Sue Brooks' Blog

sue 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?

• Chronicle comment , Council related issues , Development issues
• Comments(2)

sue February 1st, 2010

FCRC

MEDIA RELEASE

01 February 2010

 Infrastructure Charges

 The Fraser Coast Regional Council is not facing a financial crisis due to a lack of infrastructure charges collected from developers.

“If there had been anything untoward in the finances the State Government would have raised it,” Fraser Coast Regional Council Mayor Mick Kruger said.

“The Council received an unqualified report from the Auditor General for its 2008/2009 financial report.

“The Council receives a financial update each month, the latest last week, on how our budget is travelling and if there are any shortfalls and their implications.”

Infrastructure charges 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, Cr Kruger said.

“If the development does not go ahead then the Council does not need to provide the trunk infrastructure in the same timeframes.

“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 infrastructure funded by developers’ contributions includes trunk infrastructure – the main roads and large pipes that connect new developments to existing services.

“If a new subdivision is created the developer is asked to contribute towards improvements to existing trunk roads that connect it to the Council’s existing road network that will carry the extra vehicles generated by the subdivision. Whilst the developers contribute towards the costs of new trunk infrastructure, the remainder of funding is sourced from loans, grants and general rates. 

“Similar contributions are made towards trunk drainage, water and sewerage which may include the upgrading of pump stations, or as has just occurred, the building of a new $30 million waste water treatment facility by Wide Bay Water at Nikenbah.”

The slowdown being experienced locally by the development industry is not a result of increased infrastructure charges but caused by the Global Financial Crisis.

“A comparison of development activity in other Queensland councils shows that they are also experiencing a similar slowdown in development activity so it is not just a Fraser Coast phenomenon.

“The development slowdown has more to do with developers’ inability to gain financing from the banks due to the Global Economic Crisis.” 

Unlike other Councils, the Fraser Coast Regional Council has also offered developers a 30% discount on infrastructure charges if their development was approved before the new charges were implemented. That discount remains in force until June 30.

Developers who gain approval now and pay all of their fees before June 30 qualify for a 25% reduction in charges. 

The slowdown is affecting all Queensland centres as borne out in the drop in building and development applications across the state. 

“One thing this Council will not be doing is asking ratepayers to pay for services that developers should be providing,” Cr Kruger said. 

At the Council meeting last week (January 27) an update of the Council’s finances showed that while the reduction in developer contributions received this financial year would result in limited expenditure on any trunk infrastructure, conversely the demand for such trunk infrastructure due to development is significantly reduced. 

The Council separately accounts for the provision of trunk infrastructure and is continually reviewing the impact of development on its assets and the financial implications are reviewed and reported to Council on a monthly basis in the finance report. 

The net capital expenditure YTD totals $22.3 million or 48% of YTD budget projection of $47.8 million however an additional $11.8 million has been committed on capital projects bringing the total to 73% of YTD budget.  

These commitments include all of the expenditure recently allocated for the Main Street upgrade.

Projects underspent include:

• $4.2 million in Information Technology projects – the majority of which are now being undertaken;
• $12.5 million in Water and Sewerage Infrastructure – which will be reviewed and undertaken by Wide Bay Water;

 In addition the following major projects are in the planning stages, in progress or nearing completion:

 PCYC Third Court – $1.283 million

• Animal Refuge – $0.72 million
• CBD Beautification Project – $3.6 million
• Pavement Resurfacing – $3.5 million
• Strategic Land Use Plan – $1.5 million
• Pedestrian Bridge Bruce Highway – $1.4 million

 ENDS

• Development issues
• Comments(1)

sue January 30th, 2010

The question I have to ask myself, after reading the Saturday Chronicle  (30-1-2010), is – ‘Has the Chronicle joined forces with our local development industry players to influence Councillors?’ After reading yesterday’s latest attack on Council it appears so. Since Christmas we have read story after story after front page headline lamenting the so called ‘facts’ that Council is stopping or holding back development in our beautiful region. In fact we have read whole page articles and editorials by Mr Peter Chapman attacking our Director of Planning and Development Services Mr David King and his hard working staff and Council as a whole. After reading the Saturday editorial and front page story the only conclusion I can make is that Mr Chapman wants Council to get rid of some, or possibly all, of our hard working planning staff!

