Archive for the 'Council related issues' Category

Winds of change, Pier Kiosk and the Shen Neng 1

Sue Brooks May 8th, 2010

This week Council has decided to try a committee based structure instead of the portfolio system which has operated for the last two years.  The Council will trial a three-committee structure for 12 months.
The Committees include –
•Development and Community Services Standing Committee chaired by Councillor Barbara Hovard;
•Infrastructure and Environment Services Standing Committee chaired by Councillor Linda Harris;
•Strategic and Organisational Services Standing Committee chaired by Gerard O’Connell.
All Councillors will be members of each of the Standing Committees.
•The Infrastructure and Environment Services Standing Committee will meet on the first Wednesday of each month in Hervey Bay;
•The Strategic and Organisational Services Standing Committee will meet on the third Wednesday of each month in Maryborough;
•The Development and Community Services Standing Committee will meet directly after the Council’s Ordinary Meetings on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month.

I was nominated to Chair the Infrastructure and Environment Committee but Cr Harris received more votes so is Chair and Cr Hawes was nominated for the Strategic and Organisational Services Committee but was beaten by Cr O’Connell. The interesting situation is that the three Committee chairs and the Deputy Mayor all hail from either Maryborough or Tiaro. Maybe this new structure will help bring us together as a region and reduce the negativity against Hervey Bay, evident within some corners of our community. I support this new structure as it makes the Council decision making processes much more open and accountable and ensures that Councillors have the opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them and to the community.

I was also pleased to move the motion that was unanimously supported to expand the Hervey Bay Library by building a straightforward simply designed Gallery across the road. The new 700 square metre building for the gallery will be built on Old Maryborough Road. The Council has allocated $200,000 in its 2009/2010 budget and is proposing to allocate a further $3,250,000 in its 2010/2011 budget to finance internal refurbishment works in the Hervey Bay Library and to design and build the new Regional Gallery. These funds have been carried over from the old Hervey Bay City Council which had planned to extend the Library prior to amalgamation. The Council has also applied for $1.6 million from the Federal Government’s RLCIP funding program for the gallery. USQ will continue to share the library facilities. I attended the quilt and wallpaper exhibition openings last night at our current gallery and highly recommend that you pop in and view these marvellous creations.

Pier kiosk investigation
I finally decided to put a motion to Council this week to investigate this kiosk idea and was pleased that the concept was supported by almost everyone and investigations will go ahead. I believe a small kiosk designed to complement the heritage qualities of the pier could increase pier use and reduce bad behaviour on the pier. It could also provide an income stream for Council to assist with pier maintenance. Your ideas on this proposal will be important also to see if it progresses into a reality. Current and potential operators would be able to express interest and to eventually tender for rights to construct and operate the kiosk.

Lastly about the blow in. There has been much fuss about the Shen Neng1 coming to our waters. I am not fussing. This big boat has to be put somewhere. North of us is the GBR and South of us Moreton Bay. The Government has a problem and is doing its very best to solve the problem. I am very confident that the Government agencies are aware of the ocean bottom structure, (sand not coral or seagrass) and sea currents (they go North not South) and have chosen the location here as the least likely to cause environmental problems for the unloading of coal. The whales aren’t here in numbers yet and they know how to avoid moving ships let alone stationary ones. Yes there is a risk to the environment but that risk is great no matter where the boat is put. I’m not going to join in the clamour to relocate the ship elsewhere. The sooner the ship is unloaded and lightened and on its way away from us the better I believe.

Lastly I wish all mum’s a great mothers day. Enjoy your day and I wish you good health and happiness, Sue

This week in Council

Sue Brooks April 22nd, 2010

Firstly I must apologise for anyone needing an email or phone response from me. This week, and most of last week, has been wall to wall meetings and functions and I’m very behind in answering email and phone calls. Tomorrow is a no meeting day (yippee) so I plan to catch up.

This week Council accepted the reports from the Economic Development Advisory Committee and Maryborough Urban Renewal Reference Group.  The economic development group want to progress a conference type centre in Hervey Bay and will form a smaller group to help progress this.

Council received the Financial report for March which included a list of budget revisions. I decided to vote against this report as I don’t agree with the $500k transfer from reserves for employee costs. Council also received our amended operational plan and a quarterly report on implementation of our Corp Plan and Operational plans which is a good document to read in terms of understanding all the things that Council does and how well we are achieving our aims etc.

Council ratified ‘generally’ the recently amended seafront oval concept master plan which includes the currently being installed All Abilities Playground. This is being constructed where the temporary fencing is currently located.

We also approved our own application to extend the Tavistock complex to incorporate more space for staff and storage. We scaled back the project so the extra space will not be used to provide office space for Councillors or a new Council Chamber. Space in the building was an issue prior to amalgamation and is an even bigger problem now.

