Sue Brooks' Blog

Sue Brooks 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 Brooks 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 Brooks 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 Brooks 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 Brooks January 11th, 2010

I was annoyed that some Chronicle coverage recently has mentioned Council was ‘on holidays’ and not available for comment. I was and am available for comment and am reachable almost all of the time and I know that the CEO has also requested he be contacted to provide a response when required. I also understand that the Chronicle runs a fast story production process to ensure that their stories are current and that Council cannot always provide information within the few hours that the Chronicle requests to meet requested deadlines. For a complex issue Council would need longer time frames but I was very pleased today to see both the Chronicle story and a Council response printed at the same time. It is a much better outcome when both sides of a story can be aired together and I appreciate the Chronicle taking this responsible approach to providing us with balanced reporting.

When it comes to the generalised criticism that Council doesn’t support business I also get annoyed. Council does support business but is also obligated to ensure that its Local Laws and Planning Schemes etc are adhered to. The number of complaints I receive from neighbours complaining about small (and larger) businesses being conducted on residential zoned land is constant.

I wonder if the letter writers and those complaining about Council not supporting business would like to see an aquaculture factory or a panel beating shop set up next door to them? To put it simply Council needs to ensure that any business is located in an appropropriately zoned location and that once operational the business complies with environmental health and other legislation. If Council and/or our community believe there isn’t enough appropriately zoned land to faciltate business growth the upcoming land use strategy is the ideal opportunity to identify shortcomings and faciltate the appropriate zoning for business use.

I personally believe retail development is very difficult under all our current planning schemes presently and I will be doing my very best to ensure that retail development is given every opportunity to develop as our region grows. I don’t want to see small shopping centres dotted everywhere and anywhere but I do want to see corner shops and/or small retail centres in neighbourhood locations and larger shopping centres and bulky goods homemaker centres given opoortunities to develop in centralised locations.

Let’s not forget that the then Hervey Bay City Council together with State Government supported businesses such as the Bungy Jump and the Organic Foods Factory to establish. Many hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars went into these ventures and I don’t believe it was any Government that caused these ventures to fail!

I do believe this Council is very supportive of business but if someone wants to set up a business that is contrary to our current Planning Schemes the first thing that they should do is obtain advice from staff and also speak to Councillors (specifically Cr O’Connell who has portfolio responsibility) prior to lodging applications or purchasing land etc.  Preparation is the key I believe.

• Council related issues
• Comments(1)

Sue Brooks January 6th, 2010

Prepared by FCRC CEO Andrew Brien in response to media enquiries and posted here with his permission… I hope this helps in understanding the processes that Council needs to undertake now that we are one region in relation to aviation. At no time do I expect Council to make decisions which do not involve community input so please feel free to voice your thoughts.

Future of Fraser Coast Airports

 It appears that there is a lot of misinformation in relation to the current situation regarding Fraser Coast airports. Much of this is brought about by people speculating on the work that is currently being undertaken by the Council. The purpose of this letter is to outline the work that is currently underway and is already publicly available information.

 The Fraser Coast Regional Council is currently undertaking a “best value” land use assessment of the two airports currently owned and operated by the Council. Underpinning this review is the work that is being undertaken by State Government looking at the Churchill Investigation Area and the existing master plans for the Maryborough and Hervey Bay airports.

 The purpose of the study is to identify the best value land use for the existing sites based on different scenarios. Two of the scenarios being considered are:

 *Retaining either one or two of the existing airports in current locations without consideration of a new airport; and

* Retaining either one or two of the existing airports in current location and the development of a new regional airport in a new location.

 The two scenarios provide an opportunity for Council to fully consider the best way forward in relation to the ownership and management of the sites.

 The timeframes that are being considered are medium to long term, (ie 15 years or longer) however the need to have this work completed before the next stage of master planning is essential.

 There has been much speculation and discussion in relation to the airports and the approach being taken by Council. The Council is looking at the longer term issues associated with the ownership of two airports in close proximity and how the Council can maximise any return on the investment. The costs associated with the operations and maintenance of an airport are high and unless the costs of operating the airports can be recovered from airport users, there is a need to subsidise the costs through general rates.