 Council is not sending developers packing. Many developments have stalled in Hervey Bay because of the financial situation and due to a lack of demand not because of anything Council has or hasn’t done. Developing land anywhere within the Fraser Coast or in the rest of Queensland, is a complicated process. It is complicated due to the Legislation, by way of Acts and associated Planning Schemes, that were created long before the current Fraser Coast Regional Council came into being. There are many impediments within the Planning Schemes which hinder development. For instance we have bushfire layers, sewerage smell zones, natural area overlays and airport noise zones to mention just a few requirements. Even sheds are now caught up in Planning Schemes because Councillors of the day tried to make shed building on vacant land difficult to stop people residing in sheds! If you want to build a shed on vacant land I have news for you. It is expensive and complicated. On top of Planning Scheme requirements we have State and Federal requirements. The list of requirements seems to grow longer with every passing year. So if you have a permit to build an aquaculture farm from the State Government you still have to apply, pay fees and meet the requirements within the applicable Council Planning Scheme.

 Hervey Bay also has had to implement infrastructure charges in line with State Government requirements. The charges are not a Council invention but a State Government requirement! These charges are used to develop ‘trunk’ infrastructure which is primarily arterial roads and drains. When Council introduced the charges it consulted extensively with the development industry and it also agreed to reduce charges for any ‘shovel ready’ development. This reduction in charges has impacted on our budget projections and helped create the so called Chronicle ‘black hole’ but the fee reductions were done to assist the development and construction industry. It seems Council is damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

 Infrastructure charges are not used anywhere else but on core trunk infrastructure. Let me explain. Main Street in Hervey Bay takes traffic from many outlaying areas into the centre of Hervey Bay. For this reason the road is identified as a ‘trunk’ road. Originally this road was built and designed to cope with a limited number of cars. As the city grows more and more traffic needs to use this road. I think it is fair and reasonable that a developer who is creating new houses and new ‘traffic’ that will use Main Street, contributes a reasonable amount to the upgrade of this arterial road. This is in fact happening now with charges collected from developers being used to upgrade this road. If, instead of developer contributions we expect rate payers themselves to pay for these works then rates (or taxes) would need to be raised. Regardless of who has to pay for upgrading our roads etc someone in deed does. The funds to upgrade trunk infrastructure due to increasing population growth, have to come from someone’s purse. If the development doesn’t occur we don’t need to upgrade the infrastructure and hence we don’t need to spend money. This is perfectly logical to me so why doesn’t the Chronicle explain it so that readers can understand it? In other words there is no black hole! If  development doesn’t occur we don’t need the infrastructure upgraded and so life goes on as usual. Normal maintenance and upkeep of our infrastructure is not what infrastructure charges are used for. Upgrades and maintenance do come from general rates, fees and charges and grants and subsidies etc.

 Now to explain what Council staff do. Council planning staff, under the leadership of Mr David King, assess development applications and make recommendations. They assess an application against the relevant Planning Scheme as that is their job. Council staff cannot and must not assess a development application to arrive at an outcome that the Mayor or Councillors desire. If Councillors want development to occur then they must collectively ensure that the Planning Scheme encourages development to happen. Councillors can’t simply ask the staff to ‘make it so’. If we do direct staff in this manner we are, in my opinion, acting outside our responsibilities. The vast majority of applications that Council processes are dealt with by staff and are approved by staff. Take a look at the Council web site and you can see for yourself the number of applications in and the number out each and every month and you can see how many are refused. The refusals amount to less than 4 a month on average. December 2009 for example saw 62 applications approved and 4 refused! http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/services/town%20planning%20applications%20and%20decisions.shtml

 For complex larger developments the recommendations of staff are reported to Council and Councillors make the final decision to approve or refuse a development. Recently a residential development in Hughes Road, Hervey Bay, was deferred by Council. The Mayor then met with the developer’s representatives and with Council staff and changed conditions were applied to the development. The Councillors approved the development in this changed form. In the Saturday Chronicle on page 7, we read about a successful development to provide housing for RV owners in Maryborough. This development was also a challenge for Council as it was difficult to ‘make it fit’ into the current Planning Scheme but make it fit we did and the development is approved. In other words many developments have been approved throughout the region.

