Archive for the 'Council related issues' Category

Swimming Pools in the news.

Sue Brooks March 14th, 2010

The debate about the future of the Maryborough Swimming Pool is becoming the number one Council related topic as rated by community interest. I decided I had better devote a post to the issue especially as The Chronicle is printing some of my comments found here on my blog. (Be good if they would include the url when they do this but they don’t).

So for an update on what has happened and will happen re the pool. Council officers have briefed Council informally on the current Maryborough Swimming Pool and provided some background information on options to revitalise the complex. I am led to believe that everything on the site needs upgrading and that the previous MCC was hoping to purchase more land so that they could build a better swimming facility. To build a new 50m pool costs an awful lot of money and then the buildings also need upgrading. FCRC is faced with having to fund a total upgrading of this facility so we do need to decide on priorities in relation to possibly upgrading the site in stages and how best to afford to do the needed works. I also am told that doing nothing is not an option.

Council has not made up its mind, about how best to progress although the 2 x 25m pools option has been discussed informally as an affordable way forward. Apparently, I am informed, it is cheaper both to construct and operate 2 X 25m pools than one 50m pool and the range of uses possible by having 2 smaller pools is greater than that obtained with just one big pool.

I have been given information about how the Maryborough Swimming Pool is currently being used provided to me by Council staff. I believe they have provided much factual information to Councillors as background. As always I won’t make a decision on the future of the pool without weighing up all the facts that I can find. At the end of the day we must make as sensible decision as possible.

So I do ask that you the users of the pool and the concerned community members (those who may not actually use the pool themselves but appreciate the value to their community of having such infrastructure within their community), forward info especially any knowledge on how best to upgrade a broken and old 50m pool shell! Costings are an important facet of this discussion.

As always prior to making any decision I am listening to you. The more I listen the more I learn. Let’s try to find a solution to this issue and make a sensible decision based on facts and realities.

Some points already raised by you, the community include

- That many people train by swimming 50m long laps and swimming 25m long laps is not a viable option for them for many reasons.

- That various competitions are now held at the pool because it is 50m long. These competitions can’t be held in a 25m long pool.

- That travelling to Hervey Bay to train in that pool is too difficult and time consuming for current and future Maryborough pool users.

- That if more users came to the Hervey Bay Pool this pool would become over crowded.

- That Hervey Bay based residents are also concerned about the future of the Maryborough Pool.

- That it is possible to upgrade the facility in stages and thereby making the project affordable over time.

I must include a comment, as much as I hate to, that cost is a huge factor. This Council has to fund the project with the help of grants hopefully. As I travel around the community I often here people simply saying – “Council can pay to do that or Council can pay to do this.” I sometimes think we forget that there is no such thing as a Council pot of money from which we can continually dip. Council has no money of its own. It has to fund the work that it does via your purses and wallets. Yes we receive grants but these grant monies are also funded by all of us paying taxes. At the end of the day you and I pay for the services we receive. It is interesting to note in closing, that both the Maryborough Town Hall and the Swimming Pool were built by virtue of direct donations from the community. For many reasons it seems that in this day and age there are either less wealthy people or the wealthy business community has decided that it will keep its profits to itself. We seem to live at a time where philanthropy is dying.

 There is much more to learn so I welcome your objective suggestions.

Pools, cars, buses and aeroplanes

Sue Brooks March 5th, 2010

The latest topics of interest are creating interest and well they should. Firstly Council is faced with some very difficult dilemmas in maintaining or replacing ageing infrastructure. The Maryborough Swimming Pool is apparently a leaky, broken down shell and needs to be upgraded. To replace the 50m pool is, I am told, a cost in excess of $10m dollars. Council has allocated 4.5million dollars towards this pool upgrade. So while I think everyone would prefer, at first glance, a 50m pool to remain in Maryborough we must do our research and find the best value product for our hard earned dollars.