 Budget

Maryborough airport –

• Total Revenue $25,000
• Total Expenses $133,000 (operational not including depreciation)

 Hervey Bay airport

• Total Revenue $1.48m
• Total Expenses $2.34m (including depreciation and finance costs)

 In addition the Council has allocated $1.09m in capital expenditure for both airports in 2009/10.

 Fees and charges

The Council has recently resolved to change the casual landing fees and carpark charges applicable at its airports. This shortfall in revenue for the airports will now be made up from general rates.

 Flight Training Queensland

The proposed flight training school which was being considered by the former Maryborough City Council and the now Fraser Coast Regional Council was not stopped by Council, but was stopped due to a failure to negotiate a commercial return to Council. The Council was not opposed to Flight Training School, but did not want to be tied to a long term (50 year) lease which was not going to provide an appropriate level of return to Council and the community. The decision not to proceed with the Flight Training School was made by Flight Training Australia and was based in part on not being able to meet the Council requirements. When the matter ultimately became a commercial decision the project did not stack up for Flight Training Australia.

 Leases

The decision of Council not to release more land or enter into long term leases is based on the fact that the Council has not yet made a decision on the long term future of the airports. Once the best value land use study is completed and Council has made a decision on the future of the airports then the Council can look to enter into arrangements which are consistent with the longer term plans for the sites. For example – if the decision is made to construct a new regional airport and close the existing airports, it would not be appropriate for Council to enter into longer term leases with individuals and companies on the existing sites.

 Why undertake a further study?

Prior to amalgamation each Council was responsible for its own assets and how they were managed. Following amalgamation the new Council needed to look at all the existing assets (including airports) to ensure that they were being managed appropriately and providing appropriate returns to the community. The previous studies assumed that there was only a single airport and that this should cater for all uses (ie general aviation as well as passenger services). This is clearly the case as both airports were competing for passenger services as well as trying to bring in more aviation associated industry.

 This approach is considered appropriate and is in line with best practice principles. Under or over utilisation of assets comes at a cost and there is a need to ensure that the use is appropriate and that users contribute towards the management of the asset.

 Future Development of airports

Given that no decision has been made on the future of the airports, at this stage it is unknown what purposes could be appropriate on the two sites. This will be further considered once Council has considered the best value land use report.

 Recent articles

There have been a number of articles in the Chronicle in recent weeks relating to the Fraser Coast airports. Whilst the information provided above addresses most of the issues raised there are outstanding matters to clarify which relates to Commonwealth funding and information requests regarding leases. The following extracts have been provided and whilst they do not include all of the funding received by Council in relation to airports, it does indicate where the majority of funding has been allocated and spent.

 The following are extracts from letters regarding Maryborough Airport

  (sorry images aren’t working)

 The following are extracts in relation to Hervey Bay Airport

 (sorry images aren’t working)

 In relation to specific enquiries from Mr Miller and Mr McNeil, both of these people have been provided with answers in relation to leases and future development opportunities at the airports. In a letter to Mr McNeil in November 2009 it stated:

 I refer to your recent enquiries regarding opportunities for leasing at Hervey Bay and Maryborough Airports.  I am aware from your advices that you had previously made similar enquiries with the Hervey Bay City Council in relation to Hervey Bay Airport prior to amalgamation.

 As you would appreciate, amalgamation of four individual Councils to form the Fraser Coast Regional Council has necessitated a review of Council’s strategic direction in relation to key infrastructure.  Earlier this year, Council directed that a land use study be undertaken in relation to the Hervey Bay & Maryborough Airports in order to establish the future direction of both sites.  This study is currently underway and it is anticipated that the preliminary results will be available for the consideration of Council by January 2010. 

 At this stage, approval has not been granted by Council for the release of new sites for hangar / business development and indications are that this will not occur until after the land use study has been received and a position adopted.  It is anticipated however, that a number of existing leases at Hervey Bay Airport which are due to expire will be advertised for public tender in accordance with the Local Government Act.