 So I am left to wonder what personal agenda the Chronicle editor has which requires him to publish story after story criticising Council and in particular our planning staff. It should be remembered that if our planning staff, in particular senior staff, decide to leave us or if Council decides to dispense with their services, then it is a very expensive and costly exercise to replace them. A cost that would be borne by our community. Our planning staff work in an extremely difficult environment. I would not be a planner for love or money. Planning staff have to constantly deal with some developers and consultants hell bent on getting what they want now, right now and then they also have to respond to intense questioning by Councillors! Most developers want to make their profit and move on to their next profit making project. This is all well and good if their developments comply with the rules. But frequently applications or enquiries to develop land do not meet Planning Scheme requirements. Developers have in the past in Hervey Bay and Maryborough speculated or gambled by buying land not zoned for residential development. The usual tactic is to buy rural farming land cheaply and then apply to develop it. If Council says sorry but no you are not allowed to develop this land somehow the Chronicle blames Council for ‘making developers leave in droves’. I have sat in Council meeting after Council meeting and read countless reports recommending approval for developments that I don’t believe comply with our rules but none the less are recommended for approval. This is because planning staff continually try their very best to find ways to make developments work within the framework of a set of rules not of their making. Let’s not forget that these rules were approved by us, the Councillors.

So at the risk of annoying you Mr Chapman may I respectfully ask why you are so cranky with Council when most development applications are approved and the ones that aren’t approved are knocked back for very sound reasons? Do you Mr Chapman, want Council to ignore its own Planning Schemes? Do you think you can pressure the Mayor and Councillors into getting rid of our highly skilled planning staff? Do you think that Councillors will respond to the pressure you are applying to them for fear of receiving negative press in the future? I have personally suffered negative press on more than one occasion after simply speaking out as I am doing now. I realise Peter that your paper relies heavily on the property industry for your income but is this reason enough to portray Council so negatively? Maybe sensationalist reporting does improve your circulation and thereby make you look successful. If so I am disappointed in my community. You have told me that Hervey Bay has a very low readership compared to Maryborough. Well the people I speak to in Hervey Bay these days, are telling me they will not buy a paper that plasters rubbish and sensationalist negative stories all over its front page and they don’t appreciate the negative journalism. I sincerely hope that your newspaper is not run simply as a business more concerned with making money than truthfully informing and inspiring a community within which you have chosen to reside.

Fraser Coast people tell me that they do not want development gone wild. Our residents live here because it is a beautiful, relaxed happy place to live. Hervey Bay residents don’t want Hervey Bay spoiled by ad hoc multi unit and high rise development anywhere near their foreshore. They don’t want a concrete coast. Maryborough people tell me they want to see their city retain its unique character and grow its population by encouraging development in appropriate well serviced locations. They do not want to see their beautiful and proud city ‘die’. Outlying townspeople tell me that they want to retain their schools and attract more people to their areas without compromising their rural based quality of life. What we need is a local newspaper that is assisting this process not hindering it by placing so much pressure on Council that our planning staff leave us.

This region is a beautiful place to live. Council staff are working as hard as they can to ensure a professional delivery of service. They have implemented PD Online and are continually trying to improve their level of service. How do we expect staff to function well and enjoy living here when their families have to cope with continual public criticism of their performance? If I was looking at applying for a job here one look at the local paper would see me turn on my heel and look elsewhere. We have never been able to attract enough planners to our region due to a nation wide shortage and I’m afraid the excellent ones we have now will turn tail and run.

