fees associated with preparing a registration documents.

Schedule 3: Method for re-calculating establishment cost (Work Contribution)

(1) The following methodology will be followed when recalculating the value of a Work Contribution:

a. The Council must provide to the applicant the scope of works including the standard to which the trunk infrastructure is to be provided and the location of the trunk infrastructure (the scope of works).

b. The applicant must, at their cost, provide to the Council:

i. a bill of quantities for the design, construction and commissioning of the trunk infrastructure in accordance with the scope of works (the bill of quantities).

ii. a first principles estimate prepared by a qualified and registered Quantity Surveyor or RPEQ for the cost of designing, constructing and commissioning the trunk infrastructure specified in the bill of quantities (the cost estimate).

c. The Council may accept the bill of quantities and cost estimate provided by the applicant.

d. The Council may negotiate with the applicant prior to accepting the bill of quantities and cost estimate provided by the applicant.

e. If the Council accepts the bill of quantities and the cost estimate, the cost estimate is the establishment cost of the infrastructure.

f. If the Council does not accept the bill of quantities and cost estimate provided by the applicant it must, at its cost, have an assessment undertaken by an appropriately qualified person to:

i. determine whether the bill of quantities is in accordance with the scope of works;

ii. determine whether the cost estimate is consistent with current market costs calculated by applying a first principles estimating approach to the bill of quantities; and

iii. provide a new cost estimate using a first principles estimating approach.



g. If the Council rejected the bill of quantities and the cost estimate provided by the applicant, it must provide written notice to the applicant and propose the new bill of quantities and cost estimate and its reasons for doing so.

h. Where a written notice of the Council’s proposed bill of quantities and cost estimate has been given, the applicant may negotiate and agree with the Council regarding a cost estimate. The agreed cost estimate is the establishment cost of the infrastructure.

i. If agreement cannot be reached, the Council must refer the bill of quantities and the cost estimate to an independent, suitably qualified person (the independent assessor) to:

i. assess whether the bill of quantities is in accordance with the scope of works;

ii. assess whether the cost estimate is consistent with current market costs calculated by applying a first principles estimating approach to the bill of quantities; and

iii. provide an amended cost estimate using a first principles estimating approach. The independent assessor is to be appointed by the Council, at its discretion, in consultation with the applicant. The cost of this independent assessment is to be equally shared between the Council and the applicant. The amended cost estimate determined by the independent assessor is the establishment cost of the infrastructure.

j. The Council must give an amended ICN to the applicant stating:

i. the value of the establishment cost of the infrastructure which has been indexed to the date it is stated in the amended ICN using the Producer Price Index – Road and bridge construction index for Queensland.

ii. that the establishment cost of the infrastructure stated in the amended ICN is indexed from the date that it is stated in the amended ICN to the date it is to be offset against the levied charge in accordance with the Producer Price Index – Road and bridge construction index for Queensland.

(2) The specific inclusions for determining the value of the work component (works contribution) of an infrastructure contribution are:

a. Limited to the construction of the trunk infrastructure to the standard of the network provider, without any associated works;

b. the cost of pre-construction and construction period professional services including planning, survey, geotechnical investigations, design, project management, contract administration and environmental. The maximum allowance for the professional services shall be:

Planning 2%

Survey 2%

Geotechnical Investigation 2%

Design 8%

Project management and contract administration 6%

Environmental 1%

c. any cost under a construction contract (excluding for latent conditions, provisional items and sums) for the work not covered by any of the other inclusions listed herein;

d. contingency of no more than 10% of the value of the supply and installation/construction components of the works;

e. a portable long service leave payment for a construction contract;



f. any insurance premium for the work;; and

g. the cost of the development or compliance approvals for the work.

(3) The specific exclusions for determining the value of the work component of an infrastructure item are:

a. Professional fees not associated with planning, survey, geotechnical investigations, design, project management, contract administration and environmental studies;

b. the cost of carrying out any necessary temporary infrastructure;

c. the cost of carrying out any other infrastructure which is not part of the required trunk infrastructure item;

d. the cost of the decommissioning, removal and rehabilitation of infrastructure identified in (a) and (b);

e. any part of the required Trunk Infrastructure Contribution provided at no cost to the claimant;

f. the GST component of the costs for the required trunk infrastructure item if an input tax credit can be claimed for the work.

Ordinary Meeting Minutes 24 June 2015 111 Item 8.1 Operational Plan 2015-2016 Attachment 1 Gympie Regional Council Operational Plan 2015-2016


Ordinary Meeting Minutes 24 June 2015 142 Item 8.4 May 2015 Monthly Financial Report Attachment 1 May 2015 - Monthly Financial Reports


Ordinary Meeting Minutes 24 June 2015 155 Item 9.2 Sewering Southside Attachment 1 Southside Sewerage


minutes ordinary meeting - gympie council · 6/24/2015 · minutes. of the . ordinary meeting....

Documents