 As discussed during our telephone conversation, tenders are publicly advertised via print & other media and the onus rests with the tenderer to identify and act on such advertising.  As a courtesy however, I have given an undertaking to provide notification to you via email when airport tender opportunities are next released.  The specific timing of the tender process will be determined by Council’s Property Management unit.

 From the brief details you have advised in relation to your proposal to establish a flying and ground school, I believe these activities could be a valuable addition to the operations of either Airport and would welcome provision of further details following the resolution of the current land use study. 

 In relation to the resolution of the previous Council, it is reproduced below:

 from a Meeting of Council on 20^th November 2007, was moved by Cr Dautel and seconded by Cr Morris and is reproduced below:

 “1.      That in respect of the Bellman Hangar, located at Maryborough’s Airport and currently tenanted by Maryborough Aviation Services, Council resolves as follows:-

 (a)      That Council make application to the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the hangar doors, as it is considered that the cost of repairing the doors is prohibitive,

 (b)      That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate a reasonable time frame in which the present tenant, Maryborough Aviation Services, is to vacate the building,

 (c)      That the present tenant is to continue its current month to month Lease arrangements pending finalisation of negotiations; and

 2.       That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to seek legal advice regarding any implications resulting from the above decision.                  MOTION CARRIED 8/0”

 On Tuesday an extensive list of specific questions was sent to Council seeking responses within a couple hours and the Chronicle was advised that some research was required in order to ensure appropriate and accurate answers. Despite this the editorial and front page the following day were dedicated to the airport. In response to the specific questions that were raised by the Chronicle I have provided the responses below.

 Responses

 Q1. Did the former Maryborough City Council discuss closing Maryborough Airport?

 A. A review of the Council Minutes does not indicate that closing the Maryborough Airport was considered as an option.

 Q2. Does the council still hold documentation on this/these discussions?

 A. As indicated in response to Question 1 there does not appear to be any documents on file in relation to discussions on Council closing the airport.

 Q3. Is the council intending to close the aerodrome?

 A. Council has not yet considered the matter. The future of the Maryborough and Hervey Bay airports will be considered by Council as part of the future strategic planning for the Region. The Council has been advised of options that may be available and these include upgrading of the existing site, changes to the airport and its future uses as an airport and also possible options if it was not to remain an airport. 

 Q4. If so, or if this is a declared option, what will the land be turned over to?

 A. Possible future uses for the airport have not yet been considered. The Council has engaged specialist consultants to undertake a “best value” land use analysis of both Fraser Coast Airports. The outcomes of this study should be available for consideration by Council towards the end of January or the Ordinary Meeting in February.

 Q5. Is Maryborough Airport classed as “strategic”?

 A. There has been some discussion on the significance of the Maryborough Airport as being an airport of regional significance however this is not supported through any documented reports.

 Q6. What is the council’s legal position in alerting the federal government of any future development or alternative uses for the aerodrome?

 A. This is currently being investigated as part of the best value land use study and will form part of any decision on the future use of the airports.

 Q7. What did the council charge for landing/takeoff/parking fees for light aircraft at the aerodrome? Have those fees been waived and if so when? And when will new ones be decided or will the council permanently waive them?

 A. Council adopted its fees and charges as part of the development of the budget for 2009/10. The decision to amend the landing fees was made by Council at the Ordinary Meeting held on 16 December in accordance with the following – “for both Maryborough and Hervey Bay Airports, casual aircraft landing fees be changed from $9.50 per landing to $0.00 per landing for aircraft with MTOW up to 2,000kg”

 The Council will consider fees and charges as part of the development of the 2010/11 budget for Council. No decision has been made on permanently waiving these landing fees. In the event that the Council was to waive these fees permanently these will be a need to make up the shortfall in revenue through other sources such as general rates.

 Q8. What community-oriented/emergency services use the aerodrome for landing and takeoff and refueling?

 A. Maryborough airport is currently used by Royal Flying Doctor and Angel Flight.

 Q9. When will the land use study currently being undertaken be ready and when will the results be made public?