So Peter, please realise we are doing our very best to help our community develop sensibly and efficiently. We must work within the rules and I would appreciate your involvement and assistance in changing our rules and improving them via our Fraser Coast 2031 process. Let’s all work together to make the Fraser Coast a happy place to live.

• Development issues , Just musing , Uncategorized
• Comments(8)

sue January 17th, 2010

Dear Peter, How was your week? Mine was pretty frustrating I’m sad to say. Frustrating because your newspaper seems to be rapidly heading down the path of sensationalism and pro development. Any development anywhere it seems… want to build a fish factory in a RAMSAR wetland well just go right ahead. You’re concerned that there are strict environmental protection requirements and Planning Scheme rules? Oh ‘don’t you worry about that’ we are the Fraser Coast and we want any development anywhere so we can boost our economy and grow this newspaper circulation!

Now I might be exaggerating but is this what residents of our community want? I hope not because I certainly don’t. While I do want to see our region grow larger and build a sustainable economic base so there is choice in employment and plenty of sporting and cultural activities I do want development managed so that roads can cope and not become gridlocked. I want development properly designed and located and regulated. I want strong environmental protection and I want developers to provide a good quality product and adhere to the rules. If the rules are problematic come and talk to Councillors so that we can change the rules (where we have the power to do so) as reasonable rules are everybodys goal I believe.

The recent front page headlines screaming about job losses etc in relation to the Centro project were sensationalism at its best. Leda have been negotiating with Council for too long a time I agree, but to print a story saying that approved conditions were ‘new conditions’ was erroneous. The mobility corridor was agreed to early on and is in lieu of the development providing a footpath as every developer these days is required to provide. The million dollar public art component can be used for paving, landscaping, seating and signage etc. All the things I expect in a modern shopping centre. But wait we now find out that the only hiccup is infrastructure charges and the fact that Leda didn’t ‘understand’ the wording!

So we are supposed to believe that a company about to invest in a 100million dollar development doesn’t understand the terms of its approval? If this was truthfully the case then maybe they need to change their advisers. But if it is truthfully the case and I am the first to admit that infrastructure charges have been changing during their application process, then why did Leda not simply ring the Mayor? Why did you Peter, receive the call not the Mayor? Why did the Chronicle relentlessly persecute Mr David King, Director of Development Services, for merely doing his job? Mr King is directed by Council to apply the current policies of Council. If Leda had asked Mr David King to alter these policies and he said no then Mr King was simply doing what he is paid to do. Leda if it was unhappy with this decision should have directly contacted the Mayor and the CEO who could then inform and debate the issue with Councillors. I have not voted on the Centro application myself due to the fact that I part own a business there, but I believe Council is supportive of the project as has been demonstrated by the development approval given against Planning Scheme recommendations. I also believe appropriate infrastructure charges should be levied on any development without exception.

I hope you understand Peter, that Mr King is an honest hard working Council employee. While he is performing his duties in line with Council policy, he is often going to be actively disliked and criticised by some members of the development and construction industry. This is par for the course in an industry which does contain some people whose only care in the world is getting the biggest bang for their buck and the only language they speak is the one with multiple dollar signs. To some members of the development and construction industry profit is more important than truth, honesty, delivering a high quality product and playing within the rules!

I do expect some property related business people to dislike Mr David King. If everyone loved and never criticised or complained about any Director of Development Services as a Councillor, I’d be more than a little bit worried. The biggest game in town is development and I honestly don’t know how Mr King and his team of planning staff work in the environment in which they have to. They don’t make the rules but they have to follow them. I believe they deserve thanks not criticism as they work under difficult conditions and provide the best service possible. It is very difficult whenever they and/or Council refuse a development to read headlines in the Chronicle criticising us for doing our job! One might ask is the Chronicle so dependent on development industry income through advertising revenue such as the property guide and through increased circulation etc, that it is not willing to be objective?

