Sue Brooks’ Blog

sue November 30th, 2008

If it wasn’t so destructive, and counter productive to attracting investment to our region, I might find the comments relating to a dysfunctional Council amusing. Recent letters to the editor, and articles within the Chronicle, seem to imply that the FCRC is dysfunctional. Can I ask the writers on what evidence they base these claims? Amalgamation has been a challenge for all concerned but this Council, in my opinion, has risen to the challenge.

Maybe the writers are alluding to the fact that Councillors don’t always agree with each other. I hate to think how boring and dysfunctional Council would become if all Councillors agreed on everything all of the time. Councillors all have a variety of opinions which hopefully reflect the community ‘variety of opinion’. Councillors must have the freedom to debate and make decisions based on the evidence presented to them. Then we vote. The majority vote wins! How simple, functional and democratic is that!

• Council related issues
• Comments(4)

sue November 29th, 2008

 Will it ever end! I raise a few questions in answer to recent criticism about the decision by FTA to withdraw their application and the accompanying finger pointing and blame game that seems to have erupted.

 Noise - To put it simply. To my knowledge when an airport owner decides knowingly to dramatically increase flights the ANEF contours around the airport move outwards. http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/expanding/app_a.aspx

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aviationenvironment/noise/anef_anei.asp

These contours are a line drawn around an airport within which houses are not allowed or desired. What do you think happens when an airport owner decides to go ahead and increase the use of its airport and houses that were outside the contour now end up within it?  Please make your own enquiries as to the legal position of these residents that now find, through no fault of their own, that they are within a contour.

Economics - Does anyone truly believe that the economic return to a community is justified if the entire community has to suffer a considerable increase in rates to pay for the economic benefit of a few? Yes I know money circulates widely around a community but I am very unsure that the figures touted by FTA are anywhere close to what the real benefit to OUR community would be.

Insurance - If you can find anyone anywhere that would insure an organisation when it wants to do something, that it has been legally advised not to do, please let me know! In relation to noise insurance. I am all ears as to how anyone can insure against airport caused noise. From my knowledge there is no such insurance available anywhere.

Council process - In relation to the flying school. Council decided on a process post amalgamation. The resolution was carried unanimously and is on public record. No Councillor has tried to change this at any time since it was resolved. Council officers, including the CEO, were following instructions of Council. Flight Training has never, ever asked me if I support or don’t support their proposal. So how is it that Councillors are being targetted with the ‘don’t support it’ brush? When have Councillors voted for or against it? The answer is ….Never.

I am so sad that the print media and some business and community leaders, including both our Chambers of Commerce executives, have been blaming Council for the departure of this project. If we all keep speculating and blaming each other we just perpetuate the notion that the Fraser Coast is not a good place to do business. Is this what we really want? Do we want to drive a wedge between two cities that are absolutely wonderful places to live and visit? I am sure that we are in for a bumpy ride economically speaking, but does that mean we turn against each other instead of helping each other?

No city or town is currently using any Council monies to build any projects that was funded by any other Council prior amalgamation. In other words this year each area is receiving monies spent on projects that had already been earmarked by the previous Council. The waterpark is primarily State funded and all Councillors from everywhere, accept myself, voted in favour of this project going ahead! No city or town is currently benefitting at the expense of any other city or town within the FCRC area.

Please ask for some public disclosure and factual information about the FTA proposal before beying for blood! Let’s stick to facts and not rumour and inuendo. We live in such a wonderful place and we should be doing our best to reinforce that fact and not detract from it.

• Council related issues
• Comments(5)

sue November 21st, 2008

So the blame game continues in the paper today. It seems no one at the Chronicle wants my opinion however! I have however received some emails with these questions. “Why didn’t Council make it very clear to the residents of Hervey Bay that the proposed training school would be based in Maryborough but the flights i.e. takeoff and landings, would be occurring at Hervey Bay airport”?

My second question is “Who is going to pay for the security/emergency system that will have to be put into place if this school does go ahead”. (I will have to check the commercial in confidence status of this info before I respond directly to this question)

My response, personal comment as always. As a member of the Hervey Bay City Council I was under the impression that the school would build at Maryborough and the flight training would occur there. I thought that Hervey Bay may benefit from some economic returns as a result of the school but I did not expect a great increase in flying activity at the Hervey Bay airport. In other words I was not informed of the details of the proposed school although I understand our Mayor did have some knowledge as he had visited the Parafiled Airport and was involved in discussions with the then Maryborough Mayor. No formal report was presented to HBCC as I recall, on the full implications for the Hervey Bay airport.

