The 4529 Meeting of the Brisbane City Council

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4529 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,

held at City Hall, Brisbane

on Tuesday 13June 2017

at 2pm

Prepared by:

Council and Committee Liaison Office

City Administration and Governance

[4529 (Ordinary) Meeting – 13 June 2017]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4529 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 13 JUNE 2017
AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRESENT:

OPENING OF MEETING:

MINUTES:

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

QUESTION TIME:

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

ARESUMPTION OF LAND AT 11 WELLINGTON STREET, LUTWYCHE

BRESUMPTION OF LAND AT 34 TOTTENHAM STREET, WOOLLOONGABBA

CREPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 11 MAY 2017

DSTORES BOARD SUBMISSION – PROVISION OF LANDFILL GAS MANAGEMENT AT THE _ROCHEDALELANDFILL

EANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIODENDED MARCH 2017

FOVERSEAS TRAVEL – COMSEQ LEADER’S DELEGATION TO SINGAPORE

GDUTTON PARK-FAIRFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

HDELEGATION OF POWERS UNDER THE PLANNING ACT 2016, ITS RELATED STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, AND THE PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT COURT ACT 2016 AND MINOR CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL’S REGISTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

ACOMMITTEE PRESENTATION – SALISBURY BIKEWAY STAGE 2 PROJECT UPDATE

BPETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL MARK A CENTRE LINE ALONG THE SANDGATE FORESHORE SHARED PATH

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

ACOMMITTEE PRESENTATION – WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE STAGE 1B

BPETITION – REQUESTING TO RELOCATE A BUS STOP TO 156 SWANN ROAD, TARINGA

CPETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL MAKE CHANGES TO THE LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ON KEMPSIE ROAD, UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

ADEVELOPMENT APPLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT2009 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR HIGH IMPACT INDUSTRY AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO CARRY OUT BUILDING WORK – 33 GOODMAN PLACE, MURARRIE – INTEGRO FOODS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

BPETITIONS – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL DEVELOP AN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN IN SUPPORT OF THE DUTTONPARKFARIFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

CPETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (12 UNITS) AT 98-100 GOLDIESLIE ROAD, INDOOROOPILLY (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004492290)

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

ACOMMITTEE PRESENTATION – KARAWATHA FOREST DISCOVERY CENTRE

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

ACOMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE’S BOTANIC GARDENS, MTCOOT-THA

BPETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REMOVE A EUCALYPTUS TREE NEAR ______19/19ATAYLORSTREET, VIRGINIA

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

ACOMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MOBILE HEALTH SERVICE

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

ACOMMITTEE PRESENTATION – SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND PROCUREMENT IN BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

BCOMMITTEE REPORT – FINANCIAL REPORTS (ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, RATES, INVENTORY, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2017

CCOMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – 28APRIL2017

DPETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVERSE FUNDING CUTS FOR LOCAL PROJECTS

EPETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL REVERSE FUNDING CUTS FOR LOCAL PROJECTS

FPETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TOP OUTRAGEOUS EXECUTIVE SALARY PAYMENTS

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

GENERAL BUSINESS:

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:

[4529 (Ordinary) Meeting – 13 June 2017]

- 1 -

PRESENT:

The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP

The Chairman of Council, Councillor Angela OWEN (Calamvale Ward) – LNP

LNP Councillors (and Wards) / ALP Councillors (and Wards)
Krista ADAMS (Holland Park)
Adam ALLAN (Northgate)
Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)
Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)
Vicki HOWARD (Central) (Deputy Chairman of Council)
Steven HUANG (Macgregor)
Fiona KING (Marchant)
Kim MARX (Runcorn)
PeterMATIC (Paddington)
Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)
David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)
Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)
Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale)
Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)
Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor)
Steven TOOMEY (The Gap)
Andrew WINES (Enoggera)
NormWYNDHAM (McDowall) / PeterCUMMING (Wynnum Manly) (The Leader of the Opposition)
Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)
SteveGRIFFITHS (Moorooka)
Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake)
ShayneSUTTON (Morningside)
Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward)
Jonathan SRI (The Gabba)
Independent Councillor (and Ward)
Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)

OPENING OF MEETING:

The Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.

MINUTES:

611/2016-17

The Minutes of the 4528 meeting of Council held on 6 June 2017, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Patricia Skytte – The development at 161 Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains

Chairman:I would now like to call on Ms Patricia Skytte who will address the Chamber on the development at 161 Underwood Road, Eight Miles Plains.