Peter could you encourage and advise business people and developers wanting to set up business here to please speak to your elected members sooner rather than later. Councillors have the power to adapt rules to better suit purposes but we cannot get involved in negotiations once a development application is being assessed. Councillors are in breach of all sorts of obligations if they become involved during the processing of applications as political influence must not be a part this process. Councillors do need to know what hurdles are facing investors so the sooner we know of problems prior to application stage the better. Council staff cannot alter ‘the rules’ but Councillors have discretion and can do so if we believe that bending the rules has merit and can be justified.

Maybe Peter the Chronicle, while retaining its role as a Council watchdog, could focus on promoting the region as a great place to invest in, rather than highlighting negative aspects of our community and of Council. Maybe we would all feel a bit more positive and happier and new people would be attracted here. After all we are the happiest region in Australia so we must be doing something right!

• Development issues
• Comments(3)

sue January 14th, 2010

Our Council is still using the previous Council Planning Schemes to assess development applications. Throughout the region there is land earmarked for development and zoned appropriately and much rural land that is not zoned for development. The Della Vista development was a proposed development for rural zoned land at Granville. This land has not been earmarked for development as supporting infrastructure such as sewerage and roads, not forgetting that future growth in Granville will bring forward the need to widen the Granville bridge, is not easily provided. It has been common practice in the past for developers to buy up rural land which is cheap to purchase and then apply to Council to permit development on this land. Under IPA anyone could apply to develop land anywhere for anything as there were no prohibitions like there used to be in previous legislation. This state of affairs led to developments being approved in the past that are now an expensive dilemma to maintain. I receive constant complaints about drainage and road problems from residents in such areas. I have also experienced many, many times developers crying poor to Council and promising ‘jobs, jobs and more jobs and cheap housing’ etc if Council approves their development. On gaining approval the property is placed straight on the market and the developer walks away with a handsome profit. Many of these developments have not been constructed.

Let us also not forget that many of the restrictions placed on development are State Government required restrictions. For example if you want to build something that will mean more traffic flowing onto a State controlled road the conditions placed upon you will often run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet.

 Retail development is another story. Although I personally believe we need more land, especially in Hervey Bay, for retail growth all our Planning Schemes currently limit the square metres of floor space allowed for retail development in any urban area. Planning Schemes are designed to try and protect existing retail development by limiting opportunities for new shopping centres etc. I don’t agree with these restrictions but they are the rules that Council has to operate under. Both Hervey Bay and Maryborough have already reached the limits for larger scale retail development as designated in our existing Planning Schemes. Recently Council has approved expansions to both Centro in Hervey Bay and the Souvlis development in Maryborough amongst other approvals in spite of the restrictions within our respective schemes.

  Council does not hinder business nor development it merely wants to abide by the rules. I don’t believe in development being allowed just because someone wants to turn a profit. How would you like a panel beater spray painter setting up shop next door to your place? I am pleased that our Council development staff led by the very able Mr David King, continue to recommend developers look elsewhere when their plans don’t stack up against our Planning Schemes. If a developer decides to pursue a development when it is clearly in breech of the Planning Scheme recommendations then staff and Councillors should be refusing the application. I also believe that these very same Council staff together with Councillors bend over backwards to facilitate development whenever it is possible to do so. I am glad that this Council has strong leaders who don’t cave into developers demands and I certainly don’t want our Council to follow the path down which Wollongong Council did!

 The current Centro development is a case in point. I don’t vote on this development as I part own a business within the centre so feel able to comment. While the Hervey Bay City Council did take a long time to bring this application to Council none of the conditions currently being disputed are ‘new’. In fact Council recently approved the earlier opening of the centre overturning the initial decision. As previously mentioned the current Planning Scheme does not believe there is a ‘need’ for more retail space in Hervey Bay since the development of Pialba Place and other approved yet not built, retail developments. So in fact Council, in my opinion, is doing its best to give permission for this development.

Land development is the most critical issue for our region as we go forward. I do want to live within a city within a region that puts business and residential development in the right places and designs development to ensure we continue to have a free flowing road network. I didn’t choose to live here to end up in a grid locked city where travelling from one end of the city to the other takes as long as driving in Brisbane does!