Council staff have provided several options for discussion but I am hopeful that we can analyse the situation objectively and decide on a sensible way forward. I would like to hear from anyone with suggestions on how best to utilise the available funds or what new methods can be used to replace the ‘old’ pool. I suggested a 25m sized pool with 2 x 50m lanes attached to allow for training etc. Pools are very, very expensive to operate so it isn’t just the construction costs we need to consider but the ongoing operational costs. I’m told that very few competitions are held in the pool each year and I don’t think retaining a 50m pool simply for 3 or 4 competitions a year is sensible. So it is on with the debate. Let’s find out all the pros and cons and make a sensible decision based on facts not emotions. And like it or not there are some facilities that residents from both Maryborough and Hervey Bay are going to have to travel to each city to use. Hervey Bay residents travel to the Brolga and I am looking forward to visiting that lovely theatre once again on Sunday to see ‘Cool Change’.

Cr Dalgleish has asked Council to consider introducing advertising on our bus shelters. The advertising income then offsets the costs of installing and maintaining the bus shelters. While I would hate to see advertising plastered over every square inch of spare space around our Fraser Coast the idea has some merit so I hope the advertising can be used in some high traffic areas like Boat Harbour Drive but not on beautiful streets like The Esplanade or in residential areas.

Airports are again in the news with Council deciding to negotiate some leases and also ensure we have a 2030 plan for aviation within the region. With much talk about the future of air travel and the ever attractive idea of a regional airport in the future I believe that this is a sensible decision and I supported it. Airports are expensive to run so obtaining an income from leases etc is an essential ingredient to offset the costs of running them. We can ensure that the airports complement each other not compete against each other.

Lastly Cr Hawes advised Council of the cost of running a Council provided car rather than retaining the use of your private car. This was after a statement made by Cr Dalgleish, at a prior Council meeting, which implied that he was saving the ratepayers money by retaining his privately owned car. Cr Hawes presented the comparable costs to Council this week which shows that reimbursing Cr Dalgleish for the maximum kilometres claimable is about $4000 more expensive to Council than providing the Councillor cars. This is why the majority of Councillors decided to take the Council provided cars.

The rain has been wonderful for us as we have full tanks and dams while not suffering any serious flooding. Have a good weekend and take care as always.

Centro – the unsanitised facts

Sue Brooks March 2nd, 2010

CENTRO – THE FACTS

There have been a number of reports recently in the local press about the Council’s alleged obstruction of the proposed expansion of the Centro Shopping Centre located at Boat Harbour Drive, Hervey Bay.

Some of the key elements of this reporting are:

 That Council has not approved the Centro extensions;

 That Council delayed the assessment of the application;

 That Council is unreasonably asking for $1 million in public art;

 That Council is unreasonably asking the developer to construct the mobility corridor and the first leg of the Urraween Distributor connection road; and

 That the wording of the draft Infrastructure Agreement presented to the applicant had been changed to their detriment without the knowledge of the applicant or the Council.

Council’s Development Services staff are concerned that the reporting has not been balanced and contains a number of inaccuracies and errors. The facts and history of the Centro expansion are as follows:

28 June 2006 – the former Hervey Bay City Council granted a Preliminary Approval to DA513/3-031104 for the extension of the centre. The applicant placed the approval on hold on 6 August 2006 to make representations about the conditions. The applicant has not contacted Council about this approval since.

21 March 2007 – Leda Holdings Pty Ltd lodges a new application for a Material Change of Use to extend the Centro shopping centre. The extension is significantly larger than that previously sought.

24 April 2007 – DMR issued an information request;

29 June 2007 – The applicant’s consultant writes to Council to change the application. The effect of this change was to restart the application from the beginning of the process. The change was not requested or required by the Council.

30 August 2007 – The Council requests further information from the applicant about the changed application.

25 September 2007 – the applicant responds to Council’s information request.

7 November 2007 – DMR issued a letter acknowledging receipt of the amended application on 5 November 2007, and also reiterating that their previous request for further information was still outstanding;

8 January 2008 – the applicant responded to DMR’s information request.

27 February 2008 – the DMR directs Council to refuse the application.

4 March 2008 – the applicant requests Council to suspend the decision period to allow them to negotiate with DMR about their refusal.

25 June 2008 – the DMR issues an amended concurrence agency response, approving the application subject to conditions.

19 August 2008 – the applicant writes to Council agreeing to extend the assessment period for the application to allow the applicant more time to submit further information in support of their application.

21 October 2008 – The applicant submits the last of the supporting information for the application.

27 January 2009 – the applicant provides final versions of proposal plans that it wishes Council to approve.

11 March 2009 – Officer report presented to the Council seeking approval for the terms of the Infrastructure Agreement. Council approve the terms as recommended.