 A. Council will consider a report on this matter in either late January or early February this year. The Council will need to make a decision on when to release the recommendations publicly. Depending on the results of the study it may not be practical or commercially appropriate to release the findings immediately. This is a consideration that the Council will need to make after the Council has considered the report in detail.

 Q10. How much is this land use study costing the council?

 A. The land use study currently being undertaken is incorporated into the Master Planning budget for the airports. Council has allocated $60,000 for this purpose in 2009/10 with the land use component costing less than $20,000.

 Q11. How many outside consultants are/have been involved?

 A. To date the only use of external consultants for the best value land use study has been one company.

 Q12. When will the council’s “position” be adopted?

 A. Refer to response to Q4.

 Q13. Who is on the council’s executive?

 A. Refer to http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/council/Executive%20Team.shtml , however to save time the current Executive of Council is Andrew Brien (Chief Executive Officer), Lisa Desmond (Director Organisational Services), David King (Director Planning Services), Wayne Sweeney (Director Engineering Services) and Peter Smith (Director Community Services).

 Q14. How many master plans/land use studies has this council and former councils been engaged in since 2005? At what cost?

 A. Both the former Maryborough and Hervey Bay City Councils prepared Master Plans for the individual airports. Currently the Council is undertaking the best value land use study which will be used to inform the future master planning for the airports. There has been work undertaken in relation to security plans, upgrades to facilities such as terminals, car parking etc. Some of this work has been doe in house and some has been external. In order to get a response today it is not possible to get accurate budget figures. Current year budget, as outlined in response to Q10 is $60,000.

 Regards

 Andrew

• Council related issues
• Comments(11)

Sue Brooks 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(4)

Sue Brooks 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 Brooks December 2nd, 2009

Or should I say who is right and who is wrong? It is a difficult job being a politician. There I have said it… I detest using the word ‘politician’ to describe myself as the word brings up such negative connotations but in reality all elected members are politicians.

When we ’sign on’ or swear to abide by the rules as per the Local Government Act we all make a public declaration to, and I quote, ” faithfully and impartially fulfil the duties of the office…’ we do this under the regulations of the Local Government Act. We also swear to abide by the rules of conduct for Councillors.

I take this declaration very seriously and endeavour to do my very best to abide by it. I believe I honestly work to deliver a representative view whenever I am called upon to make decisions on behalf of you, the residents and voters of this community within Council.

What is very difficult however is translating that effort or the results of ones efforts to the public realm. Just by using this web site I am criticised by some people for speaking publicly. If I am photographed and/or interviewed too often by the press or TV media I am seen by some to be a ‘media tart’. If I am never seen or heard of via the media some people think I’m doing nothing!

How then does a Councillor balance these conflicting messages. Personally I keep reminding myself that I must abide by the rules and I must always promote the decisions taken by Council even if I don’t personally agree with them. This is the basis by which I believe all Councillors should behave. While all Councillors don’t always agree on everything (and thank goodness for the differences in opinion..) once Council has made a decision by majority vote we are all bound to support that decision. I try to always do this to the best of my ability but I am also quite prepared to state when I have a personal point of view that is different from the decision of Council. I believe I have a right to have an opinion and am forever thankful that I live in a democracy that allows me to have this personal freedom to ‘have and voice an opinion’.

For example I am on the public record as not being supportive of the water park. I voted against the park being located where it is. I also recently voted against Council providing some financial assistance to the operation of the park. People can see my ‘no’ vote as it is noted in the minutes of the relevant meeting. But now that Council has made the decision (by majority vote) to support the park I will do whatever I can to see that the park is successful. It is a huge investment, an absolutely wonderful concept and I hope with every fibre of my being that it is successful and that residents and visitors alike throng to it and enjoy it.

So back to the media. I don’t try to attract media attention but I have a portfolio that involves many issues that are good media fodder. Dead fish, foreshore debates, recycling and sustainability issues, trees or no trees, Traveston Dam etc, etc are all issues that are directly related to my portfolio responsibilities. I’m also appreciative that our Mayor has always supported portfolio Councillors speaking on items relating to their portfolio rather than being the sole media spokesperson himself.