 In conclusion. We are now rapidly approaching the time for a new Planning Scheme. We will have a Regional Plan and a new regional Council facilitated Planning Scheme. Instead of complaining about the restrictions that we have now can I ask that you all put your thinking caps on and get involved in deciding what we want and where. I hope to grow older in a region that is sensibly planned with good quality residential and commercial development appropriately serviced by good quality infrastructure.

• Development issues
• Comments(6)

sue December 10th, 2009

I thought some further explanation in relation to the decision by Council yesterday to approve a shopping centre development in Maryborough on behalf of Micky Souvlis is needed. Micky has been waiting some time to have this development approved and he applied for the development prior to amalgamation.

The problem that Mr Souvlis faced was that he was asking for a large development that would not comply with the existing and still current Maryborough Planning Scheme. If the development did comply I would have expected that it would have been dealt with under the old Maryborough City Council and be under construction by now.

Councillors were generally keen to support an extension and rebuilding of the retail centre in that location and recently we decided to ask our staff to explore any options that would see the development go ahead and still be justifiable under the Maryborough Planning Scheme. This is because the officers had recommended to Council that the application be refused.

Yesterday Council received a report with grounds recommending approval for the development with a lengthy (but not unusual) list of attached conditions. These conditions related to such things as the total floor size of the building, bulk and scale of the building, setbacks to other boundaries, pathways and driveways conditions and car parking provisions amongst others.

I moved to support the recommendation and asked that the shopping centre trading hours be amended to facilitate late opening for appropriate retailers. Cr McNeven seconded my motion. At this point Cr Dalgleish attempted to amend the motion by asking that conditions be altered to reflect a document emailed directly to Councillors, by the developers consultant, at 5pm the evening before. To my mind the document was not relevant, did not properly list actual conditions and our staff had not even had time to read it or the suggestions to alter conditions. Cr O’Connell seconded the amendment

Much debate ensued and the Mayor decided that the proposed amendment was actually going to alter the original intent of the motion to such a degree that it made the amendment unacceptable. At this point the Mayor refused the amendment. My motion to give a permit with associated ‘reasonable and relevant’ conditions was then put and was lost.

Cr Dalgleish then proceeded to move a motion that the development be approved and listed altered conditions which include a reduced setback (to 2 metres from 5 metres) to adjoining properties, reduced car parking provision and reduced requirements in relation to other works. I believe that these altered conditions make the development so non compliant with the Maryborough Planning Scheme that I voted against the motion. I also believe there are now inconsistencies within the conditions and that another delay to Mr Souvlis is inevitable due to the ad hoc approach taken yesterday by the majority of Councillors.

I do not believe that Council should be making decisions as important as a large scale retail development ‘on the run’ and that it should be disregarding the Planning Scheme and officers considered recommendations to the extent demonstrated yesterday.

While it is very, very difficult for all Councillors to be presented with what to all intents and purposes is a ‘good quality’ development being undertaken by high qulaity developers does not negate the duty of a Councillor to apply relevant legislation correctly and appropriately. When I vote on development applications it is my most serious duty to make decisions based on how I believe the relevant Legislation (Planning Scheme etc) like it or not, is being addressed. I cannot make my decisions based on whether I ‘like or dislike’ a development.

I wish the Souvlis family every success in their venture and look forward to having input into the Fraser Coast Growth Strategy. I do believe that retail and commercial development is constrained in both cities due to current planning schemes and hope that we can alter this as we move towards a new ‘Plan’ for the entire region.

• Development issues , Uncategorized
• Comments(3)

sue December 6th, 2009

Well the water park otherwise known as Wet Side has opened. It was wonderful to watch the kids splashing around and everyone having a good time yesterday morning. Apart from the hiccup where many people turned up at 10am believing the park would be open to them at this time, the morning was very relaxing. The weather was perfect and the park looks wonderful. Now that we have it and it is open I honestly believe it will become a very busy attraction and an asset to the Hervey Bay foreshore experience. It will need some fine tuning and yes will probably cost money for ever more but so do our Libraries and Galleries and we wouldn’t be without them. So I encourage you to go for a wander and tell me what you think of our brand new asset.

