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.
