Sue Brooks’ Blog

sue November 15th, 2008

 Council has issued a media release which paints a more accurate picture of the situation in relation to legal costs etc associated with Development Applications. On a personal note I support Council defending its decisions. If Council simply agreed to change conditions imposed on developments during the approval process, in my opinion, we would be compromising our Planning Schemes. Developers are free to argue their case but I would not support Council continually bending to their will!

13 November 2008

Council not spending millions on legal bills

Despite persistent rumours in the media, the Fraser Coast Council, or the former Hervey Bay City Council, has not spent $10 to $20 million on legal fees.

The Council also refutes recent claims by the Fraser Coast Chronicle that it has spent millions of dollars on legal fees because it has adopted an arrogant and adversarial approach to town planning.

In 2006/07 the Hervey Bay City Council spent $292,400 on 11 appeals. In 2007/08 the council spent $336,832 on 15 appeals town planning matters.

During this two year period Council received 1513 development applications. The number of appeals filed by developers is 1.7% of all of the applications received.

In the first five months of the FCRC 6 appeals have been commenced against decisions made by Council. Again, this is less than 1.5% of the permits granted.

Claims that there has been an artificial slow-down in processing development applications by the Fraser Coast Regional Council or the former Hervey Bay City Council are also refuted by the FCRC.

While the new planning scheme has caused an increase in applications, amendments approved by the FCRC yesterday (Wednesday, November 12) mean that development permits are no longer required for many houses and sheds. However, building permits are still required.

Development figures show that a small team of dedicated staff stepped up to the challenge of processing developments while introducing a new Hervey Bay planning scheme. The Council makes no bones about the fact that the team was undermanned because it, like many other Councils, could not recruit sufficient town planning staff.

The Council is currently trying to recruit three town planners to fill vacancies.

Figures show that in first year of the FCRC (March to October 31) there have been 884 development applications received and 821 processed.

For the 12 months prior to amalgamation 751 development applications were received and 706 processed.

For the 2006/07 financial year 460 development applications were received and 429 processed.

Since March Council has approved permits allowing 291 new lots to be created. During the same time the Council has approved the final construction of 540 new allotments. Again this is a clear sign of continued growth.

New building commencements are also a good barometer of activity in the development industry. In 2006/07 there were 965 development permits for new dwellings approved. For 2007/08 there were 952 new dwellings approved. The overall value of all building permits issued in 2007/08 for development in the former Hervey Bay City Council area was a staggering $369 million.

The State Government recently carried out an audit to check if all Councils in the region had an adequate supply of residential land. The audit confirmed an estimated 15 years of supply of raw land suitable for approval for subdivision.

Noting the current world financial crisis Council expects that some developments it has approved, or those in the pipeline, may be put on hold.

ENDS

• Development issues
• Comments(0)

sue November 11th, 2008

Tomorrow we have 3 major developments to decide upon, all of which are in Hervey Bay. Firstly a 33 Unit development at 459 Esplanade and 54 Cypress St. This development is 5 storeys high and is being assessed under the ‘old’ planning scheme.

The second development is huge. It is for 254 units on the old Anchorage Caravan park site on the corner of Boat Harbour Drive and The Esplanade at Urangan. It is for 5 separate buildings 4 of which are six storeys high and the fifth building being two storeys high. The site is 2.4 hectares approx and is currently vacant. I notice For Sale signs on the block so I’m not sure what future plans are in store for this development.

Lastly we have the ‘Gilligans’ backpacker development. This is for 136 units with 500 beds in an upmarket backpacker styled development situated opposite Seafront Oval at 26-42 Hillyard St. It will be six storeys high. I have asked for more detail about the car parking as it appears that the car park is primarily at ground level not in a basement. I’m not sure that a large on the ground carpark is a ‘good look’ in this area.

 So the changing face of our foreshore continues unabated it seems. While I worry personally that Hervey Bay is pouring a bit too much concrete and loosing too many trees all these applications appear on first reading to conform primarily with our Planning Scheme. It seems that for many years developers had the power to build to 6 storeys but did not avail themselves of the opportunity. How times change!

Lastly I apologise for sending out an email today to many of you without remembering to use the BCC function to keep addresses private. So please forgive me for my slip up and remember to respect each others privacy. I promise to do my very best to never ever do so again… Feel free to email me if you do want to be included on my email list even though I admit I’m not foolproof in managing to send out group emails! Till next time, Sue

• Development issues
• Comments(3)

sue September 12th, 2008

Some interesting reports on what some would consider to be controversial development applications were decided by Councillors last Wednesday. Firstly was a report for a Child Care Centre proposed for 15 & 17 Grevillea Street, Kawungun. The report recommended refusal primarily due to noise, amenity and traffic issues and all the Councillors agreed. The neighbouring residents tell me that they are very pleased with this outcome. There are other child care centres close by to this proposed location so I support the decision to not allow another centre at that location.