Yesterday evening saw me venture to Maryborough. I called in to say hi to the environment programme volunteers at Fay Smith Wetland celebrating a year of hard work. I know it sounds repetitive but without these hard working volunteers our region would not be the attractive place that it is. Thank you to all our volunteers.

Then off to the Gatakers Artspace which was officially opened. Like the water park both these projects were Q150 funded. It too requires several finishing touches but it has turned from an ugly duckling into a modern and attractive cultural space that will add another level of sophistication and enjoyment to the cultural health of our region.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

So to this week at Council. Quite a large agenda with a few developments to be considered. The Micky Souvlis shopping centre in Maryborough is to be considered as is another 8 storey development for 23 Main St , Hervey Bay. There is a request to negotiate the decision for the Centro redevelopment with Council needing to consider allowing the major DDS (K Mart) to open in Nov 2010 instead of the following year among other things. I won’t be voting on this item due to the fact that Graham and I own a business in Centro.

There is a report on the Della Vista Lakes development in Maryborough and Policy items to be considered including Heritage Register and Brolga to Bridge both in Maryborough. We have a report in relation to tree clearing on airport land and other items also. All in all a busy week.

If you are interested in reading the reports and Council officer recommendations please try out the Council web site as the reports should be accessible later today.

waterpark

• Council related issues , Water Park
• Comments(3)

sue September 13th, 2009

I apologise for the disappearance of the last post and associated comments.. The server that hosts my site crashed and burned it seems so the latest web site contributions have disappeared for ever. I can resurrect the comments via my email but whatever I wrote in my earlier post is gone for good. Teach me not to save a copy of my posts doesn’t it!

The point I was trying to make if I recall, was that the development called Della Vista earmarked for land at Granville, has been deferred by Council now at least 3 times. The last two times I did not vote in support of the motion to defer. This is because development on land at Granville, in my opinion, struggles to meet key criteria of the Maryborough City Council Planning Scheme. To begin with most of Granville is not zoned for urban development but is zoned rural and classed as ‘good quality agricultural land’ according to State Government guidelines. This term is used to describe land that should be kept to be used for rural production. There are also big hurdles to overcome to provide infrastructure such as water and sewerage and road access facilities across the river to Granville. Maryborough has other land zoned for urban growth and it continues to annoy me that developers speculate by buying rural land cheaply and then lobbying politicians at all levels, to allow development of that land. Why have a Planning Scheme that guides development sensibly if one doesn’t abide by it?

As a Councillor my job is to decide if the Council staff have assessed an application fairly and accurately against the rules or criteria laid down in our 4 Planning Schemes. I cannot vote to support any development because I think it is ‘good to have’, rather I have to base my decisions on how a particular development application aligns or doesn’t align with the rules. So sometimes I have to vote in support of applications that I personally don’t like! If Council makes decisions to approve or not approve developments and these decisions are not aligned with the rules laid down within our Planning Schemes, then the State Government is more than likely going to take a keen interest and may in fact intervene.

In my opinion if this Granville application had met the requirements of the Maryborough Planning Scheme it would more than likely have been approved prior to amalgamation by the then Maryborough City Council.

So if we collectively, Councillors and community alike, want to provide increased or restricted opportunities for development, then we have to change our Planning Schemes. This process has begun with the awarding of contracts to commence our Land Use Strategy. This strategy will be the key guiding document in the creation of the new Fraser Coast Planning Scheme. As soon as public participation processes are advertised I will be shouting from the roof tops as that will be the right time to express your views on where we want people to live, where we want to protect important habitat and how best we can provide the supporting social, sporting, cultural and economic needs of our bigger community. One key question that I hope receives an airing is how many people is an ideal population size?

So to more gentle pursuits. This morning I rushed and worried and moaned and groaned as I had committed to going snorkelling at 9am at Point Vernon. After visiting the start of the Tech Challenge race in Maryborough yesterday (which was absolutely wonderful to witness) I was hoping for one day at home to relax a bit, garden a bit (catch up with email a bit) and play with our new puppies. But once I arrived at Point Vernon and met up with our small gang and entered the water my grumbles were literally washed away.