Councillor Dalgleish moved a motion to repeal or rescind the decision made at the meeting last week in relation to the tenders for the management of some of the Council owned cravan parks. Cr Muckan seconded this motion and after much debate the recision motion was lost. Councillors against the motion to rescind included myself, Crs Hawes, McNeven, Hovard and Arthur with the remaining Councillors voting for. The Mayor didn’t have a casting vote as per the LGA, so the motion was lost. I am glad that the tenders can now be finalised as per the decision made last week.

In the confidential session of the meeting decisions were made in relation to Council controlled land and options for the ’structure’ of Council now that the Director of Development Services position is vacant.

The most newsworthy item I have left for last and involves the future upgrading of the Maryborough Swimming Complex. Council has committed to a budget and included plans to retain a 50m length pool within the upgrades. I fully supported this unanimous decision as it was clear that the community strongly values a 50m pool and I’m pleased that we can support their wishes. In the newspaper today there was part of a quote I read out at the meeting that I thought was interesting in light of the debate about the pool. So I will conclude this post with the quote by Shane Gould….

I think lap swimming is done by many, many people other than dedicated Olympic or competitive swimmers so I don’t fully agree with Shane but I do think her comments are food for thought. I wish there was more land available at the complex to allow more variation in the eventual outcome. Cheers, Sue

ORDINARY Aussie swimmers are being forced into “boring” pools for the benefit of an elite few, says triple Olympic gold medallist Shane Gould.

Gould said Australia’s public pools were boring rectangular boxes because they were built for those “copying” the Olympics.

“Unfortunately, for most of the population, swimming for nationalistic projects is preventing more use of swimming pools,” she said.

“The reason this sort of pool is designed this way is to find and nurture the golden fish . . . I was a golden fish. Lap swimmers are just copying what the Olympic model prescribes.”

Speaking at an event in Melbourne yesterday, she said only 40 Australian swimmers went to the Olympics every four years.

“While that’s the peak experience of a swimmer’s career, why should everyone else pay for it?” she said. “Rather than modelling it on competitive swimming, model it on everyday swimming.”

Gould said instead of pools being rectangular boxes divided into lanes with ropes and black lines, they should be built to mimic nature, with uneven surfaces, curved, muddy edges, overhangs and moving waters.

This would make swimming pools more interesting and multi-purpose, helping people to swim confidently in natural environments, where most drownings occur.

http://www.news.com.au/national/shane-gould-slams-boring-olympic-pools/story-e6frfkvr-1225852990667

The week that was…

Sue Brooks April 19th, 2010

Council life has been very busy this last week so my comments are really old news. At the Planning and Development meeting last Wednesday Council rejected an application to develop land adjacent Anson’s Rd, Dundowran Beach. Main Roads had directed Council to reject the proposed development due to impacts on that road network but I was pleased with the Council decision none the less. I believed the application was over development for this area and the fact that Council received over 250 submissions asking Council to say ‘no’ demonstrates the strong community feelings against the development.

Other news from the meeting includes -

Town Planning report for March 14 April 2010

During March 2010, 82 Town Planning applications were received and 86 applications finalised. They included – 

  • 39 Material Change of Use
  • 9   Reconfiguring a lot
  • 3   Combined applications
  • 21 Operational works
  • 3   Building under planning scheme
  • 8   Negotiated decisions/changes/extensions
  • 3   Compliance assessments

 The total number of applications since 1 July 2009 is 584.

Telecommunication towers approved

Approval, subject to conditions, was given to the erection of two telecommunications facilities by Optus Mobile Pty Ltd  – one at 612-646 River Heads Road, River Heads and the other at Lot 915 Poona Road, Poona. Consideration was given to the visual impact and the proximity of the facilities to existing residences and park residential land.

 Council defers its building extension application

An application by the Fraser Coast Regional Council for a Development Permit to extend its Tavistock Street administration centre in Hervey Bay was deferred to the next Council meeting for consideration so that the Development Services staff could review amended plans that had recently been submitted and provide an amended report to Council for its consideration.

Consultation process under way for Hervey Bay Structure Planning Projects

A series of stakeholder and public meetings were held this week as part of the consultation process for the Hervey Bay Structure Planning Projects. The plans apply to two areas zoned “Emerging Communities” in the Hervey Bay Planning Scheme that are identified as follows –

  • The Eli Waters/Dundowran Structure Plan Area;
  • The Doolong Flats/Ghost Hill and Kawungan Northeast/Main Street Structure Plan Area.

Both meetings were well attended and provided positive and valuable feedback for the projects.

Submission lodged to LGAQ Public Enquiry on the need for a State Population Policy

The Fraser Coast Regional Council has lodged a submission to the LGAQ Public Inquiry on the need for a State Population Policy.