I understood that the installation of the (Instrument Landing System) ILS at Hervey Bay would make our airport operations safer and that the Flying School would use this equipment for one aspect of their training. I did not, at the time, think the increased flight activity would be considerable at Hervey Bay airport. I did, and still do however, expect the Hervey Bay airport to attract increased activity as time goes on.

Post amalgamation as a member of the FCRC I was informed in much greater detail of the entire Flight Training proposal. My concerns in relation to this project, and any other project, centred around our responsibility as a Council, to ensure the safety and ‘comfort’ of our residents and the preservation of our natural environment, in terms of adverse impacts from any proposed commercial venture. I am always concerned that Council does not place itself in a position where it knowlingly compromises these values. Next on my list of concerns is the financial cost/return to Council. Will this project cost Council directly and if so how much? Is the economic benefit to the community worth any direct financial loss or cost to Council? Exactly what economic return will be gained by a project and by whom? Will every rate payer have to support the proposed project by an increase in rates? In relation to any proposal involving use of Council (public) owned land my concerns relate to the cost to Council of ongoing upkeep and the ramifications of entering into a long term lease. Will a return to Council via a commercial lease offset the direct cost to Council? Should Council enter into a commercial lease or support the project without entering into a commercial lease?

These are the types of questions I continually ask of our ‘bureaucrats’ when any proposal is presented to us. In relation to the FTG proposal Council formally delegated the CEO authority to continue negotiations along agreed guidelines. Council has never formally altered that decision. In my opinion timelines have been followed and Council has been kept updated on progress. Council has not formally decided to alter this process.

Council recently decided to hold public meetings to inform residents about the proposal as a result of the increasing number of enquiries we were receiving from residents in both Hervey Bay and Maryborough in relation to this proposal. I believe that the Fraser Coast Regional Council has acted in a proper and reasonable and timely manner post amalgamtion. I have not been in contact directly with FTG personnel so I do not know any further details as to why they have withdrawn from their proposal. I believe that they have decided that in this economic climate the proposal is not viable. I am also supportive of our CEO and our senior staff who, in my opinion, have worked diligently to keep Council informed of the issues surrounding this proposal and I am quite annoyed and upset at the negative comments made about them via local media. It is the responsibility of Council (Councillors) to formally direct our CEO and senior staff to do our bidding. I believe our senior staff have done exactly that.

• Council related issues
• Comments(8)

sue November 19th, 2008

I am amazed at some of the comments about the facts relating to the decision by Flight Training Australia not to proceed with their plans to relocate here. While I agree that the proposed flight training school would have brought some economic benefits to our region I understand that a very great percentage of the millions of dollars been touted as entering our community, would have been through fuel sales. I am disappointed that there is so much finger pointing and a ‘blame game’ occurring.

In my opinion Council followed a very responsible and diligent process which was agreed to by Council. No Councillors have formally asked for the negotiation process to be changed. I don’t think the decision to not proceed with the proposal is based primarily on issues relating to Council. I believe that in the current economic climate, FTQ have made a decision based on economic realities. I expect Council will release a media statement today including advice that the information evenings have now been cancelled.

• Council related issues
• Comments(1)

sue November 15th, 2008

 Council has issued a media release which paints a more accurate picture of the situation in relation to legal costs etc associated with Development Applications. On a personal note I support Council defending its decisions. If Council simply agreed to change conditions imposed on developments during the approval process, in my opinion, we would be compromising our Planning Schemes. Developers are free to argue their case but I would not support Council continually bending to their will!

13 November 2008

Council not spending millions on legal bills

Despite persistent rumours in the media, the Fraser Coast Council, or the former Hervey Bay City Council, has not spent $10 to $20 million on legal fees.

The Council also refutes recent claims by the Fraser Coast Chronicle that it has spent millions of dollars on legal fees because it has adopted an arrogant and adversarial approach to town planning.

In 2006/07 the Hervey Bay City Council spent $292,400 on 11 appeals. In 2007/08 the council spent $336,832 on 15 appeals town planning matters.

During this two year period Council received 1513 development applications. The number of appeals filed by developers is 1.7% of all of the applications received.

In the first five months of the FCRC 6 appeals have been commenced against decisions made by Council. Again, this is less than 1.5% of the permits granted.