Orderly, please show Ms Skytte in.

Welcome, Ms Skytte. You have five minutes, please proceed.

Ms Patricia Skytte:Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, thank you for this opportunity to address Council on the future use of 161 Underwood Road, EightMile Plains.

Today I represent a united and concerned community, some of whom you can see up in the gallery. I also represent the 535 people who objected to the development, but who were ultimately denied their legal entitlement to be heard.

I have lived at the same address in Eight Mile Plains for 35 years, and I’m very familiar with the way that my suburb has evolved over that time. Thirtyfiveyears ago there were no traffic lights in Warrigal Road, and no street lighting in our estate. Nowadays, the traffic volume and congestion and three large shopping centres are a reality. Many, like me, have come to value the remaining bush and wildlife in our suburb, and are grateful that our lives are still enriched by the flora and fauna around us.

It’s our view that the Council’s decision in 2014 to reject the original application for the development of a mosque and ancillary buildings at 161UnderwoodRoad was correct. As noted in Council’s original decision, the development will affect intact habitat areas.It will also compromise habitat connectivity and wildlife movement corridors by stopping the movement of wildlife into and out of urban areas. In particular, from the Wally Tate Park, Warrigal Farms to the corridor formed by the Gateway Motorway. So that’s the area where it is. There are some maps and copies of what I’m saying there, because the map would be very helpful to you to see the bigger picture of the green space that involves that area and also the area of Rochedale that is coming up to be developed.

Council, after due deliberation, saw the development as contrary to the best interests of the local community after taking the usual town planning, environmental, traffic, et cetera issues into consideration. I wonder how you would feel if one of your local streets had to cope with hundreds of extra vehicles on a busy Friday afternoon. In our case, this situation can be avoided. Council’s subsequent decision to settle with the developer at the end of last year, following a hearing in the Planning and Environment (P and E) Court, was devastating news to us. To approve such a development, which included 397 car parking spaces in this locality, beggars belief.

In Council’s own words, the development is inconsistent with the reasonable expectations for development in the area. Recent research seems to indicate that Council did not put its best foot forward when it decided to settle the case, instead of continuing to fight for a much smaller development or a more environmentally friendly development at the front of the property.

Due to the developer not following proper process, none of the original 535objectors were invited to support Council’s case or had the opportunity to speak in the P and E Court on the issue. It appears Council went to the PandECourt to negotiate with the appellant rather than pressing the case in that court that Brisbane City Council’s original decision was the correct one for the community. It is our belief that this parcel of land should be dedicated as parkland, to retain its role as a water and wildlife corridor.

It is noteworthy that Council has already purchased the three adjoining parcelsof land for this purpose, and Council has already approved the development of Warrigal Farms subject to a significant portion that adjoining 161UnderwoodRoad being gifted as parkland.

In the light of the Brisbane City Council designating the land as a habitat area and ecological corridor and waterway corridor in 2008 in the KurabyLocalPlan, why then allow this habitat area to be concreted over? This view is supported by the numbers of signatures on the recent petitions that we have all been gathering. Almost 3,000 signatures petitioning Council about the development, over 4,000 signatures on the Change.org petition, and we’re approaching 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for the protection of the site, meaningful community consultation in relation to the development, and open and transparent decision making, which is due to be presented to the StateGovernment on the matter.

This significant, great number of petitioners obviously support the view of the original 535 objectors to the development. We locals are not alone in our efforts to prevent this inappropriate development. The Bulimba Creek catchment association and the Wildlife Protection Society also have an interest in protecting this water and wildlife corridor that’s running right through the development.

Chairman:Unfortunately your time has expired.

Ms Patricia Skytte:Okay. Can I just conclude?

Chairman:Your time has expired, you have actually gone over time.

Councillor SIMMONDS, would you care to respond?

Response by Councillor Julian Simmonds, Chairman of the City Planning Committee

Councillor SIMMONDS:Certainly, Madam Chairman, and thank you very much for the call, and thank you, Ms Skytte, for taking the opportunity to address us in the Chamber today.

I appreciate and acknowledge your depth of feeling regarding this issue. I would also like to recognise and thank those in the gallery for coming today in support of your message, and we recognise that.

Just to remind Councillors of the context around Ms Skytte’s remarks and the DA (Development Application) that has been discussed. The development application for a mosque, community hall and offices, and a reconfiguration of a lot at 161 and 161AUnderwood Road, Eight Mile Plains, was lodged on 23December 2011. The application was impact-assessable under City Plan 2000, and the State Government was a concurrence agency. Public notification was required under the State Government’s Sustainable Planning Act, and occurred on 22April to 18 May 2013, two years later, of which there were 535valid submitters, as Ms Skytte has said, and a total of 740 overall submissions received by Council.