19 March 2009 – a copy of the infrastructure agreement is given to Leda Holdings and also emailed to Councillors on the same day. The terms included in the agreement were those decided by the Council at its meeting of 11 March 2009.

24 March 2009 – A representative of Leda emails Council listing concerns with Infrastructure Agreement. Crediting arrangements for the proposed trunk roadworks is not listed as a concern.

25 March 2009 – at a special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee the application for extension to the Centro shopping centre is approved subject to conditions.

15 April 2009 – The Decision Notice for the Development Permit is issued to the applicant in accordance with Council’s decision of 25 March. A letter is also included outlining the infrastructure contributions applicable under the policy at the time.

24 April 2009 – The applicant suspends the appeal period to allow them to make representations about the conditions.

17 May 2009 – electronic copy of Infrastructure Agreement provided to applicant at their request to allow them to forward to their lawyers. The copy provided was not altered in any way from that provided on 19 March 2009.

27 May 2009 – The applicant’s representations are received.

9 September 2009 – Leda Holdings writes to Council agreeing to a credit of $1 million for constructing the trunk roadworks, agrees to build the mobility corridor and offers to provide $500,000 of public art.

15 October 2009 – Council replied to letter of 9/9/09 stating that the proposed reduction in the value of public art is not acceptable.

24 December 2009 – Negotiated Decision Notice issued to the applicant in response to applicant’s representations, agreeing to change a number of the conditions. A new advice letter containing the infrastructure contributions under PSP 4 is also included.

7 January 2010 – representative of Leda Holdings raises first concerns about the proposed credit of $1 million for roadworks.

13 January 2010 – before Council can respond, the Chronicle publishes article claiming that the development is in jeopardy because of the terms of the infrastructure agreement.

15 January 2010 – the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the FCRC meet with the developer and their representatives to discuss matters raised in the Chronicle’s article.

27 January 2010 – the Council considers and decides on new terms for the infrastructure agreement as agreed to with the developer.

As this chronology demonstrates, a number of facts are self evident:

1. An approval for extensions to the Centro shopping centre has been in existence since June 2006, and was again approved in March 2009 and December 2009.

2. In the latest application, the applicant was responsible for at least 15 months of delays in deciding the application. Council processes only accounted for four (4) months of the application process.

3. After it received the final plans from the developer in January 2009, the Council decided this major and complex application in less than two months.

4. The infrastructure agreement was not changed from when it was given to the applicant and the Councillors in March 2009. The applicant only raised concerns about alleged changes to wording in January 2010 – ten months after first receiving the agreement.

5. The applicant has agreed in writing to build the mobility corridor and the trunk road shown within their property in Council’s Planning Scheme policy documents. These works were relied on in part to justify a reduction in the number of car parking spaces to be provided by the development, a reduction of 785 parking spaces from the number required by Council’s planning scheme. The works were also required to provide additional community benefit to help offset the impact the proposal would have on other existing shopping centres in the Fraser Coast region.

 

Arkarra, Council Meeting and Guinea Fowl travels

Sue Brooks March 1st, 2010

It was great to see the Chronicle writing about Arkarra Tea Gardens on Friday and Saturday as I still fear for the future of our little local icon. But the story on Friday is a great example of how journalism these days seems to believe that facts shouldn’t get in the way of a good story. The story began with the assertion that I was on record as voting against development applications in relation to the former owners of the Tea Gardens. This statement wasn’t even remotley true it was just wrong. I did enquire directly of the editor as to where they obtained their information from but I was advised that this was confidential (of course) but possibly I had debated against an application? This was grasping at straws in the extrmeme but just proves to me yet again not to believe much if anything that I read in the media these days.

So yes Graham and I would purchase the Tea Gardens and did in fact attempt to buy them, but the price went up after we had been told our offer was accepted by close to a hundred thousand dollars, and no matter which way we look at it we can’t see a return on the necessary investment. The land is potentially subdivideable which terrifies me as I believe it would be a great shame to lose the lovely local business. The existing conditions relating to the use were the result of a development application to extend the business and not, in my opinion, why the business failed.