Claims that there has been an artificial slow-down in processing development applications by the Fraser Coast Regional Council or the former Hervey Bay City Council are also refuted by the FCRC.

While the new planning scheme has caused an increase in applications, amendments approved by the FCRC yesterday (Wednesday, November 12) mean that development permits are no longer required for many houses and sheds. However, building permits are still required.

Development figures show that a small team of dedicated staff stepped up to the challenge of processing developments while introducing a new Hervey Bay planning scheme. The Council makes no bones about the fact that the team was undermanned because it, like many other Councils, could not recruit sufficient town planning staff.

The Council is currently trying to recruit three town planners to fill vacancies.

Figures show that in first year of the FCRC (March to October 31) there have been 884 development applications received and 821 processed.

For the 12 months prior to amalgamation 751 development applications were received and 706 processed.

For the 2006/07 financial year 460 development applications were received and 429 processed.

Since March Council has approved permits allowing 291 new lots to be created. During the same time the Council has approved the final construction of 540 new allotments. Again this is a clear sign of continued growth.

New building commencements are also a good barometer of activity in the development industry. In 2006/07 there were 965 development permits for new dwellings approved. For 2007/08 there were 952 new dwellings approved. The overall value of all building permits issued in 2007/08 for development in the former Hervey Bay City Council area was a staggering $369 million.

The State Government recently carried out an audit to check if all Councils in the region had an adequate supply of residential land. The audit confirmed an estimated 15 years of supply of raw land suitable for approval for subdivision.

Noting the current world financial crisis Council expects that some developments it has approved, or those in the pipeline, may be put on hold.

ENDS

• Development issues
• Comments(1)

sue November 11th, 2008

Tomorrow we have 3 major developments to decide upon, all of which are in Hervey Bay. Firstly a 33 Unit development at 459 Esplanade and 54 Cypress St. This development is 5 storeys high and is being assessed under the ‘old’ planning scheme.

The second development is huge. It is for 254 units on the old Anchorage Caravan park site on the corner of Boat Harbour Drive and The Esplanade at Urangan. It is for 5 separate buildings 4 of which are six storeys high and the fifth building being two storeys high. The site is 2.4 hectares approx and is currently vacant. I notice For Sale signs on the block so I’m not sure what future plans are in store for this development.

Lastly we have the ‘Gilligans’ backpacker development. This is for 136 units with 500 beds in an upmarket backpacker styled development situated opposite Seafront Oval at 26-42 Hillyard St. It will be six storeys high. I have asked for more detail about the car parking as it appears that the car park is primarily at ground level not in a basement. I’m not sure that a large on the ground carpark is a ‘good look’ in this area.

 So the changing face of our foreshore continues unabated it seems. While I worry personally that Hervey Bay is pouring a bit too much concrete and loosing too many trees all these applications appear on first reading to conform primarily with our Planning Scheme. It seems that for many years developers had the power to build to 6 storeys but did not avail themselves of the opportunity. How times change!

Lastly I apologise for sending out an email today to many of you without remembering to use the BCC function to keep addresses private. So please forgive me for my slip up and remember to respect each others privacy. I promise to do my very best to never ever do so again… Feel free to email me if you do want to be included on my email list even though I admit I’m not foolproof in managing to send out group emails! Till next time, Sue

• Development issues
• Comments(4)

sue November 8th, 2008

Well at last this topic does seem to be generating some much needed debate. At this weeks Ordinary Council Meeting held in Hervey Bay a petition was presented to Council by Maryborough residents opposed to some aspects of the proposed FTA facility at the Maryborough Airport. Several other Hervey Bay residents also spoke against the proposal. As a result of this continuuing interest and questions from residents wanting more knowledge about the proposal I asked Council to support two information sessions one each for Maryborough and Hervey Bay. Cr Dalgleish seconded the motion and it was supported unanimously.

The sessions will be held prior to December 15th and I will confirm dates and venues tomorrow. It may be a good idea for anyone who is interested to know more to visit the FTA website. I was surprised about some of the perceptions that our residents have about the school including the opportunity for students to board locally or receive English tuition. From my knowledge this would not occur as the school is very self contained. Students eat, sleep and play on campus while they are training. They have all their basic requirements met and are very busy learning how to be pilots. The school would have its own sports grounds and entertainment facilities including a bar. Students are predominantly overseas students who return to their home countries to fly for their respective airlines. Please visit http://www.flighttrainingadelaide.com/ to learn more. Thanks, Sue

• Council related issues
• Comments(2)