Next was an Application for Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Multiple Units (Exceeding Two Storeys in Height) & Restaurant/Food Services And Development Permit for Operational Works (Vegetation Removal) – Setcorp Developments Pty Ltd - Located at 392 Esplanade and 84 Freshwater Street, Torquay. This building will be 6 storeys high and is between the Riviera and White Crest developments. I voted against this application primarily on the grounds that the building exceeded site cover. Site coverage is, in my opinion, actually 30% which should equate to a 4 storey building according to our Planning Scheme. All the other Councillors agreed with the report recommendations and voted approval for this development so the development can go ahead. We did amend the conditions to ensure we have a water proof basement car park which should eliminate the need for continual pumping out of fresh water.

Then we had an Application For Material Change Of Use – Other Residential - Thirty Four (34) Dwelling Units – Adham Unit Trust C/ Urban Planet Town Planning Consultants – 54 Woongool Road, Tinana. While there are concerns about the traffic generated from this development funds have been allocated, by the developer, to Main Roads to facilitate intersection upgrade works. I (reluctantly) supported this application as did all my fellow Councillors. The Maryborough Planning Scheme permits this type of development so I really do hope that Main Roads will now be obligated to deal with this intersection to Gympie Rd and improve it which will benefit existing residents.

Next was a Material Change Of Use – Development Permit – Community Activities (Storage Shed)– Lions Club of Tiaro and District - Located at Inman Street, Tiaro which was agreed to.

Then we had a controversial application which is Application for Material Change of Use – Other Residential – 11 Units and Preliminary Approval – Building Works - R & A Nicholson - 309 Lennox Street, Maryborough. The Maryborough community had voiced strong opposition to this application with over 500 submissions received against the proposed units on this site. The report to Council recommended refusal and this was carried unanimously. I was very pleased with this result as I believed that the building design was inappropriate and would detract from the visual amenity of such a precious area. This decision was also a unanimous one which was pleasing. I do believe that people power is a very important component of the Development Application process.

The last application agenda item was a negotiated decision for an already approved development located at 47 Freshwater Street and Gossner Street, Scarness. Again all Councillors agreed with the officers recommendations in relation to this development in particular emphasising the requirement to have the open drain, which adjoins this development, treated in an attractive manner and incorporating water sensitive urban design principles.

So a mixed bag of development applications and the push for more tall buildings along the foreshore in Hervey Bay continues it seems.

• Development issues
• Comments(0)

sue July 7th, 2008

Just a quick note to clarify the story in the Chronicle on Saturday. I have not ’backed’ any group of people in any ‘opposition’ against any development since I have been elected to Council. I always offer advice and assistance to anyone asking me how to write a submission either against or for a development. A Councillor can not pre-judge a Development Application. I take my responsibility seriously and I make decisions on reports received by Council which are assessed against the Planning Scheme. No decision can be based on personal likes or dislikes but MUST be based on Planning Scheme criteria. My comments as a resident quoted at the end of the article are correct and made in general terms. Cheers, Sue

• Development issues
• Comments(9)

sue June 13th, 2008

Last week Council decided to support a recommendation to build two 8 storey buildings on a site bordered by the Esplanade, Frank St and Freshwater St. Because several blocks had been purchased the total land holding was over 7000sqm but a sewer line traverses the blocks so the development has been split into two buildings. The site is zoned Mixed Use which can allow total site cover if shops etc are provided on the ground floor. The building at the rear of the site facing Freshwater St has no shops but is still sited very close to the boundary. I believe that this development, once again, is an over development of the site and am sad that setbacks and recessioning has not been included in the building design. I believe the development does not meet the intent of our Planning Scheme so I voted against the development. Pleasingly I was supported by Councillors McNeven, Hawes, Hovard and Arthur but the vote was carried by the majority of one. Those in support of the development were Councillors Harris, Nioa, O’Connell, Muckan, Dalgleish and Kruger. I am personally sad that the buildings gained approval but pleased that some Councillors voted against this development. I am hopeful that Councillors will insist that a more rigorous approach is taken with assessing applications and that recommendations to Council are to refuse an application that doesn’t comply more closely to our Planning Scheme. I also am concerned that this development did not require public notification which is something I would like changed within our Planning Scheme as soon as possible.

 This leads me to the last issue making the papers this week in relation to legal costs. Yes we do have legal battles with developers. If we didn’t have these battles it would be simply a case of letting developers develop however they want. I am sure that if the development application that I have mentioned above, had been rejected a legal challenge would have ensued. This is not something Council chooses but is a result of State based Legislation over which we have no control. A developer does have the right to challenge Council decisions and Council, in my mind has an obligation to defend its decisions.

• Development issues
• Comments(0)