Council meets this week to discuss sport and recreation issues and opening hours for the waste sites at Granville, Tinana, Yengarie and Bauple. A hard one as the survey shows across the board support for all hours so I am still undecided as to how best we provide a good service that will suit the majority of users. We discuss our Complaints process and review complaints received and check out how we are travelling financially. In confidential we will have the opportunity to see information from our airports land use review. A hot topic for sure. The agenda is available now via the Council web site.

Our Guinea Fowl went walk about last week escaping to the greener (well browner really) forest at the rear of our property. After a couple of days with no sign of them we discovered them wandering around at the end of our street. They didn’t want to follow me home but wandered in on Friday evening so life is back to normal. They are being noisier than they should be so I have threatened to leave the gate open and let them fend for themselves!

Take care, Sue

Beating Heart not new

Sue Brooks February 23rd, 2010

A point of clarification or correction is needed in relation to the front page story (FCC 23/2/10). The $170 million dollar ‘beating heart for the Bay’ was mostly approved by the then Hervey Bay City Council in August 2007 prior to amalgamation. The development was one of the first to be approved with the eight storey height limit allowed under the current Hervey Bay Planning Scheme. The development is not ‘new’ and was never ‘a secret’ and was mentioned in the Chronicle at the time of approval I believe.

Hervey Bay City Council in fact gave the green light over 2.5 years ago. Recently the development has been extended with a further parcel of land adjoining the site at 23 Main St approved in December last year. I expect that the developers may need to seek an extension of time if they cannot commence construction within the allocated time frame allowed after gaining their approval in 2007.

The face of Hervey Bay is set to change dramatically if all the approved developments go ahead. There are many other significant 8 storey developments and mixed use developments already approved but not commenced. Two examples that come to mind are the redevelopment of the Beach house Hotel to 8 storeys and the site on Boat Harbour Drive diagonally opposite Bunnings. While I don’t support and haven’t ever supported wall to wall high rise alongside our foreshore I believe this Charles/Main St development will be a positive step in revitalizing the ‘beach end’ of Main St. 

FYI Details of approvals…

 513/3-051287 – Approved 15 August 2007 – Invergowrie Properties P/L – MCU- Multiple Units in Excess of Two Storeys & Shops (245 Units & Shops) & ROL – 3 Lots into 2 Lots – 16-18 & 20 Charles St Pialba and Lot 3 Charles St Pialba

513/3-051288 – Approved 15 August 2007 – Invergowrie Properties P/L – MCU- Multiple Units in Excess of Two Storeys (12), Shops, Office & Restaurants  – 9-25 Main Street Pialba

513/3-081847 – Approved 9 December 2009 – Invergowrie Properties P/L – MCU – Offices & Shops – 23 Main Street Pialba

Pedal to the floor

Sue Brooks February 22nd, 2010

I have always mowed our lawns using 2nd gear on our small ride on mower but hey decided to be brave last time I mowed and try to mow in top gear. Yesterday I had to mow again so am now tearing around the backyard zipping along in 3rd gear on one section that has long runs. The mower copes and even though I reckon if I misjudge and hit a tree or something I may end up rather bruised and battered it does reduce the time spent chopping grass and burning fuel.

While mowing I ponder. I ponder all the things I haven’t done that need doing. Who needs a return call, who needs me to visit and how many outstanding resident queries are still needing a bit of follow up or a watchful eye. I try to check to see if Council staff are able to address the issue raised by residents or do I as a Councillor need to ask for some changes to policy or strategy etc? Sometimes I ponder other stuff but recently Council pondering has been very dominant.

So while the newspaper headline asking for me to be ‘got rid of’ didn’t upset me as I was expecting it, it did raise the issue of how the media reporting influences the public perception of our politicians. I was pleased Saturday night that a representative from the River Heads Progress Assoc. took the time to ring me to assure me that the association in no way supported the comments by the grumpy resident nor had they ever passed a motion in support of his request to have 3 gum trees removed.

I always tend to believe what I read and what I’m told. Maybe because I’m not one to twist the truth myself I find it bizarre that others regularly practice truth bending. This particular resident has several times stated that he had the support of this local community group in his quest to have the offending trees removed. In this instance the truth is more than welcome.. Plus I received an email from one of his neighbours who also doesn’t support his tree removal agenda… It is always difficult to represent ‘everyone’ but even more so in relation to topics that divide our community. In other words be active and express your opinion as staying quiet means your representatives don’t hear you and if they are like me and try to faithfully represent majority opinion, then we may be acting on the opinion of the actual minority!