The submission outlines the challenges faced in the Fraser Coast Region and asks that consideration be given to a number of matters including –

  • The ability to accommodate population growth in a sustained manner, taking into consideration Wide Bay Burnett’s demographic profile that highlights an increasing aged population, accompanied by identified disadvantage in terms of productivity levels, household income and unemployment. Wide Bay Burnett’s population is projected to increase by 137,000 by 2031;
  • The region’s natural birth rate is below replacement rates so migration to the region of the appropriate age groups needs to be encouraged;
  • The disproportionate number of aged people residing within the Fraser Coast and its effect on the provision of suitable infrastructure, specific transport requirements, health, housing and other support services;
  • The percentage of the population that is transient;
  • Population distribution within the Fraser Coast Region;
  • The need to attract young families to the region and keep them here;
  • The need for further industry, education and health services and the relocation of government services to regional areas;
  • The effects from the loss of state government subsidies.

The full submission can be accessed in the Planning and Development Committee meeting agenda for 14 April 2010 on the Fraser Coast Regional Council’s website- www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au

Change of date for Burrum Heads community briefing

The Council’s community briefing that was to be held on 24 May at the Burrum Heads Community Hall has been deferred to 31 May to allow Councillors and staff travelling to the Fraser Coast’s Chinese sister city Leshan to attend. The briefing starts at 5.30pm.

 We also received the news that Bundaberg and other Councils didn’t receive any extra funding from the State Government re amalgamation costs. Our Council believed that we would not have qualified for extra funding and the recent State Government decision supports our view.

Lastly there was an item dealt with in confidential relating to the awarding of successful tenders for our beach front caravan parks. The decision on the Scarness and Torquay was made but the Pialba Caravan park tender is to be finalised next week.

Structure Planning, petitions etc

Sue Brooks April 10th, 2010

Last night Graham and I enjoyed the opening of two new exhibitions at the Hervey Bay Regional Gallery. I am continually amazed at the depth of talent that we have here within our very own community and I recommend that you all pop in and view the exhibitions and in particular the works by local artist Mr Ben Gerdsen. http://www.herveybayregionalgallery.org.au/26/Current+Exhibitions/191/Beyond+Decorative

After leaving the Gallery we decided to grab a bite to eat at Thai Diamond at Scarness. It was approx 8.30pm and we were sad to note that many of the restaurants we drove past were all but empty. Retail sellers also are telling us that times are tougher than last year. Our own business has not had as ‘good’ an Easter as we have experienced in past years. I haven’t noticed as many interstate licence plates on cars on our roads either and note that accomodation establishments are reporting that times are tough with higher than desired vacancy rates.

So I ask that if you can possibly afford it please do patronise our local small businesses. While small businesses can tighten the proverbial belt they still have to pay staff, rents and ongoing overheads etc and it is very sad to see businesses fail. By just going out for a meal now and then and spending our hard earned dollars locally we can do our bit to help these businesses survive so that our community continues to thrive and prosper.

So to Council -

STRUCTURE PLANNING

This Monday evening there is a community meeting scheduled to inform interested residents about the Structure Planning process that is being undertaken for land between Dundowran and Eli Waters as well as land at Doolong Flats and Ghost Hill. This planning process is to decide where we want our major connector roads and drains etc to be located when this land is developed. I am very pleased that Council is committed to this process as forward planning our development should mean much better road connectivity and drainage and other service provision than has occurred in some areas in the past. The public meeting is at The Hervey Bay Hotel, 249 Esplanade, Pialba at 6pm. Council has a new web site and more information can be found there rather than me copying it all here. If you visit the web site and click on the Latest News link you should find the detailed information. http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au

Council can now be followed on twitter and I encourage those that don’t want to tweet to sign up for the electronic newsletter. There is much information about Council and many opportunities for community participation so do visit the new web site and have a look around.

Lastly I thought I might take a swing at the petition doing the rounds. I am all for public discussion and public communication but please ‘think before you sign’ may be a worthy motto. The petition currently doing the rounds is calling for Council and the CEO and the administration to be sacked! Now if the petition included evidence and grounds to support the call for a mass sacking I would take it seriously but it doesn’t. I understand people are dissatisfied with Council as I hear the constant pleas for Council to fix everything today and to somehow do this while not putting up rates and fees and charges.

In other words I’m a tiny bit cranky. Council has faced enormous challenge to make the best of a change the majority of us didn’t want. Council is not perfect and we don’t get everything right all of the time but from where I sit things are constantly improving. Customer service has improved, financial management is excellent and I believe the leadership of staff under our CEO is aligned with Councillors  expectations and we are delivering a good standard of service to our community.