When the Mayor is absent the Deputy Mayor becomes for all intents and purposes the Mayor. Decisions, signatures and media opportunities are always greater for the Mayor than for individual Councillors. The Mayor is regularly invited to events that the rest of the Councillors are not invited to. This is as it should be. In the last few weeks Cr McNeven has been in every way describable the Mayor. Yes we refer to her as our ‘Acting Mayor’ but what we mean is that she has assumed all the duties and responsibilities of the Mayor.

It is unfortunate then to find that her responsibilities and her appearance in the media have been called into question via the Chronicle speaking to another Councillor. What should remain an internal issue about roles and responsibilities has become media fodder. So I would like firstly to express my disapointment at that happening and then to say that I totally agree with the editorial written yesterday by Mr Peter Chapman. Thank you Peter for a succinct description of what should not have even been a story.

Now I am sure I will be criticised for commenting publicly about a media article but if I don’t comment I am criticised for not being communicative. I can’t win it seems.

The media have a difficult job of reporting newsworthy items of interest accurately and with very few words. Reporters and journalists have to pump out regular stories on an hourly basis. They don’t work 9-5 they work much longer hours than that. Sometimes they hit the nail on the head and get a story just right, sometimes they miss the full picture by a country mile but the vast majority of the time they represent differing points of view and teach us something we may not have known. If it was not for our media I’m not sure we would have ended up with a pleasing decision re Traveston Dam.

So the lesson here is be truthful and accurate in what you say, behave professionally, treat your colleagues with respect, apologise when you throw the inevitable dummy spit and behave like adults not children. Then again sometimes I think children often behave better than some adults…. See what I mean!

Oh well back to balancing on that tightrope, trying to be communicative without being negative, vindictive and/or misrepresenting anyone or anything…. and looking to the skies for some more rain so we don’t have more fish kills. Cheers, Sue

• Council related issues
• Comments(2)

Sue Brooks November 28th, 2009

I imagine that the debate about the Hervey Bay (and beyond) foreshore will continue for eternity but at least I survived the forum on Thursday evening at USQ without too many bruises.

I don’t enjoy public speaking and was quite nervous about my presentation but I believe that the large audience appreciated the overview I gave of the current Hervey Bay Forehore Plan and the personal comments that I ended the presentation with. There were 4 other speakers besides myself being Greg McGarvie (sec. FraserCoast Sustainable Development Assoc), Brett Langabeer (USQ staff member), Kevin Smith (Manager Le Mer) and Leigh Bennett (consultant to USQ etc. and past HBCC CEO). The facilitator was Steve Dixon (real estate). I do think that all 4 other speakers were promoting a level of development or change for the foreshore/Esplanade varying from resuming caravan park land to introducing more lawn areas, providing increased views and to increased built development. I recall Steve Dixon saying to the TV news reporter that people come to live here to be by the sea and they expect to see the sea! 

Needless to say I totally disagree with this opinion.

The other presenters, in my opinion, agreed that we don’t want to chop down trees but it was hard to understand how you could achieve some of the outcomes presented without tree removal.

On Thursday morning I drove the Esplanade from The Gables to Urangan and noted the distance and the condition of the foreshore. I also measured (lineally) how much space is ‘natural’ and how much is ‘developed’. I think we have a good balance and also have room to accomodate more people into the future. We are extremely privileged that we have 12 kms of ‘urban’ foreshore.

Thursday lunch time I drove to the Seafront Oval and got out my bike for a ride along the pathway. I had never previously ever walked or ridden the entire pathway in all my 11 years here! I began at Seafront Oval and 30 minutes later arrived at Margaret St, Urangan where I turned around and headed back. What did I see?