Lastly on the bullying allegations. There isn’t much to release as nearly the entire report consisted of transcripts and the people involved are protected by legislation. It does seem to me it was a matter of people being unhappy with a new regime.  However I detest the stupid connection between politicians and staff. Politicians are supposed to be separated from staff and not have any power over sacking or hiring them. But in practice this seems to be dodgy. Look at the recent Kaiser appointment for instance. Locally the Mayor has a big influence as he can hire and fire the CEO and direct him to do his bidding. Something Councillors individually can’t do. Councillors can be involved in hiring and firing at the top level of staff which is a big responsibility that needs to be handled ethically and objectively.

Some days are diamonds some days are stones…

Sue Brooks February 18th, 2010

John Denver comes to mind as I struggle to the end of a very difficult week. Biffed and bashed and very tired with my life as a Councillor right now. Criticised at the Council meeting, at the Burrum Heads Progress Association meeting last night and again I rate a mention (not really a positive mention..)in the Chronicle editorial again today! I don’t expect and never did expect that life as an elected member would be smooth sailing so it is a case of batterning down the hatches and steering as straight a course as I can through bumpy seas and stormy weather and taking the bad with the good.

No excuses however and also an apology on offer for taking so long between posts. I keep saying to myself that I must write more often but (and there always seems to be a but) I just run out of time! The days when I don’t have meetings or functions are devoted to trying to stay on top of correspondence and doing a bit of investigating on how residents queries are going, researching etc… and then my house needs cleaning, the puppies need hugging and brushing and walking and my garden needs weeding and mowing. Graham needs the odd hello also. But (there’s that pesky b word again) I was determined not to whinge so I will simply ask you to have patience and pop me an email if you would like me to address a particular issue via this site.

Now this week in Council we dealt with various issues including forming a committee to manage our Sister City relationships with Crs Hovard and Harris and Kruger nominated. We received responses about petitions and awarded contracts for works including another link of the mobility links corridor which will continue the corridor through to Urraween Rd from McLiver St. Council posts a media release with some further detail about the meeting for those interested on our web site.

In General Business Crs Muckan and Dalgleish announced they have decided to donate their pay rise (or part of it) to charity. I think they were a bit cranky as I had mentioned at a community meeting the manner in which a politician can very cleverly vote against something while all the time knowing that the majority of votes will be in favour (or the opposite). I wondered out loud what the Councillors would do with a pay rise that they obviously didn’t want because they voted against it! I am glad that the Councillors are following through on their committment by donating to deserving charities.

I used General Business  to ask the CEO about how he can address the issues of staff morale and loss of public confidence in Council brought about by recent and persistent negative media coverage. I also included reference to the excellent editorial that Scott Rowe wrote in The Indy last Friday which outlined the danger of Council or Councillors acting in response to the activities of one newspaper editor driving a specific agenda. Lastly I asked the CEO how can Council better respond to requests for information from the media so that we can respond in a prompt and accurate fashion. I don’t enjoy reading that Council either couldn’t be contacted or didn’t return calls. This can also be misleading to readers as sometimes Council has returned calls and provided info within the time frames given but this has not been acknowledged.

So today I find that The Chronicle editor has responded to my brief speech and thinks I’m out of line. My response on reading the editorial was -”Why is it OK for the paper to criticise Council but not OK for Council or myself to criticise the paper?” I am obviously on the losing horse here so to move forward I await tomorrow’s edition as I am sure I will feature predominantly yet again. A resident spoke out on Wednesday at Council in public participation about a Council decision to retain 3 gum trees located on the River Heads public foreshore directly in front of this gentlemans house between his property and the water. I defended the Council position but the resident is very unhappy. Unhappy with me, with Council staff and with the trees! He wants us to remove them.