I hear moans that we are losing development. Well from reading widely I find that this is the case nation wide and we are in fact better off than many other cities and towns. I definitely won’t be voting to support development that is not of good quality and in line with Planning Scheme requirements as I don’t want cheap low quality inappropriate development within this region. While I support a period of discounting of infrastructure charges to provide a buffer in this tough economic climate, Council cannot comtinue to subsidise development unless we raise rates. At the end of the day someone has to pay for our roads, our rubbish collection and disposal, our drains and our bridges and everything else that the community demands and desires.

I hear calls now in the local paper for more events. Council spends hundreds of thousands of dollars currently on events and tourism related activities and if we are expected to spend more then I ask that someone looks closely at our budget and explains to me where we can take the money from. This is but one example of requests made to Council and I shudder when I think of all the road and footpath works we need to do and the simple lack of funds to dedicate to these works. The State Government has reduced funding which exacerbates our problems.

So Mr Primavera if you want the Council ’sacked’ can you provide me with some solid evidence that Council is broken and beyond repair please?

Fence sitting and petitions

Sue Brooks April 5th, 2010

I hope everyone has had a restful and pleasant Easter and that the waistline hasn’t taken a pounding as mine has. I am sure I will need a couple of weeks back on the Tony Ferguson programme to make up for the hot cross buns and chocolate that I can’t resist during Easter time.

Annoyingly negativity seems to be still taking centre stage within some sections of our community and the recent publicity about a petition to sack the CEO and sack Councillors currently doing the rounds is upsetting if not somewhat amusing. I’m all for community involvement and raising public awareness about issues but to call for a sacking I would think, would require some evidence about why? This current petition has no basis to back up it’s demands. If it did list some factual reasons as to why Council should be dismissed I would be all ears. Financially we are in a healthy position and we are spending more of our capital works budget this year than we did our first year so from where I sit we are doing OK.  As always there is room for continual improvement but we need to dig down and find out whether community dissatisfaction is based on perception or reality. If there is cause for discontent lets identify it, examine it and analyse  ways to fix it.

Swimming against the tide…..

I’m not sitting on the fence re the pool issue. Rather I support the community in its collective voice about retaining a 50m pool in Maryborough. What I regret, in hindsight, is the way Council approached this issue. Instead of collectively going out to the entire community with several options and associated costings we directed staff to consult with the Swimming Club with the now infamous ‘preferred plan’.

I have read the submission presented to Council via the Swimming Club and look forward to their presentation to us on Wednesday. Publicly I believe it is my duty to await more facts and figures prior to declaring my ‘decision’ on the future pool upgrade. I do unequivocally support the community in its desire to retain a 50m pool. What I fear has been lost in the emotionally charged debate is the ability for us to examine the site and examine best use outcomes for the complex. If the primary reason of the complex is to facilitate 50m training and competitions requiring a 50m length then it stands to reason we retain a 50m facility.

In doing this we will lose some options to introduce other water based options within the grounds. So while we all tend to think traditionally in that a 50m pool is an essential item I was still keen to explore if in these modern day times a 50m pool is still an essential item. It seems that it is, so now we will have to face the reality of a design that incorporates a pool of this size and figure out what else is essential  in terms of upgrading facilities in a way in which we can afford. Maybe firstly the 50m pool and the kiosk and changing rooms and we leave the other 2 pools alone and don’t alter the site plan? Whatever we do decide the final decision will be made based on as much data and as much public input as is possible. Don’t forget to raise $5m is about a $105 levy per rate property across the region.

Many other water based facilities incorporate ‘play’ activities and other water based activities and don’t have the facilities for swimming training. I have heard of many non Bay residents visiting Hervey Bay to try out the water park which has no pool at all. How many families visit ‘pools’ simply for recreation and learning to swim related activities? My daughter enjoyed diving and undertook diving training when we lived in Darwin at one of the pools there. I spent many hours as a child diving off the local springboard and find it very sad that due to safety concerns a diving board has practically become extinct at all public pools! The sad thing for me on visiting the Maryborough site is its small size and the lack of opportunity to be more flexible. The challenge for all of us is to find out how to make the best use of this patch of ground to suit the majority of users. I’m sure that if we work together and listen to each other we can succeed.

Swimming Pools in the news.

Sue Brooks March 14th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some points already raised by you, the community include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pools, cars, buses and aeroplanes

Sue Brooks March 5th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centro – the unsanitised facts

Sue Brooks March 2nd, 2010

CENTRO – THE FACTS

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

Some of the key elements of this reporting are:

 That Council has not approved the Centro extensions;

 That Council delayed the assessment of the application;

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 April 2007 – DMR issued an information request;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Arkarra, Council Meeting and Guinea Fowl travels

Sue Brooks March 1st, 2010

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

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

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

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

Take care, Sue

Beating Heart not new

Sue Brooks February 23rd, 2010

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

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

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

FYI Details of approvals…

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

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

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

« Prev - Next »