Following assessment by Council officers, the application was refused, a full year later, on 16 May 2014, on a number of grounds. They included bulk and scale, location of the building on the site, general amenity, ecological impacts, hydrological impacts on the waterway corridor, traffic impacts, and car parking and lot sizes. That information is all up on PD Online, of course.

The applicant appealed against Council’s decision on 13 June 2014 in the Planning and Environment Court, and at the time no submitters joined the appeal with Council and the State Government, who were both parties to the appeal. Following their decision—

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman:Councillor JOHNSTON, don’t interject.

Councillor SIMMONDS:Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I will get to the points that Ms Skytte raises, if everybody would allow me the respect to respond to Ms Skytte in a silent manner.

Following the decision to appeal from the applicant, Council was involved in a lengthy court process which concluded on 16 December 2016, where the court overturned Council’s decision and approved a revised version of the mosque.

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SIMMONDS:In the judgment—

Chairman:Councillor SUTTON, don’t interject.

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman:Order! Order! There is a public speaker in the Chamber. You need to exhibit some self-control and behave like adults.

Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS:Thank you, Madam Chair—

Councillor interjecting.

Chairman:Councillor SUTTON! I hereby caution you that if you continue to defy my direction and continue to interject, you will be warned.

Councillor SIMMONDS.

Councillor SIMMONDS:Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Just for the clarity of all Councillors, the judge issued a court finding, that was clearly against Council, and I state, the judge said, ‘There is a clear and demonstrable need for a mosque in the local area, but not of the size and scale which the Council originally refused’, and he instructed the Council and applicant to go away and present a revised application to the court of a mosque that the court was going to approve that was smaller in size and scale.

So, yes, to answer the Councillor’s questions, Madam Chairman, yes, the judge did find against Council in this regard, much to our disappointment. I would add that, in this case, after more than two years of fighting in the court, the Council’s solicitors, barristers and independent expert witnesses, of which the ratepayers of this city paid many tens of thousands of dollars to robustly defend their original—

Councillor interjecting.

Councillor SIMMONDS:—refusal, they acquitted themselves—

Chairman:Councillor GRIFFITHS!

Councillor SIMMONDS:Those solicitors, barristers and independent witnesses represented Council’s position to their absolute best ability and in an extremely robust manner, as you can tell from the two years that it took.

The court’s judgmenthas been thoroughly reviewed by Council’s legal counsel and it is their advice to the Administration that there is no point of law on which Council can appeal this decision going forward.

Now, I note in your speech, Ms Skytte, and in the correspondence with Council, that you believe the submitters were not given proper notice of the appeal. Now, this issue is of a very serious nature, given the appellant’s solicitor has filed a sworn affidavit with the court to the effect that the serving of the notice was carried out correctly, as it is the applicant’s responsibility to do so.

So, if indeed that sworn affidavit to the court is incorrect, it will reflect not just on the outcome of the case, but in fact on that solicitor’s professional standing going forward, and he can be appropriately censured by the court. Now, in the circumstances where your rights may have been affected, and you have evidence to support that claim as the aggrieved parties, you are best placed to bring that proceeding to the court, and I strongly recommend you take independent legal advice in the full pursuit of your rightful legal rights.

In relation to your comments about the environmental values of the site, and a request for Council to purchase the site for environmental reasons, I can advise to the Chamber, that in this case the court, as part of overturning the Council’s refusal, has placed strict environmental conditions upon the proposal. This includes the retention and rehabilitation of ecological values on the site, with an area of offset planting on the northern part of the site of approximately 13,823square metres, or 32% of the total site. The court has also ordered the rehabilitation of the waterway corridor and the removal of weeds and environmental covenant placed on the property.

The court’s conditions upon the proposal will preserve and restore an ecological corridor linkage with neighbouring habitat, similar to that achieved on the Warrigal Farms outcome which you cited as an example. Given this ecological corridor will be rehabilitated, enhanced and preserved for the future at no cost to ratepayers, it is not considered a priority to purchase this full site as part of the Bushland Acquisition Program at this point forward.

I understand that this is not the response that you were hoping for, Ms Skytte, but I hope that this provides you with some clarity as to Council’s position, and once again we greatly appreciate you coming in to address the Council today.