So I retire tonight wondering what angle the story will take. Council is not perfect. We make mistakes but maybe if people could alert a Councillor to the problems they are having with Council we can assist before the situation develops to a stage where people believe they are being wronged. Some of the issues covered recently within the pages of our paper were news to me! So do give me a yell as soon as any problem with Council develops. The sooner we hear about an issue the sooner we can ask questions and make changes if needed. Staff are tasked primarily to implemt Council ‘rules’. It is us, the elected members, who have the power collectively, to change or adapt rules that are not working properly. The local paper and other media are a necessary and essential tool in our community so I want to use it for good purposes not continually criticise it.

Fingers crossed we can find a middle ground where stories are balanced and accurate and not just a screaming headline. I will also do my best to find the accurate answer to questions posed in the Chronicle pages in relation to Council.

PS. Xavier parking. It seems that the so called ‘car park’ that Council locked is in fact a public park. When I have more detail next week I will let you all know.

PPS You may have missed the addition of a new link on the top of the home page. There is a subscription service available now so each time I write you will receive an email letting you know there is something new here. So if you want an easy way to keep track of my blog activity try it out and let me know what you think. Cheers, Sue

Thanks Scott and Stephen

Sue Brooks February 12th, 2010

I was pleased to read the editorial in the Hervey Bay Independent this morning. Great to see someone from the media world speaking out about the potential problems when a newspaper editor decides to try and influence elected members. Scott Rowe has hit the nail on the head with a hard hammer and I think his comments are well justified and thought provoking.

It has always bothered me that keeping on ‘good terms’ with the local newspaper editors is seen as an essential ingredient by politicians around the country. If a politician does not build a positive relationship with an editor they run the risk of receiving negative coverage in the newspaper. This is even more pronounced when political party allegiance enters into the equation.

All politicians should be given equal and unbiased and uncensored tretament as should all members of our community. I often wonder what it is about the human animal that makes us so quickly attracted to the sensationalist headlines and trivail pre occupations with who said what that invariably increases sales and brings in more dollars for the media entity.

So thank you Scott for your well written editorial this week and also a special thank you to Stephen O’Grady for his coverage of this weeks Council Meeting. Stephen took the time to peruse our agenda and wrote a very accurate account of development related information that was printed yesterday in The Chronicle. Thank you Stephen.

A New Leaf?

Sue Brooks February 8th, 2010

So it seems that our Mayor Mick has appeased the hungry beast and the Chronicle will take off the gloves. So far nothing that Council has promised or done last week is different than it was before the weekend coffee and chat so I remain intrigued.

My thoughts on the use of the media have received some interesting comment and I still wonder at what the best method of getting Council news and information out and about is. Any way I will continue to do my best to communicate in every way I can and welcome the feedback.

On some stories that did make the Chronicle last week I offer some comment. In relation to REST. I believe REST mis interpreted the terms of their contract and didn’t fully appreciate that Council was obligated to re advertise. Council has to follow Laws designed to give everyone a fair chance to compete for its services etc so a public process was inevitable. After amalgamation it was decided by Council to align waste services recycling with the process already implemented at Nikenbah. This system means a benefit to all. The community benefits by getting a monetry return for the rights to manage recycling. The community group of volunteers makes an income and employs trainees etc which benefit another wide group of people. I don’t think REST even tendered for the Maryborough operation and I do think that an examination of how much of their previous large income was directly distributed to the community would show that by comparison, the current system has a better and wider return to the community at large.

The ‘gate’ at Xavier. Will ask for more details but apparently a park was being used for access to the school. Council has an obligation in terms of safety etc so I’m interested in learning more. When I do I will report my findings.

Chinese New Year. No Council prior to amalgamation, to my knowledge, organised a Chinese New Year function. In Hervey Bay some staff and Councillors sometimes went to China Pearl for dinner! So why it was reported that we aren’t holding a function is a mystery to me.

Car Parking at Torquay etc. I will enquire as to patrols to ensure people are aware of the 2 hour limit. I would like to see a consistent approach to car parking be given across the region. Specifically the CBD areas.

Lastly here are the two media releases Council and UDIA have jointly written. Enjoy!

MEDIA RELEASE

08 February 2010

Fraser Coast Regional Council and UDIA see a bright future

The UDIA and Fraser Coast Regional Council see a bright future for the Fraser Coast.

The two groups meet for the second time on Friday (February 5) as part of regular consultative meetings aimed at improving communications between the two.