The water was flat as a table top and quite clear, the clouds disappeared and the sky was painted a brilliant blue. The coral was teeming with little and  bigger fish and it was simply wonderful. On coming in we looked back to see how some of the more thickly wet suited snorkellers were travelling in time to witness two dolphins slowly cruise past. Then a turtle splashed near by and I recounted my near head butt with a little sea snake! Birds were soaring and singing and all was right with the world.

Nature does this to me every time. The cares of the human world wash away and the wonders that abound in the natural world are like a soothing salve. The rest of the day has been enriched by my snorkelling with good people and I am so lucky that I live in a beautiful place with beautiful weather and underwater wonders. Take care, Sue

• Development issues
• Comments(4)

sue August 10th, 2009

 I worry that much of the Planning Decisions these days go by with little community knowledge as under the New Planning Scheme much more development is not required to undergo public notification processes. This is all well and good when development is aligned with the desired outcomes of our Planning Schemes but it means many of you may not be aware of decisions being made through out the area. Also worthy of note is the lack of construction following many previous approvals. It seems that the economic downturn is having a major impact on developers and many blocks of land now are back on the market or sitting quietly awaiting better times.

I do recall however a lot of community interest in the Hughes Rd development. This land is heavily treed and is largely undisturbed. The block is constrained with only one road entrance and is like an island of green surrounded by houses. The block is approx 13 hectares in size. The officers report includes a recommended approval and is recommending that the most valuable section of the land containing remnant veg, is to be preserved by including it in the development and placing covenants on the blocks. In other words, if approved by Council, there will be no public open space dedication. All the land will be subdivided and large blocks of 8000sqm will include a covenant. If you have an interest in any of these reports they are available on the Council web site and will be decided at the Council Meeting this Wednesday.

http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/council/meetings/PLANNING_DEVELOPMENT_MEETING_AGENDA_MINUTES.shtml

I notice the reports are not yet appearing via the web site so will enquire in the morning.

 The whale festival was very well patronised and Graham and I ended our Sat evening enjoying the local Z Pac production of Fawlty Towers. On Friday we attended the Art Society awards night at our Regional Gallery and after a recent evening of opera at Gatakers Restaurant we certainly can’t complain about a lack of cultural performances and events.

• Development issues
• Comments(0)

sue July 11th, 2009

An interesting debate is happening on the Strewth blog so thought I’d copy it here. I don’t usually respond via another blog preferring to use my own to communicate to you but when I am personally targetted…. well I feel it right to respond.

Anyhow for what it is worth I copy the latest interaction here. Feel free to read the entire discussion via the Strewth website.

As posted on Bring back Strewth http://bringbackstrewth.wordpress.com/

Sue, Whist you continue to hold back development you are ensuring that our cities greatest export will always be our children. We cannot all afford to buy them jobs.

People come to Hervey Bay so they can live near the beach, not is some convenient paddock half way to Maryborough.

Why not give us ratepayers and tourists what we want
- or get out of the way so someone else can.

Reply

• On July 11, 2009  Cr Sue Brooks Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.So am I correct in understanding that by ‘holding back development’ you are only referring to multi unit development along the Esplanade or subdivisions near to the coast line? I am in favour of all sorts of development especially non construction based development as I believe we need to diversify, but many, many people tell me that they don’t want the Fraser Coast coastline filled up with concrete towers. They also want to protect public access to the beach and protect our natural beautiful environment.
  I believe the current Bay Planning Scheme goes a long way into protecting some Esplanade areas from ‘over development’ while permitting higher and taller buildings within our nodes. But these buildings should still comply with the Planning Scheme and if they do I support them. Please do provide examples of when I ‘hold back development’? I part own a retail business for goodness sake and we depend on toursits and residents for the survival of our business! I want to help build a region that is self sufficient and is still a wonderful, beautiful place to work and play!

• Development issues , Uncategorized
• Comments(0)