I saw people walking, people cycling, people sitting in the shade and eating or resting or playing. I saw an elderly couple gazing out to sea. What made the scene memorable was the caring manner in which the gentleman had his arm gently around his partner holding her in a relaxed cuddle. I saw two young guys walking their small black puppy. I saw a jogger who nearly overtook me so I decided to peddle just a little faster. I saw someone windsurfing and the van pull up to await a brave skydiver. I saw two youths using metal detectors obviously hunting for treasures and a picnic table full of young men laughing and talking and ‘hanging out’ together. It made my day when they returned my wave with a call of ‘hey sexy!’ It has been too long to remember since anyone described me in that manner. I saw labourers and office workers alone or in small groups having their lunch. I saw mothers watching while their young children played. I saw people reading, doing crosswords, listening to an ipod or talking on their mobile. I saw people on the jetties using mobility scooters and people snoozing on the grass.

I also saw the beautiful blue waters of our wonderful Hervey Bay, the green leaved trees and the sun drenched clear blue sky. I saw dry brown leaves and grasses and green well watered lawns. I saw dry and dusty sand dunes waiting patiently for rain and I saw only 4 pieces of human produced litter on the entire trip. I heard birds calling, waves gently breaking and the sounds of human happiness. I certainly must take this ride more regularly and venture to other parts of the foreshore. I enjoyed every minute of my 60 minutes and I’m sure my body also benefitted from the gentle exercise.

I was amazed at the different perspective I gained of the foreshore from the seat of my bike. Nearly the entire length of that pathway were views of the water which aren’t available from the road. It reminded me that when we speak of something as important as our foreshore we have to remember to  think about it from all angles. The views we are rewarded with include views from a boat in the water, (few buildings protrude above what could be the middle of the bush) the end of our Pier, the sandy beaches where we sit, the pathways where we can walk and cycle, the Esplanade on which we drive and the buildings where we can eat, shop and sleep.

The foreshore vegetation provides shade from the sun, shelter from the wind, a home for much wildlife, and a beautiful natural setting found in very few developed urban cities. The vegetation growing alongside our beach also protects our buildings and helps prevent more serious erosion.

I moved to Hervey Bay primarily because of this beautiful foreshore. I love that the city lies alongside a peaceful calm Northerly facing Bay. I love the green trees and the relaxing drive along the Esplnade at 50km with no traffic lights to interrupt my journey. I love living so close to the foreshore that I get to walk on the beach every day. I can’t see the sea but I live close enough to hear it. The trees between our house and the water are what make living on our little patch of paradise a blessing. Where else could you live on acreage just 10 minutes from ‘town’ and walk to the beach every day if you choose to? When the Northerlies are blowing at full blast all we have here is a gentle cooling breeze.

Council is curently reviewing the actions associated with the adopted 2007 Foreshore Plan. This review has been underway since earlier this year and had been planned when the Foreshore Plan was initially adopted by the then HBCC in 2007. Council will decide which actions within the plan we have met, which ones we haven’t and whether these actions need to remain in place. I personally have asked that we also discuss what we can do in relation to improved weed management. I do expect that mulched areas will not increase and that they will be well maintained. I do expect some trees to be planted to provide shade where we have gaps and to replace trees that are removed because they are dangerous or dying from old age. Other planting should incorporate ground covers to help prevent erosion.

I will advise you via this site when that report is listed for a Council meeting. It will be either late this year or early next year. I have also asked that the plan be mounted on the Council web site. I expect that a new ‘Foreshore Plan,’ encompassing the entire Fraser Coast foreshore, will be needed once we conclude our SEMP and the Sustainable Growth 2031 – Land Use Strategy targetted for 2011.

Thank you to everyone who came along to USQ last Thursday and also to all the people who have emailed me and written to me with their thoughts about the foreshore. The overhelming majority of you seem to agree with me. We don’t want a ‘concrete coast’ and we basically want the foreshore to be maintained in a natural manner pretty much as we find it today.

We are truly belessed to have such a beautiful place to live and I hope that we can continue to care for it and appreciate it for many years after I’m long gone.  I believe that people come to live here and to visit our patch of coast because it is special, beautiful and so very, very unique.

• Council related issues
• Comments(6)