Fraser Coast Mayor Mick Kruger and UDIA Fraser Coast Branch president Daniel Poacher, were enthusiastic about the level of commitment, co-operation and open and honest communication between the two groups on some of the tough issues to be addressed in the region.

The meeting provided some great outcomes and directions for both parties.

“We have the feeling that in working together well balanced decisions will be made for the betterment of the entire Fraser Coast,” Mr Poacher said.

“The UDIA is very appreciative of the council’s commitment to the Memorandum Of Understanding between the UDIA and Council and feel that following today’s forum the development industry in our region can start to gain some long overdue momentum,” he said.

“The sustainable growth strategy and structure planning projects currently underway by council show that they are serious about the importance of the development industry for our region’s economy.”

At the meeting the Council provided updates on the sustainable growth strategy as well as the Doolong Flats Structure Plan.

The Council has assured the UDIA that it will be included as part of the consultation process for both projects to provide valuable input to assist council achieve the best outcome.

The Doolong Flats Structure Plan should be finished before the end of the financial year.

Infrastructure charges were also discussed at the meeting. It was agreed that a forum involving the full council and UDIA will be held on March 2 to further discuss ways to encourage development activity without placing undue hardship on the Council’s budget.

Many ideas were floated including the possible “cap” of charges at a flat rate.

“We all agreed that something needed to be done to stimulate the local economy by making it viable for developers, business owners and anyone in the community to kick off projects in our region,” Mr Poacher said.

“This will have positive flow on effects for employment and business on the Fraser Coast.”

The Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Brien confirmed the previous commitment made towards the end of 2009 that Council would work with developers that had “shovel ready projects” to get these projects up and running.

Shovel ready projects are those that have all the necessary approvals in place and are just waiting on funding to come through so that they can commence.

Projects that will be considered are new projects that create employment in both the construction stage and lead to ongoing employment, as well as existing projects which have been placed on hold because of the combination of the global financial crisis and the increases in infrastructure charges.

The UDIA and Council will work together to identify suitable projects and look for solutions to bring these projects forward.

ENDS

MEDIA RELEASE

08 February 2010

Shovel ready developments

The Fraser Coast Regional Council has for many months indicated that it is prepared to review its infrastructure contributions for shovel ready projects.

Council believes that by facilitating any new substantial development which will provide significant economic input into the building economy, it will directly assist many of its ratepayers and have a flow-on effect indirect helping many more businesses in the region.

Council would like any developer that plans to carry out substantial development in the immediate future to contact it to discuss and review the existing trunk infrastructure contribution rates.

As an indication Council, where appropriate, will consider reducing the infrastructure rates for projects that fall within the following parameters:

1: The necessary development approvals have been issued;

2: Architectural plans have been prepared;

3: Engineering and service designs have been completed;

4:Preliminary quantity surveying has been completed;

5: Construction can commence within six months and be completed within two years.

Even if your development does not fall within these parameters, please contact Council’s Economic Development Unit or the Fraser Coast branch of the UDIA to discuss your project.

The UDIA in conjunction with the Council have agreed that they will endeavour to support any good development and would be happy to assist in facilitating this.

Council’s Economic Development Manager, Andrew Jackson, can be contacted on 4190 5745.

The UDIA can be contacted by calling branch president Daniel Poacher on 4124 1683.

ENDS

I’m interested to know how many ‘developers’ have left because of ‘Council’ and how we can attract new business that won’t negatively impact heavily on existing business. I still personally believe we don’t need more residential development in Hervey Bay just now as I think we are suffering from over supply. But what do you think?

Does the truth hurt?

Sue Brooks February 4th, 2010

What really, really annoys me is that this whole infrastructure charges and other development related issues is turning into a tit for tat exercise. Surely we should not have to resort to this behaviour? But what else can we do ponders I?

Many, many people still believe what they read within the pages of their trusted local newspaper. I used to believe what I read in the paper and every fibre of my being still wants to believe that what the Chronicle, and other newspapers tell me, is true. But very, very sadly I have to say this is not what happens. You cannot and should not believe everything you read in the media. This inability to trust what we read makes me very sad because many stories are accurate. How then do we tell the difference? How do we develop trust in our media?

 Don’t we all want to work and live in a happy, positive region that strikes a  good balance between growth and the resulting employment prospects while protecting our unique lifestyle and natural environment. Nobody wants to stifle appropriate development but rather we should encourage and invite it.

