Sue Brooks February 22nd, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

• Council related issues
• Comments(3)

Sue Brooks February 18th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Chronicle comment , Council related issues
• Comments(0)

Sue Brooks February 12th, 2010

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

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

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

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

• Council related issues , Media comment
• Comments(0)

Sue Brooks February 8th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEDIA RELEASE

08 February 2010

Fraser Coast Regional Council and UDIA see a bright future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

MEDIA RELEASE

08 February 2010

Shovel ready developments

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

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

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

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

1: The necessary development approvals have been issued;

2: Architectural plans have been prepared;

3: Engineering and service designs have been completed;

4:Preliminary quantity surveying has been completed;

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

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

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

Sue Brooks February 4th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council Media Release

Editor declines meeting with CEO on Trunk Infrastructure contributions

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

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

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

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

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

• Chronicle comment , Council related issues
• Comments(15)

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)