So maybe, just maybe we could ask the Chronicle to help us on this journey. Maybe Mr Peter Chapman will take a look around and see where he could grow his readership. It appears that Hervey Bay has a much lower percentage of readers than some other areas and as Hervey Bay is rapidly growing in size, maybe this is the potential market. But many, many people I speak to from Hervey Bay refuse to pay for ’sensationalist rubbish’ as I have had the paper described to me on many occassions recently.

I truly believe the media has a responsibility greater than that of just ‘making money’. Yes it must be profitable or we wouldn’t have a daily paper but maybe it could be profitable and a bit more truthful at the very same time? Yes I know that headlines screaming about gloom, doom, cheaters, tragedies, court cases and disasters ’sell papers’ but at what cost? If I was growing up today and was constantly bombarded by all these negative stories would I believe I was growing up into a positive, caring and clever society? I reckon many of our youth ‘troubles’ involving anti social behaviour are because our youth want to disconnect from a society they see as being bad and dishonest. Who wants to live in a world full of cheats and with your local government apparently trying to rip you off and telling you lies? But these are the messages front and centre of nearly every news media day in day out.

So I ask our Chronicle editor to maybe take a look at the Hervey Bay Independent. Scott Rowe is back behind the helm of this free paper. He seems to be attracting advertisers and has a very large readership. Yes the paper is free but I would prefer to spend my dollars  on a publication that contains many positive stories and informative stories about my city. It celebrates the good things and the good people and yes believe it or not, there are many, many good happy stories worth hearing about. Stories that uplift instead of depress!

I am very sad that Council is taking a bashing recently. We just can’t seem to be doing anything right according to the Chronicle. Well I believe while not perfect, Council does many things well. With everybodys help just maybe we can improve and improve and improve till we are the very best Council in the country. This is my aim. I will do whatever I can to work with anyone who can help to make our region and our Council a positive, happier, friendlier and efficient place to live, work and do business with. An impossible task? I don’t think so. We aren’t perfect and most likely will never be perfect but we can certainly try to be a little bit better every single day!

So for those of you that keep asking me for the truth or ‘what Council really did’ here is our official Council media release which resulted after the Editor of the Chronicle declined an invitation to meet with senior staff and possibly learn some facts about our region. I think the invitation is still open!

Council Media Release

Editor declines meeting with CEO on Trunk Infrastructure contributions

 

4 Feburary 2010 The editor of the Fraser Coast Chronicle has declined an invitation to meet with the Fraser Coast Regional Council CEO and the Director of Organisational Services to talk about trunk infrastructure contributions.

The CEO, Andrew Brien, made the offer on Tuesday (February 2) after a series of articles in the Fraser Coast Chronicle which alleged the Council was facing a financial crisis due to a lack of infrastructure charges collected from developers.

In an emailed response that was not published by the Chronicle, Mr Brien offered to meet with the editor and Chronicle journalists to discuss some of the inaccuracies that had been reported.The Chronicle’s editor, Peter Chapman, declined the Council offer to discuss Trunk Infrastructure.“Obviously we have done extensive research and talked to a number of experts in this field over the past 48 hours,” Mr Chapman said.“I now feel we are up to speed with the matter and as such feel no need for the meeting.”Fraser Coast CEO Andrew Brien said he was disappointed that the Chronicle did not want to talk to the Council.

“It seems the Chronicle with a number of ‘experts’, none of whom are associated with Council, does not want to hear our side of the story.”

The Council is not facing a funding crisis resulting from a decrease in Trunk Infrastructure contributions paid by developers, Mr Brien said.Trunk Infrastructure contributions collected from developers are used to provide trunk infrastructure to a development whether it is a high-rise development on the Esplanade, an industrial estate or a residential subdivision.The infrastructure charges are not used to fund parks or facilities in other areas, maintenance or improvement of existing facilities; that work is budgeted for as part of the Council’s $65 million capital works program which is funded from general rates, other fees and charges and grants.The trunk infrastructure funded by developers’ contributions includes the main roads and large pipes that connect new developments to existing services.While developers contribute towards 70% of the cost of new trunk infrastructure, the remainder of funding is sourced from loans, grants and general rates.

Next »